The BBC and its bias towards pro-immigration lobby: Report accuses 'left-wing Corporation of downplaying violence by Islamists'
The BBC gives too much weight to pro-immigration voices and ‘almost totally ignores’ the negative social impact of multiculturalism, a new study has claimed.
The corporation suffers from left wing ‘groupthink’ that prevents its journalists from challenging institutional bias and results in pro-immigration ‘propaganda’, according to the research published yesterday.
It was also accused of ‘downplaying’ violence by Islamists while being happy to criticise Christianity and report on the activities of other violent extremists.
The report, by independent think-tank The New Culture Forum, looked at coverage by BBC news and current affairs programmes since 1997.
It comes as the BBC undertakes an ‘impartiality review’ by former ITV and Sky executive Stuart Prebble to see whether it gives ‘due weight’ to a full range of opinion on controversial topics, such as immigration.
The study’s author, Ed West, concluded: ‘In its coverage of the topic of immigration, the BBC has given overwhelmingly greater weight to pro-migration voices, even though they represent a minority – even elitist – viewpoint.
‘And in its coverage of the economic arguments for and against immigration, it has devoted somewhat more space to pro-migration voices.
‘In terms of the social costs, the BBC has almost totally ignored certain areas. The more awkward a subject is for polite society to deal with, the less coverage the BBC gives it.’
He added: ‘It would be no exaggeration to say that a foreigner who subscribed only to the BBC might visit this country and be blissfully unaware of many of the social problems associated with immigration.’
According to the study, it is ‘common practice’ for the BBC to give a platform to multiple pro-immigration spokesmen with no dissenting voices.
Mr West said: ‘Between 1997 and 2013, of the hundreds of immigration news reports that I have personally watched, listened to and read, in literally just a handful have anti-immigration voices not been outnumbered.’
The report was particularly scathing about a BBC Online article on ‘Migrant Myths’ published in 2002.
The article said the idea of the ‘scrounging, bogus asylum seeker’ was a ‘misconception’, while opponents of mass immigration were guilty of ‘racism, political opportunism, misinformation, media mischief-making and sheer cowardice’ as well as genuine concern.
Mr West said: ‘However laudable its intentions may be, a feature like this – which presents only one side of the argument – is propaganda.’
He said BBC bias was often unintentional or provoked by ‘basic decency’ and a desire to protect the underdog.
But he said by focussing on personalised, emotive cases of asylum seekers and immigration success stories, the BBC failed to cover the views of ‘working class natives’ or to ask awkward questions about the difficulties of integration.
Damagingly, in the wake of the Woolwich killing last week, the study accused the BBC of failing to report accurately on violence by Islamic fundamentalists.
It said: ‘In contrast to violence perpetrated by white-skinned extremists, the BBC tends to downplay any violent activity on the part of extremists.’
It added: ‘The BBC feels uncomfortable tackling Islamic extremism or aggression by minorities; it feels more at ease to see Muslims as victims of racism or Islamophobia.’
In 2010, the BBC’s then director general Mark Thompson accepted the corporation had once been guilty of a ‘massive’ Left-wing bias and admitted its coverage of immigration and Europe had been ‘weak’.
He said: ‘The BBC doesn’t always get it right. I think there are some areas, immigration, business and Europe where the BBC has historically been rather weak and rather nervous about letting that entire debate happen.
In 2007, a BBC Trust report into the BBC’s impartiality found the corporation had self-censored subjects it found unpalatable.
The BBC said coverage of immigration is ‘impartial and balanced’, but Trustees are carrying out a review to see if ‘due weight’ is given to a range of opinions on hot topics.
SOURCE
A libertarian case against mass immigration
The consensus among modern libertarians seems to be that free immigration is the only libertarian stance possible in this debate because of the ‘economic benefits’ and that those who oppose free immigration are just statists who want the government to control who can and can’t move about from here to there.Conversely, it is my opinion that a state policy of open borders amounts to an infringement of property rights and that, consequently, border controls tighter than those currently in force are perfectly compatible with propertarianism, though certainly not compatible with the modern, vile, Marxist flavour of libertarianism to which many of us have become accustomed.
The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) is a right-wing, populist party which advocates a reduction in taxes, exit from the European Union, and full control of UK borders by the UK government.On the whole, I think the way to summarise UKIP’s stance on the topic in question is: an end to multiculturalism and allowing people to enter the country only on a work-permit basis.Those libertarians who consider themselves cosmopolitan and tolerant may cry ‘racist’ and ‘far-right’ at such policies, but I wholeheartedly support them.Hoppe did advocate something similar to UKIP in his 1999 article, which was “…requiring an existing employment contract with a resident citizen” for any immigrant.
It does not help the libertarian movement in the UK when self-proclaimed libertarians like Sam Bowman, of the Adam Smith Institute, write such things as “…immigrants bring new skills to the country, allow for more specialization, tend to be more entrepreneurial than average, pay more in to the welfare state than they take out, and make things cheaper by doing the jobs that Britons won’t.”2This is true, yet Bowman is only arguing from an Austrian economist’s viewpoint with no conception of absolute rights.Yes, real incomes may well increase as a result of mass immigration, but the answer to the immigration question is not that simple.As libertarians, we must take into account the rights of individuals: property rights.3
Indeed, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a sound Austrian economist himself acknowledged all of the arguments made by Bowman and more in his 1999 article on Immigration:
“The classical argument in favor of free immigration runs as follows: Other things being equal, businesses go to low-wage areas, and labor moves to high-wage areas, thus affecting a tendency toward the equalization of wage rates (for the same kind of labor) as well as the optimal localization of capital.An influx of migrants into a given-sized high-wage area will lower nominal wage rates.However, it will not lower real wage rates if the population is below its optimum size.To the contrary, if this is the case, the produced output will increase over-proportionally, and real incomes will actually rise.”4
However, Hoppe – who helped to change my mind on immigration – still does not support a policy of mass immigration.In fact, Hoppe calls for a return to the time when monarchs would take it upon themselves to take out the ‘human trash’ and argues the case for near-closed borders.For the remainder of this essay, it is my attempt to explain my position in terms of property rights and justice rather than the laws of economics.
Ignore governments for a moment.Abandon any thoughts of a state existing and forget any such talk of ‘immigration policy’.Let’s now talk purely and simply about our ‘rights’ to ‘move’ within this free society.For example, do I have any right to move onto my neighbour’s property without his consent?
Furthermore, even if we call it migration, do I have a right to burgle a house?All rights we have stem from our rights to the property that we have acquired or been granted use of and thus it is plain wrong – and stupid – to talk of any ‘rights’ to move onto anyone else’s property without negating the concept of exclusive rights to property itself.Even if, while I break into your house to steal your television, I empty my wallet onto your couch to compensate for the robbery before I quietly leave, it can’t be said that I ever had any right to break in in the first place.
But government blurs the issue beyond recognition.Firstly, we are so used to and comfortable with the idea of an ‘immigration policy’ – meaning merely the government’s interference in the movement of people from one person’s property to another – and secondly, the government has ‘acquired’ property which it calls its own.To be sure, no consistent libertarian can think of ‘government property’ as anything other than an oxymoron; the state has no just property and all that it possesses belongs to its original appropriator or his heirs.And there are only two ways in which an immigration policy can unfold: either it becomes forced integration or it becomes forced segregation.
Accordingly, then, we must choose between the lesser of the two evils.Forced integration can be viewed as nothing less than the government allowing swathes of burglars into one’s home; nobody, but the state which is a criminal, gave the immigrants permission to enter ‘their’ property.As the state has decided to assume that it owns the borders and most of the country, it can be further said that the present population of the country must consent to further entrances to it.Anything less than a total consensus on free immigration from the present citizens is unsatisfactory as everyone has absolute property rights which can’t be violated – not even by majority consent.
More HERE
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Immigration is driving up home prices, says the minister who believes housing takes priority over green fields
Immigration is helping to fuel rises in house prices that are preventing young people from owning their own home, the Planning Minister has warned.
Nick Boles said he has changed his mind about immigration after seeing how the arrival of 2 million new immigrants over the last decade has left Britain short of houses. He warned that failure to build enough homes would mean only the professional classes would be able to buy a house.
Mr Boles told the Mail: ‘I have become much more critical of immigration. A very substantial contribution to housing need comes from the level of immigration in the past two decades.’
The Planning Minister revealed that he has changed his views since becoming MP for the Lincolnshire towns of Grantham and Stamford in 2010 and minister with responsibility for liberalising the planning system to promote house building last year.
He said: ‘I had the classic metropolitan view about immigration that it was broadly good for me because it made life more varied and interesting and there were lots of people bringing different skills into the economy.
‘I wasn’t really aware of the effect on people who were competing for relatively low skilled jobs and competing for public services.
‘I was someone who had spent much of the last 10 years in London. It was only when I found myself in rural Lincolnshire that I saw the other side of it for people working hard and trying to get on.
‘Immigration has made my ministerial job more challenging. It has meant that we need to build more houses than we would otherwise have done.
‘And it has made it more difficult to persuade people that we need to build more houses. Peoples’ response is that we are building homes for new arrivals rather than for their children.’
Mr Boles said young people are being priced out of the property market, citing figures which show that the number of first time buyers who get a mortgage without help from their parents has halved from 69 per cent in 2005 to just 35 per cent now.
‘The biggest block on home ownership now is affordability,’ he said.
‘Are we really prepared to sit back and accept that the only people who are able to buy homes will be people whose parents can help them?’
Mr Boles has been criticised by Tory supporters for putting the need for new housing ahead of the preservation of greenfield land.
But he said Conservatives should back his reforms because they will help preserve the dream of a property owning democracy promoted by Margaret Thatcher, who grew up in his Grantham seat.
He said: ‘She made some very, very strong statements about home ownership. “A home, like food,” she told her constituents, “is a basic need in our lives”,’ he said.
‘Home ownership, she argued, “gives people independence and a stake in their country”. She was very critical of council tower blocks just as I’m very critical of the ugliness and impersonality of many modern housing projects.
‘What she thought then was that backing home ownership and generating that sort of pride in your own place and that investment in community, and that natural human instinct to improve where you live because you own it, she absolutely believed in that and I believe in it now.
‘Aspiration in terms of housing is going backwards. We are reverting, slowly but surely to the 19th century, where the only people who could own their own homes were the professional classes on large incomes and the landed gentry.
‘If we’re not careful, we will have done the most extraordinary feat of regressing in terms of the availability of what Margaret Thatcher said was as fundamental a human need as the desire for food.’
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
1. CIS Interview with FDNS Architect Don Crocetti on Fraud and National Security
Publication
2. Social Security “Study” of S.744 Impact Consists of 2.5 Pages, No Explanations
Blogs
3. How Many Amnestied Illegals Will There Be in Your State?
4. Irish Report: Senate Bill Would Jeopardize Summer Work Travel Program
5. Ibragim Todashev, Asylum, and S.744
6. Imaginary Immigration Bills
7. Security First or Legalization First?
8. A Mix of Conspiracy and Democracy: The S. 744 Process to Date
9. Hatch Supports Amnesty Despite Clear Utah GOP Opposition
10. President Obama's Trust Deficit
11. Hatch Amendment to S.744: American Spouses Not Equal to Indian Spouses
12. Immigration Reform and the Government Trust Crisis
13. Judiciary Committee Takes Giant Step Backward on H-1B Workers
14. Sen. Feinstein Issues a Confusing Warning about Terrorists at the Mexican Border
15. S. 744 Would Eliminate Modest Existing Benefits for Some Groups of Aliens
16. Sessions Cries Foul, Escalating Battle over Biometrics
Immigration is driving up home prices, says the minister who believes housing takes priority over green fields
Immigration is helping to fuel rises in house prices that are preventing young people from owning their own home, the Planning Minister has warned.
Nick Boles said he has changed his mind about immigration after seeing how the arrival of 2 million new immigrants over the last decade has left Britain short of houses. He warned that failure to build enough homes would mean only the professional classes would be able to buy a house.
Mr Boles told the Mail: ‘I have become much more critical of immigration. A very substantial contribution to housing need comes from the level of immigration in the past two decades.’
The Planning Minister revealed that he has changed his views since becoming MP for the Lincolnshire towns of Grantham and Stamford in 2010 and minister with responsibility for liberalising the planning system to promote house building last year.
He said: ‘I had the classic metropolitan view about immigration that it was broadly good for me because it made life more varied and interesting and there were lots of people bringing different skills into the economy.
‘I wasn’t really aware of the effect on people who were competing for relatively low skilled jobs and competing for public services.
‘I was someone who had spent much of the last 10 years in London. It was only when I found myself in rural Lincolnshire that I saw the other side of it for people working hard and trying to get on.
‘Immigration has made my ministerial job more challenging. It has meant that we need to build more houses than we would otherwise have done.
‘And it has made it more difficult to persuade people that we need to build more houses. Peoples’ response is that we are building homes for new arrivals rather than for their children.’
Mr Boles said young people are being priced out of the property market, citing figures which show that the number of first time buyers who get a mortgage without help from their parents has halved from 69 per cent in 2005 to just 35 per cent now.
‘The biggest block on home ownership now is affordability,’ he said.
‘Are we really prepared to sit back and accept that the only people who are able to buy homes will be people whose parents can help them?’
Mr Boles has been criticised by Tory supporters for putting the need for new housing ahead of the preservation of greenfield land.
But he said Conservatives should back his reforms because they will help preserve the dream of a property owning democracy promoted by Margaret Thatcher, who grew up in his Grantham seat.
He said: ‘She made some very, very strong statements about home ownership. “A home, like food,” she told her constituents, “is a basic need in our lives”,’ he said.
‘Home ownership, she argued, “gives people independence and a stake in their country”. She was very critical of council tower blocks just as I’m very critical of the ugliness and impersonality of many modern housing projects.
‘What she thought then was that backing home ownership and generating that sort of pride in your own place and that investment in community, and that natural human instinct to improve where you live because you own it, she absolutely believed in that and I believe in it now.
‘Aspiration in terms of housing is going backwards. We are reverting, slowly but surely to the 19th century, where the only people who could own their own homes were the professional classes on large incomes and the landed gentry.
‘If we’re not careful, we will have done the most extraordinary feat of regressing in terms of the availability of what Margaret Thatcher said was as fundamental a human need as the desire for food.’
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
1. CIS Interview with FDNS Architect Don Crocetti on Fraud and National Security
Publication
2. Social Security “Study” of S.744 Impact Consists of 2.5 Pages, No Explanations
Blogs
3. How Many Amnestied Illegals Will There Be in Your State?
4. Irish Report: Senate Bill Would Jeopardize Summer Work Travel Program
5. Ibragim Todashev, Asylum, and S.744
6. Imaginary Immigration Bills
7. Security First or Legalization First?
8. A Mix of Conspiracy and Democracy: The S. 744 Process to Date
9. Hatch Supports Amnesty Despite Clear Utah GOP Opposition
10. President Obama's Trust Deficit
11. Hatch Amendment to S.744: American Spouses Not Equal to Indian Spouses
12. Immigration Reform and the Government Trust Crisis
13. Judiciary Committee Takes Giant Step Backward on H-1B Workers
14. Sen. Feinstein Issues a Confusing Warning about Terrorists at the Mexican Border
15. S. 744 Would Eliminate Modest Existing Benefits for Some Groups of Aliens
16. Sessions Cries Foul, Escalating Battle over Biometrics
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
British Leftists ban immigration critic
The Hay literary festival - once described by Bill Clinton as "the Woodstock of the mind" - has been disturbed by a row over a decision not to invite the author of a controversial book about immigration.
David Goodhart, the director of the Demos thinktank and founder and editor-at-large of Prospect magazine may not have been expecting to make a headline appearance, but he was quietly confident that his widely reviewed book would earn him a support slot at the event. However, Goodhart's volume - The British Dream: Successes and Failures of Post-war Immigration – which has polarised reviewers with its critical appraisal of postwar immigration – left Hay's organiser-in-chief unimpressed.
Peter Florence, co-founder and director of the Hay festival, decided against inviting Goodhart, criticising the book as "sensationalist" in an email to its author. Florence also singled out a 2004 Prospect article on the same subject in which Goodhart had written, "to put it bluntly, most of us prefer our own kind".
"Peter said, 'I stand for pluralism and multiculturalism', and he made it clear that his own personal views made him not want the book at the festival," Goodhart told the Guardian. "He said he had read my original Prospect essay back in 2004 which he didn't like at all - on the grounds, hilariously, that he is half-Italian."
Goodhart added that while he had no problem with Florence's "sort of ultra-liberal, slightly lefty multiculturalist" views, he had been shocked to learn that the book was to be ignored by the festival. "It's probably been more widely reviewed than any non-fiction book so far this year - both favourably and unfavourably," he said, "so when my publisher said there was no interest from Hay I was a bit surprised."
Goodhart questioned whether Florence could continue to exercise the same level of personal control at the growing event. Describing Hay as "still one man's personal fiefdom in some ways, which is a strength when you're creating something," he added: "But I think it's now too big almost for him to run it in that way".
Lord Adonis, the Labour peer and former transport secretary bemoaned the festival's "liberal intolerance" in tweets. "Peter Florence … rejected David Goodhart because he disagrees with him on immigration," he wrote. "How about some free speech at the Hay festival? Extraordinary that Goodhart [was] told his views on migration unacceptable for debate."
The Guardian's enquiries about Goodhart's absence from Hay met with the laconic, emailed reply from Florence: "He was never invited. The book isn't very good."
Florence and his late father, Norman, came up with the idea for the festival around their kitchen table in 1987, and the first Hay festival of literature and arts was held the next year. The annual event, which runs for 10 days from late May, attracts around 80,000 visitors to Hay-on-Wye in Powys, Wales, as well as scores of speakers from the worlds of the arts, science and politics.
Goodhart's book has split the critics. Writing in the Guardian, the playwright David Edgar felt that while many of the author's suggestions were excellent, "The British Dream raises the question as to whether someone who believes in quite so much exclusion and compulsion is any kind of liberal. Not so much 'post' you might say, as 'anti'."
But as far as the Daily Telegraph's Peter Oborne was concerned, the "well-written, thoughtful and exhaustively researched" book was destined to be recognised as "one of the most important contributions to political debate in the early 21st century".
Goodhart, who has attended Hay for the last 15 years, said he was disappointed by the decision as he felt the time had finally come for a calm and reasoned discussion about immigration. Florence's reaction to the book, he said, had been "a real outlier" as the howls of liberal anger that greeted the original article had long since died down. "What I've been saying to people is actually how much better in some ways the debate about all this sort of stuff has got since I wrote my original essay in 2004, which caused a furore," he said. "There was a great cry of pain and anger [from the left] at that time, but my book has been received in a very calm way."
He feels that Florence's reluctance to have him at the festival may reflect what he sees as its current, non-confrontational, attitude. "It's not always universally true, but I think Peter likes to showcase things and people and ideas and he doesn't really like having the clash there on stage, as it were," said Goodhart.
Among the hundreds of people to have appeared at the festival - which has been sponsored by the Sunday Times and the Guardian but is now sponsored by the Daily Telegraph - are Jimmy Carter, Germaine Greer, Desmond Tutu and Hilary Mantel. Although Goodhart will not join the luminaries at the festival proper this year, he has the consolation of appearing at Hay's smaller How the Light Gets In festival of philosophy and music. And, with a bit of luck, controversy might yet erupt in the book capital of the Brecon Beacons.
"I'm doing an event at the Globe, talking about identity politics with Peter Tatchell and George Galloway," he said, adding: "We're probably going to have a bit of a barney."
SOURCE
Australia: Privacy laws stop cops tracking lawless "refugees"
PRIVACY restrictions are preventing police being told where asylum seekers are living in the community.
The Immigration Department has told a parliamentary committee that "due to privacy reasons", police were not told where boat arrivals on bridging visas are.
More than 10,000 asylum seekers who have been released have had initial security checks, but are yet to undergo screening by ASIO.
Four people in community detention have been charged with animal cruelty, theft and assault, while four on bridging visas have been charged with stalking, custody of a knife, and assaults.
Police have been called to asylum seeker housing five times over assaults from November 2011 to December last year. Four asylum seekers living in the community have since absconded and are yet to be found.
In detention centres across Australia, asylum seekers who have not had their refugee claims processed since the government began a "no advantage" policy in August have been involved in 56 critical incidents and 155 major incidents in two months to October.
Acting Opposition immigration spokesman Michael Keenan claimed police had asked for locations of asylum seekers.
"This is not only because of their responsibilities, but also because asylum seeker families particularly may require protection," he said.
A spokeswoman for the Immigration Department said character checks, consideration of behaviour and co-operation were taken into account before people were released and that they then had to report to the department regularly.
Immigration Minister Brendan O'Connor's spokesman said: "This is lazy, fearmongering journalism, given that less than half of one per cent of people in community detention or on bridging visas have been criminally charged and that people are only released into the community after security checks are completed."
The revelations came as a boat carrying 82 asylum seekers arrived on the Cocos Islands, and another boat carrying 126 people was intercepted off Christmas Island, taking arrivals for May to 2963 and just over 35,000 since Julia Gillard became PM.
Since the start of the year, 10,137 people have arrived, compared with 3428 in the same period in 2012.
Immigration Department Secretary Martin Bowles yesterday told Estimates arrivals this financial year could end up reaching 25,000.
However, the Government has only budgeted for 13,200 people next financial year, in part because only 483 people arrived in the monsoonal month of January.
SOURCE
British Leftists ban immigration critic
The Hay literary festival - once described by Bill Clinton as "the Woodstock of the mind" - has been disturbed by a row over a decision not to invite the author of a controversial book about immigration.
David Goodhart, the director of the Demos thinktank and founder and editor-at-large of Prospect magazine may not have been expecting to make a headline appearance, but he was quietly confident that his widely reviewed book would earn him a support slot at the event. However, Goodhart's volume - The British Dream: Successes and Failures of Post-war Immigration – which has polarised reviewers with its critical appraisal of postwar immigration – left Hay's organiser-in-chief unimpressed.
Peter Florence, co-founder and director of the Hay festival, decided against inviting Goodhart, criticising the book as "sensationalist" in an email to its author. Florence also singled out a 2004 Prospect article on the same subject in which Goodhart had written, "to put it bluntly, most of us prefer our own kind".
"Peter said, 'I stand for pluralism and multiculturalism', and he made it clear that his own personal views made him not want the book at the festival," Goodhart told the Guardian. "He said he had read my original Prospect essay back in 2004 which he didn't like at all - on the grounds, hilariously, that he is half-Italian."
Goodhart added that while he had no problem with Florence's "sort of ultra-liberal, slightly lefty multiculturalist" views, he had been shocked to learn that the book was to be ignored by the festival. "It's probably been more widely reviewed than any non-fiction book so far this year - both favourably and unfavourably," he said, "so when my publisher said there was no interest from Hay I was a bit surprised."
Goodhart questioned whether Florence could continue to exercise the same level of personal control at the growing event. Describing Hay as "still one man's personal fiefdom in some ways, which is a strength when you're creating something," he added: "But I think it's now too big almost for him to run it in that way".
Lord Adonis, the Labour peer and former transport secretary bemoaned the festival's "liberal intolerance" in tweets. "Peter Florence … rejected David Goodhart because he disagrees with him on immigration," he wrote. "How about some free speech at the Hay festival? Extraordinary that Goodhart [was] told his views on migration unacceptable for debate."
The Guardian's enquiries about Goodhart's absence from Hay met with the laconic, emailed reply from Florence: "He was never invited. The book isn't very good."
Florence and his late father, Norman, came up with the idea for the festival around their kitchen table in 1987, and the first Hay festival of literature and arts was held the next year. The annual event, which runs for 10 days from late May, attracts around 80,000 visitors to Hay-on-Wye in Powys, Wales, as well as scores of speakers from the worlds of the arts, science and politics.
Goodhart's book has split the critics. Writing in the Guardian, the playwright David Edgar felt that while many of the author's suggestions were excellent, "The British Dream raises the question as to whether someone who believes in quite so much exclusion and compulsion is any kind of liberal. Not so much 'post' you might say, as 'anti'."
But as far as the Daily Telegraph's Peter Oborne was concerned, the "well-written, thoughtful and exhaustively researched" book was destined to be recognised as "one of the most important contributions to political debate in the early 21st century".
Goodhart, who has attended Hay for the last 15 years, said he was disappointed by the decision as he felt the time had finally come for a calm and reasoned discussion about immigration. Florence's reaction to the book, he said, had been "a real outlier" as the howls of liberal anger that greeted the original article had long since died down. "What I've been saying to people is actually how much better in some ways the debate about all this sort of stuff has got since I wrote my original essay in 2004, which caused a furore," he said. "There was a great cry of pain and anger [from the left] at that time, but my book has been received in a very calm way."
He feels that Florence's reluctance to have him at the festival may reflect what he sees as its current, non-confrontational, attitude. "It's not always universally true, but I think Peter likes to showcase things and people and ideas and he doesn't really like having the clash there on stage, as it were," said Goodhart.
Among the hundreds of people to have appeared at the festival - which has been sponsored by the Sunday Times and the Guardian but is now sponsored by the Daily Telegraph - are Jimmy Carter, Germaine Greer, Desmond Tutu and Hilary Mantel. Although Goodhart will not join the luminaries at the festival proper this year, he has the consolation of appearing at Hay's smaller How the Light Gets In festival of philosophy and music. And, with a bit of luck, controversy might yet erupt in the book capital of the Brecon Beacons.
"I'm doing an event at the Globe, talking about identity politics with Peter Tatchell and George Galloway," he said, adding: "We're probably going to have a bit of a barney."
SOURCE
Australia: Privacy laws stop cops tracking lawless "refugees"
PRIVACY restrictions are preventing police being told where asylum seekers are living in the community.
The Immigration Department has told a parliamentary committee that "due to privacy reasons", police were not told where boat arrivals on bridging visas are.
More than 10,000 asylum seekers who have been released have had initial security checks, but are yet to undergo screening by ASIO.
Four people in community detention have been charged with animal cruelty, theft and assault, while four on bridging visas have been charged with stalking, custody of a knife, and assaults.
Police have been called to asylum seeker housing five times over assaults from November 2011 to December last year. Four asylum seekers living in the community have since absconded and are yet to be found.
In detention centres across Australia, asylum seekers who have not had their refugee claims processed since the government began a "no advantage" policy in August have been involved in 56 critical incidents and 155 major incidents in two months to October.
Acting Opposition immigration spokesman Michael Keenan claimed police had asked for locations of asylum seekers.
"This is not only because of their responsibilities, but also because asylum seeker families particularly may require protection," he said.
A spokeswoman for the Immigration Department said character checks, consideration of behaviour and co-operation were taken into account before people were released and that they then had to report to the department regularly.
Immigration Minister Brendan O'Connor's spokesman said: "This is lazy, fearmongering journalism, given that less than half of one per cent of people in community detention or on bridging visas have been criminally charged and that people are only released into the community after security checks are completed."
The revelations came as a boat carrying 82 asylum seekers arrived on the Cocos Islands, and another boat carrying 126 people was intercepted off Christmas Island, taking arrivals for May to 2963 and just over 35,000 since Julia Gillard became PM.
Since the start of the year, 10,137 people have arrived, compared with 3428 in the same period in 2012.
Immigration Department Secretary Martin Bowles yesterday told Estimates arrivals this financial year could end up reaching 25,000.
However, the Government has only budgeted for 13,200 people next financial year, in part because only 483 people arrived in the monsoonal month of January.
SOURCE
Monday, May 27, 2013
Will the West Wake Up?
By Patrick J. Buchanan
After a British soldier wearing a Help for Heroes charity T-shirt was run over, stabbed and slashed with machetes and a meat cleaver, and beheaded, the Tory government advised its soldiers that it is probably best not to appear in uniform on the streets of their capital.
Both murderers were wounded by police. One was photographed and recorded. His message: "There are many, many (verses) throughout the Quran that says we must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I apologize that women had to witness this today, but in our land women have to see the same. Your people will never be safe."
According to ITV, one murderer, hands dripping blood, ranted, "We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you."
Both killers are Muslim converts of African descent, and both are British born.
Wednesday also, Stockholm and its suburbs ended a fourth night of riots, vandalism and arson by immigrant mobs protesting the police shooting of a machete-wielding 69-year-old.
"We have institutional racism," says Rami Al-khamisi, founder of a group for "social change."
Sweden, racist?
Among advanced nations, Sweden ranks fourth in the number of asylum seekers it has admitted and second relative to its population. Are the Swedes really the problem in Sweden?
The same day these stories ran, The Washington Post carried a front-page photo of Ibrahim Todashev, martial arts professional and friend of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who, with brother Dzhokhar, set off the bombs at the Boston Marathon massacre.
Todashev, another Chechen, had been shot to death by FBI agents, reportedly after he confessed to his and Tamerlan's role in a triple murder in Waltham, Mass.
Though Tamerlan had been radicalized and Moscow had made inquiries about him, he had escaped the notice of U.S. authorities. Even after he returned to the Caucasus for six months, sought to contact extremists, then returned to the U.S.A., Tamerlan still was not on Homeland Security's radar.
His father, granted political asylum, went back to the same region he had fled in fear. His mother had been arrested for shoplifting. Yet none of this caused U.S. officials to pick up Tamerlan, a welfare freeloader, and throw the lot of them out of the country.
One wonders if the West is going to wake up to the new world we have entered, or adhere to immigration policies dating to a liberal era long since dead.
It was in 1965, halcyon hour of the Great Society, that Ted Kennedy led Congress into abolishing a policy that had restricted immigration for 40 years, while we absorbed and Americanized the millions who had come over between 1890 and 1920.
The "national origins" feature of that 1924 law mandated that ships arriving at U.S. ports carry immigrants from countries that had provided our immigrants in the past. We liked who we were.
Immigration policy was written to reinforce the Western orientation and roots of America, 90 percent of whose population could by 1960 trace its ancestry to the Old Continent.
But since 1965, immigration policy has been run by people who detest that America and wanted a new nation that looked less like Europe and more like a continental replica of the U.N. General Assembly.
They wanted to end America's history as the largest and greatest of Western nations and make her a nation of nations, a new society and a new people, more racially, ethnically, religiously and culturally diverse than any nation on the face of the earth.
Behind this vision lies an ideology, an idee fixe, that America is not a normal nation of blood and soil, history and heroes, but a nation erected upon an idea, the idea that anyone and everyone who comes here, raises his hand, and swears allegiance to the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights becomes, de facto, not just a legal citizen but an American.
But that is no more true than to say that someone who arrives in Paris from Africa or the Middle East and raises his hand to declare allegiance to the Rights of Man thereby becomes a Frenchman.
What is the peril into which America and the West are drifting?
Ties of race, religion, ethnicity and culture are the prevailing winds among mankind and are tearing apart countries and continents. And as we bring in people from all over the world, they are not leaving all of their old allegiances and animosities behind. Many carry them, if at times dormant, within their hearts.
And if we bring into America — afflicted by her polarized politics, hateful rhetoric and culture wars — peoples on all sides of every conflict roiling mankind, how do we think this experiment is going to end?
The immigration bill moving through the Senate, with an amnesty for 11 to 12 million illegals already here, and millions of their relatives back home, may write an end to more than just the Republican Party.
SOURCE
Republican rips Obama for meeting with illegal immigrants, icing out officer union
A top Republican lawmaker blasted President Obama after he held an Oval Office meeting this week with illegal immigrants, despite having ignored recent requests for a sit-down from the union representing immigration officers.
“The fact that the president and the vice president are hosting illegal immigrants in the White House while constricting citizen tours and refusing to meet with immigration officers says it all,” Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said in a statement to FoxNews.com Friday. “The White House will not even grant ICE officers a low-level White House meeting but invites illegal immigrants into the Oval Office.”
Obama and Vice President Biden met Tuesday with eight advocates of immigration legislation, which is making its way through Congress. Three of the participants were listed in the White House readout as having “deferred action” -- a term that means they were granted a reprieve, likely via the administration directive last year that allowed some illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children to avoid deportation and seek work authorization.
Some Republicans are open to ultimately granting permanent legal status to these and other undocumented immigrants. But Sessions, and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., both complained that the president is at the same time snubbing the law enforcement officials tasked with enforcing U.S. border policies.
Sessions and Goodlatte sent a letter to Obama Thursday asking why the White House had not responded to repeated requests to meet with representatives from the National ICE Council, the union that represents more than 7,000 customs enforcement officers.
According to the letter, the ICE union has been trying to snag a meeting at the White House for three months to discuss the immigration overhaul, to no avail.
“To be effective any immigration reform bill must heed the warnings from our federal immigration agents,” the lawmakers wrote. “Unfortunately, far from being included in the process, ICE officers have been shut out and have even had their day-to-day operations handcuffed by DHS officials to the point of being unable to carry out their sworn duties.”
The White House refutes the claims, though, and says it has made itself available to multiple immigration enforcement officers over the past few months -- if not the ICE union specifically.
On May 14, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Director of National Drug Control Policy R. Gil Kerlikowske were among administration officials who sat down with law enforcement officers from across the country. During the meeting, Napolitano and Kerlikowske pushed for broad immigration reform and touted the White House’s investments in personnel and technology targeted to keep the borders safe.
The meeting came three months after another Washington gathering with Napolitano and White House Domestic Policy Council Director Cecilia Munoz. In that meeting, Munoz outlined the principles at the heart of Obama’s immigration proposal which included cracking down on employers who hire undocumented workers and creating a pathway to citizenship.
But Chris Crane, president of the ICE union, has made clear dating back to February that he wants his group to be as involved with immigration legislation as other business and advocacy groups have been.
Obama may have other reasons for avoiding a meeting -- members of the union have filed suit against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, claiming they're being prevented from doing their jobs.
The union has started to actively lobby against the current Senate bill, citing concerns that current gaps in enforcement will only be perpetuated. They were joined this week by the National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council, which represents 12,000 federal immigration officers at the USCIS.
On Tuesday, a Senate committee passed the so-called Gang of Eight immigration bill. The legislation would still have to be approved by the full Senate.
On the House side, Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor warned Thursday that they would not rubber-stamp the legislation.
“The House remains committed to fixing our broken immigration system, but we will not simply take up and accept the bill that is emerging in the Senate if it passes,” Boehner and Cantor said in a joint statement.
SOURCE
Will the West Wake Up?
By Patrick J. Buchanan
After a British soldier wearing a Help for Heroes charity T-shirt was run over, stabbed and slashed with machetes and a meat cleaver, and beheaded, the Tory government advised its soldiers that it is probably best not to appear in uniform on the streets of their capital.
Both murderers were wounded by police. One was photographed and recorded. His message: "There are many, many (verses) throughout the Quran that says we must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I apologize that women had to witness this today, but in our land women have to see the same. Your people will never be safe."
According to ITV, one murderer, hands dripping blood, ranted, "We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you."
Both killers are Muslim converts of African descent, and both are British born.
Wednesday also, Stockholm and its suburbs ended a fourth night of riots, vandalism and arson by immigrant mobs protesting the police shooting of a machete-wielding 69-year-old.
"We have institutional racism," says Rami Al-khamisi, founder of a group for "social change."
Sweden, racist?
Among advanced nations, Sweden ranks fourth in the number of asylum seekers it has admitted and second relative to its population. Are the Swedes really the problem in Sweden?
The same day these stories ran, The Washington Post carried a front-page photo of Ibrahim Todashev, martial arts professional and friend of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who, with brother Dzhokhar, set off the bombs at the Boston Marathon massacre.
Todashev, another Chechen, had been shot to death by FBI agents, reportedly after he confessed to his and Tamerlan's role in a triple murder in Waltham, Mass.
Though Tamerlan had been radicalized and Moscow had made inquiries about him, he had escaped the notice of U.S. authorities. Even after he returned to the Caucasus for six months, sought to contact extremists, then returned to the U.S.A., Tamerlan still was not on Homeland Security's radar.
His father, granted political asylum, went back to the same region he had fled in fear. His mother had been arrested for shoplifting. Yet none of this caused U.S. officials to pick up Tamerlan, a welfare freeloader, and throw the lot of them out of the country.
One wonders if the West is going to wake up to the new world we have entered, or adhere to immigration policies dating to a liberal era long since dead.
It was in 1965, halcyon hour of the Great Society, that Ted Kennedy led Congress into abolishing a policy that had restricted immigration for 40 years, while we absorbed and Americanized the millions who had come over between 1890 and 1920.
The "national origins" feature of that 1924 law mandated that ships arriving at U.S. ports carry immigrants from countries that had provided our immigrants in the past. We liked who we were.
Immigration policy was written to reinforce the Western orientation and roots of America, 90 percent of whose population could by 1960 trace its ancestry to the Old Continent.
But since 1965, immigration policy has been run by people who detest that America and wanted a new nation that looked less like Europe and more like a continental replica of the U.N. General Assembly.
They wanted to end America's history as the largest and greatest of Western nations and make her a nation of nations, a new society and a new people, more racially, ethnically, religiously and culturally diverse than any nation on the face of the earth.
Behind this vision lies an ideology, an idee fixe, that America is not a normal nation of blood and soil, history and heroes, but a nation erected upon an idea, the idea that anyone and everyone who comes here, raises his hand, and swears allegiance to the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights becomes, de facto, not just a legal citizen but an American.
But that is no more true than to say that someone who arrives in Paris from Africa or the Middle East and raises his hand to declare allegiance to the Rights of Man thereby becomes a Frenchman.
What is the peril into which America and the West are drifting?
Ties of race, religion, ethnicity and culture are the prevailing winds among mankind and are tearing apart countries and continents. And as we bring in people from all over the world, they are not leaving all of their old allegiances and animosities behind. Many carry them, if at times dormant, within their hearts.
And if we bring into America — afflicted by her polarized politics, hateful rhetoric and culture wars — peoples on all sides of every conflict roiling mankind, how do we think this experiment is going to end?
The immigration bill moving through the Senate, with an amnesty for 11 to 12 million illegals already here, and millions of their relatives back home, may write an end to more than just the Republican Party.
SOURCE
Republican rips Obama for meeting with illegal immigrants, icing out officer union
A top Republican lawmaker blasted President Obama after he held an Oval Office meeting this week with illegal immigrants, despite having ignored recent requests for a sit-down from the union representing immigration officers.
“The fact that the president and the vice president are hosting illegal immigrants in the White House while constricting citizen tours and refusing to meet with immigration officers says it all,” Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said in a statement to FoxNews.com Friday. “The White House will not even grant ICE officers a low-level White House meeting but invites illegal immigrants into the Oval Office.”
Obama and Vice President Biden met Tuesday with eight advocates of immigration legislation, which is making its way through Congress. Three of the participants were listed in the White House readout as having “deferred action” -- a term that means they were granted a reprieve, likely via the administration directive last year that allowed some illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children to avoid deportation and seek work authorization.
Some Republicans are open to ultimately granting permanent legal status to these and other undocumented immigrants. But Sessions, and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., both complained that the president is at the same time snubbing the law enforcement officials tasked with enforcing U.S. border policies.
Sessions and Goodlatte sent a letter to Obama Thursday asking why the White House had not responded to repeated requests to meet with representatives from the National ICE Council, the union that represents more than 7,000 customs enforcement officers.
According to the letter, the ICE union has been trying to snag a meeting at the White House for three months to discuss the immigration overhaul, to no avail.
“To be effective any immigration reform bill must heed the warnings from our federal immigration agents,” the lawmakers wrote. “Unfortunately, far from being included in the process, ICE officers have been shut out and have even had their day-to-day operations handcuffed by DHS officials to the point of being unable to carry out their sworn duties.”
The White House refutes the claims, though, and says it has made itself available to multiple immigration enforcement officers over the past few months -- if not the ICE union specifically.
On May 14, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Director of National Drug Control Policy R. Gil Kerlikowske were among administration officials who sat down with law enforcement officers from across the country. During the meeting, Napolitano and Kerlikowske pushed for broad immigration reform and touted the White House’s investments in personnel and technology targeted to keep the borders safe.
The meeting came three months after another Washington gathering with Napolitano and White House Domestic Policy Council Director Cecilia Munoz. In that meeting, Munoz outlined the principles at the heart of Obama’s immigration proposal which included cracking down on employers who hire undocumented workers and creating a pathway to citizenship.
But Chris Crane, president of the ICE union, has made clear dating back to February that he wants his group to be as involved with immigration legislation as other business and advocacy groups have been.
Obama may have other reasons for avoiding a meeting -- members of the union have filed suit against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, claiming they're being prevented from doing their jobs.
The union has started to actively lobby against the current Senate bill, citing concerns that current gaps in enforcement will only be perpetuated. They were joined this week by the National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council, which represents 12,000 federal immigration officers at the USCIS.
On Tuesday, a Senate committee passed the so-called Gang of Eight immigration bill. The legislation would still have to be approved by the full Senate.
On the House side, Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor warned Thursday that they would not rubber-stamp the legislation.
“The House remains committed to fixing our broken immigration system, but we will not simply take up and accept the bill that is emerging in the Senate if it passes,” Boehner and Cantor said in a joint statement.
SOURCE
Sunday, May 26, 2013
Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio singled out Latinos during immigration patrols, federal judge rules
Relying on "statistical" evidence that ignores the fact that Hispanics commit more crime
A federal judge has ruled that the office of America's self-proclaimed toughest sheriff systematically singled out Latinos in its trademark immigration patrols, marking the first finding by a court that the agency racially profiles people.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Murray Snow in Phoenix backs up years of allegations from Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's critics who say his officers violate the constitutional rights of Latinos in relying on race in their immigration enforcement.
Snow, whose ruling Friday came more than eight months after a seven-day, non-jury trial, also ruled Arpaio's deputies unreasonably prolonged the detentions of people who were pulled over.
The ruling marks a thorough repudiation of the immigration patrols that made Arpaio a national political figure, and it represents a victory for those who pushed the lawsuit.
"For too long the sheriff has been victimizing the people he's meant to serve with his discriminatory policy," said Cecillia D. Wang, director of the ACLU Immigrants' Right Project. "Today we're seeing justice for everyone in the county."
Monetary damages weren't sought in the lawsuit but rather a declaration that Arpaio's office engages in racial profiling and an order that requires it to make policy changes.
Stanley Young, the lead lawyer who argued the case against Arpaio, said Snow set a hearing for June 14 where he will hear from the two sides on how to make sure the orders in the ruling are carried out.
The sheriff, who has repeatedly denied the allegations, won't face jail time as a result of Friday's ruling.
Tim Casey, Arapio's lead attorney in the case, said an appeal was planned in the next 30 days.
"In the meantime, we will meet with the court and comply with the letter and spirit of the order," he said.
A small group of Latinos alleged in their lawsuit that Arpaio's deputies pulled over some vehicles only to make immigration status checks. The group asked Snow to issue injunctions barring the sheriff's office from discriminatory policing and the judge ruled that more remedies could be ordered in the future.
The group also accused the sheriff of ordering some immigration patrols not based on reports of crime but rather on letters and emails from Arizonans who complained about people with dark skin congregating in an area or speaking Spanish. The group's attorneys noted Arpaio sent thank-you notes to some who wrote the complaints.
The sheriff said his deputies only stop people when they think a crime has been committed and that he wasn't the person who picked the location of the patrols. His lawyers said there was nothing wrong with the thank-you notes.
Young, the group's lawyer, said he was still reading the decision Friday but noted it contained "very detailed findings of discriminatory intent and effect."
Casey said that MCSO's position "is that it has never used race and will never use race in its law-enforcement decisions." He added the sheriff's office relied on "bad training" from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Arpaio, who turns 81 next month, was elected in November to his sixth consecutive term as sheriff in Arizona's most populous county.
Known for jailing inmates in tents and making prisoners wear pink underwear, Arpaio started doing immigration enforcement in 2006 amid Arizona voter frustration with the state's role as the nation's busiest illegal entryway.
Snow wrote that "in the absence of further facts that would give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a violation of either federal criminal law or applicable state law is occurring," Arpaio's office now is enjoined from enforcing its policy "on checking the immigration status of people detained without state charges, using Hispanic ancestry or race as any factor in making law enforcement decisions pertaining to whether a person is authorized to be in the country, and unconstitutionally lengthening stops."
Snow added "the evidence introduced at trial establishes that, in the past, the MCSO has aggressively protected its right to engage in immigration and immigration-related enforcement operations even when it had no accurate legal basis for doing so."
The trial that ended Aug. 2 focused on Latinos who were stopped during both routine traffic patrols and special immigration patrols known as "sweeps."
During the sweeps, deputies flood an area of a city — in some cases, heavily Latino areas — over several days to seek out traffic violators and arrest other offenders. Immigrants who were in the country illegally accounted for 57 percent of the 1,500 people arrested in the 20 sweeps conducted by his office since January 2008, according to figures provided by Arpaio's office.
At trial, plaintiffs' lawyers drew testimony from witnesses who broke down in tears as they described encounters with authorities, saying they were pulled over because they were Hispanic and officers wanted to check their immigration status, not because they had committed an infraction. The sheriff's attorneys disputed such characterizations, typically working to show that officers had probable cause to stop the drivers based on a traffic violation.
Plaintiffs' lawyers also presented statistics to show Latinos are more likely to be stopped on days of immigration patrols and showed emails containing offensive jokes about people of Mexican heritage that were circulated among sheriff's department employees, including a supervisor in Arpaio's immigrant smuggling squad.
Defense lawyers disputed the statistical findings and said officers who circulated offensive jokes were disciplined. They also denied the complaint letters prompted patrols with a discriminatory motive.
The ruling used Arpaio's own words in interviews, news conferences and press releases against him as he trumpeted his efforts in cracking down on immigrants. When it came to making traffic stops, Arpaio said in 2007 that deputies are not bound by state laws in finding a reason to stop immigrants.
"Ours is an operation, whether it's the state law or the federal, to go after illegals, not the crime first, that they happen to be illegals," the ruling quoted Arpaio as saying. "My program, my philosophy is a pure program. You go after illegals. I'm not afraid to say that. And you go after them and you lock them up."
Some immigrant traffic stops were made "purely on the observation of the undercover officers that the vehicles had picked up Hispanic day laborers from sites where Latino day laborers were known to gather," the ruling said.
The judge also said the sheriff's office declared on many occasions that racial profiling is strictly prohibited and not tolerated, while witnesses said it was appropriate to consider race as a factor in rounding up immigrants.
"This is a blow to" the sheriff's office, said David A. Harris, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh who studied racial profiling and wrote a book on the subject.
Arpaio's lawyers will have "an uphill climb" in the appeals process because of all "the gross statistical evidence," he said.
SOURCE
Bob Menendez: Immigration Reform Doesn't Have 60 Senate Votes
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), a member of the bipartisan "gang of eight," told Univision he is more optimistic than ever before about passing immigration reform, but backers still don't have enough votes to pass the measure in the Senate.
"We don't currently have 60 votes identified in the Senate," Menendez told Univision anchor Jorge Ramos in an interview that will air Sunday on "Al Punto." "We need to add more votes on the floor. That means that the community in your state, in every state, should be contacting your state’s two U.S. senators saying that they want comprehensive immigration reform, that they are going to judge their political future based on this vote. And if we do this, both in the Senate and, later, with the members of the House of Representatives, we can achieve the victory that we want."
The gang of eight bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday and will now head to the floor. It has some bipartisan support -- Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) are also in the gang of eight -- but also strong opposition from the right. Some Democrats have remained mum on whether they will support it. Menendez said he expects debate on the bill to begin around June 10, and will be debated for about three weeks. He predicted a vote before the Fourth of July.
Passing the committee was a good first step, Menendez said.
"While it was a victory, we obviously have a lot of work ahead of us to make sure we get the votes in the Senate, and not just a majority of the Senate, but the 60 votes -- a super-majority -- that we need in the Senate," he said in the interview, taped Thursday.
If it passes the Senate, the bill would go to the House, where its fate is even more uncertain. A bipartisan House group is working on its own bill and has agreed to general principles, but still hasn't released legislation. Although House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Thursday the chamber would do something about immigration, he said he wasn't sure what it would look like.
Menendez noted that Boehner said the gang of eight bill would fail in the House. But the House speaker may have spoken too soon, Menendez said.
"We want to push this bill forward with the most positive votes we can find, more than 60, the 60 we need to be able to pass it here in the Senate so we can put pressure on the House," Menendez said. "And the House depends on the Republicans who control the House, and the House speaker, Speaker Boehner, will have to decide how he will proceed. But I want to have a good vote in the Senate so we send the message that the Republicans and the Democrats are together in favor of immigration reform."
SOURCE
Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio singled out Latinos during immigration patrols, federal judge rules
Relying on "statistical" evidence that ignores the fact that Hispanics commit more crime
A federal judge has ruled that the office of America's self-proclaimed toughest sheriff systematically singled out Latinos in its trademark immigration patrols, marking the first finding by a court that the agency racially profiles people.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Murray Snow in Phoenix backs up years of allegations from Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's critics who say his officers violate the constitutional rights of Latinos in relying on race in their immigration enforcement.
Snow, whose ruling Friday came more than eight months after a seven-day, non-jury trial, also ruled Arpaio's deputies unreasonably prolonged the detentions of people who were pulled over.
The ruling marks a thorough repudiation of the immigration patrols that made Arpaio a national political figure, and it represents a victory for those who pushed the lawsuit.
"For too long the sheriff has been victimizing the people he's meant to serve with his discriminatory policy," said Cecillia D. Wang, director of the ACLU Immigrants' Right Project. "Today we're seeing justice for everyone in the county."
Monetary damages weren't sought in the lawsuit but rather a declaration that Arpaio's office engages in racial profiling and an order that requires it to make policy changes.
Stanley Young, the lead lawyer who argued the case against Arpaio, said Snow set a hearing for June 14 where he will hear from the two sides on how to make sure the orders in the ruling are carried out.
The sheriff, who has repeatedly denied the allegations, won't face jail time as a result of Friday's ruling.
Tim Casey, Arapio's lead attorney in the case, said an appeal was planned in the next 30 days.
"In the meantime, we will meet with the court and comply with the letter and spirit of the order," he said.
A small group of Latinos alleged in their lawsuit that Arpaio's deputies pulled over some vehicles only to make immigration status checks. The group asked Snow to issue injunctions barring the sheriff's office from discriminatory policing and the judge ruled that more remedies could be ordered in the future.
The group also accused the sheriff of ordering some immigration patrols not based on reports of crime but rather on letters and emails from Arizonans who complained about people with dark skin congregating in an area or speaking Spanish. The group's attorneys noted Arpaio sent thank-you notes to some who wrote the complaints.
The sheriff said his deputies only stop people when they think a crime has been committed and that he wasn't the person who picked the location of the patrols. His lawyers said there was nothing wrong with the thank-you notes.
Young, the group's lawyer, said he was still reading the decision Friday but noted it contained "very detailed findings of discriminatory intent and effect."
Casey said that MCSO's position "is that it has never used race and will never use race in its law-enforcement decisions." He added the sheriff's office relied on "bad training" from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Arpaio, who turns 81 next month, was elected in November to his sixth consecutive term as sheriff in Arizona's most populous county.
Known for jailing inmates in tents and making prisoners wear pink underwear, Arpaio started doing immigration enforcement in 2006 amid Arizona voter frustration with the state's role as the nation's busiest illegal entryway.
Snow wrote that "in the absence of further facts that would give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a violation of either federal criminal law or applicable state law is occurring," Arpaio's office now is enjoined from enforcing its policy "on checking the immigration status of people detained without state charges, using Hispanic ancestry or race as any factor in making law enforcement decisions pertaining to whether a person is authorized to be in the country, and unconstitutionally lengthening stops."
Snow added "the evidence introduced at trial establishes that, in the past, the MCSO has aggressively protected its right to engage in immigration and immigration-related enforcement operations even when it had no accurate legal basis for doing so."
The trial that ended Aug. 2 focused on Latinos who were stopped during both routine traffic patrols and special immigration patrols known as "sweeps."
During the sweeps, deputies flood an area of a city — in some cases, heavily Latino areas — over several days to seek out traffic violators and arrest other offenders. Immigrants who were in the country illegally accounted for 57 percent of the 1,500 people arrested in the 20 sweeps conducted by his office since January 2008, according to figures provided by Arpaio's office.
At trial, plaintiffs' lawyers drew testimony from witnesses who broke down in tears as they described encounters with authorities, saying they were pulled over because they were Hispanic and officers wanted to check their immigration status, not because they had committed an infraction. The sheriff's attorneys disputed such characterizations, typically working to show that officers had probable cause to stop the drivers based on a traffic violation.
Plaintiffs' lawyers also presented statistics to show Latinos are more likely to be stopped on days of immigration patrols and showed emails containing offensive jokes about people of Mexican heritage that were circulated among sheriff's department employees, including a supervisor in Arpaio's immigrant smuggling squad.
Defense lawyers disputed the statistical findings and said officers who circulated offensive jokes were disciplined. They also denied the complaint letters prompted patrols with a discriminatory motive.
The ruling used Arpaio's own words in interviews, news conferences and press releases against him as he trumpeted his efforts in cracking down on immigrants. When it came to making traffic stops, Arpaio said in 2007 that deputies are not bound by state laws in finding a reason to stop immigrants.
"Ours is an operation, whether it's the state law or the federal, to go after illegals, not the crime first, that they happen to be illegals," the ruling quoted Arpaio as saying. "My program, my philosophy is a pure program. You go after illegals. I'm not afraid to say that. And you go after them and you lock them up."
Some immigrant traffic stops were made "purely on the observation of the undercover officers that the vehicles had picked up Hispanic day laborers from sites where Latino day laborers were known to gather," the ruling said.
The judge also said the sheriff's office declared on many occasions that racial profiling is strictly prohibited and not tolerated, while witnesses said it was appropriate to consider race as a factor in rounding up immigrants.
"This is a blow to" the sheriff's office, said David A. Harris, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh who studied racial profiling and wrote a book on the subject.
Arpaio's lawyers will have "an uphill climb" in the appeals process because of all "the gross statistical evidence," he said.
SOURCE
Bob Menendez: Immigration Reform Doesn't Have 60 Senate Votes
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), a member of the bipartisan "gang of eight," told Univision he is more optimistic than ever before about passing immigration reform, but backers still don't have enough votes to pass the measure in the Senate.
"We don't currently have 60 votes identified in the Senate," Menendez told Univision anchor Jorge Ramos in an interview that will air Sunday on "Al Punto." "We need to add more votes on the floor. That means that the community in your state, in every state, should be contacting your state’s two U.S. senators saying that they want comprehensive immigration reform, that they are going to judge their political future based on this vote. And if we do this, both in the Senate and, later, with the members of the House of Representatives, we can achieve the victory that we want."
The gang of eight bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday and will now head to the floor. It has some bipartisan support -- Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) are also in the gang of eight -- but also strong opposition from the right. Some Democrats have remained mum on whether they will support it. Menendez said he expects debate on the bill to begin around June 10, and will be debated for about three weeks. He predicted a vote before the Fourth of July.
Passing the committee was a good first step, Menendez said.
"While it was a victory, we obviously have a lot of work ahead of us to make sure we get the votes in the Senate, and not just a majority of the Senate, but the 60 votes -- a super-majority -- that we need in the Senate," he said in the interview, taped Thursday.
If it passes the Senate, the bill would go to the House, where its fate is even more uncertain. A bipartisan House group is working on its own bill and has agreed to general principles, but still hasn't released legislation. Although House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Thursday the chamber would do something about immigration, he said he wasn't sure what it would look like.
Menendez noted that Boehner said the gang of eight bill would fail in the House. But the House speaker may have spoken too soon, Menendez said.
"We want to push this bill forward with the most positive votes we can find, more than 60, the 60 we need to be able to pass it here in the Senate so we can put pressure on the House," Menendez said. "And the House depends on the Republicans who control the House, and the House speaker, Speaker Boehner, will have to decide how he will proceed. But I want to have a good vote in the Senate so we send the message that the Republicans and the Democrats are together in favor of immigration reform."
SOURCE
Friday, May 24, 2013
Make Reason Part of the Immigration Debate
Donate to the Center for Immigration Studies
An 850+ page bill to grant blanket amnesty and massively increase legal immigration is now being debated in the Senate. It would be the eighth amnesty enacted since 1986 and would flood the labor market with millions of workers at a time of record unemployment. It would also create enormous fiscal costs while ceding control of the immigration system to an administration that has refused to enforce the law.
The bill has the support of Democrat and Republican leaders, the media, and almost every single interest group. In just the last few years, $1.5 billion dollars has gone to lobbying on immigration. More than 98 percent was spent by an elite coalition that benefits politically and financially from open borders. In contrast, most Americans want existing immigration law enforced, but their position is barely represented in Washington.
The Center for Immigration Studies is the only think tank devoted exclusively to detailing the impact of immigration. Our research informs a debate that has been defined by emotion and distortion.
We provide a complete statistical profile of the immigrant population, including their social, economic, and fiscal impact. No one else provides such data and analysis, which is relied on by those in Congress seeking to regain control of the immigration system. We testify more than any other immigration group. A lobbyist recently told the Washington Post that our research is one of the few reasons that mass amnesty has not already been enacted.
Despite our unique and vital role, we operate on a relatively tiny budget and have actually had to cut staff over the last year. Open-border groups, like the National Council of La Raza, receive millions of dollars from the federal government. And the current Senate bill would appropriate up to $150 million more to such groups. In contrast, we depend on the generosity of private citizens who want to preserve the rule of law.
Please invest in our research so the facts will be represented in this critical debate that will determine the future of America.
Donate Today.
Gang of Eight Betrays Americans
The Gang of Eight immigration bill can be summed up as amnesty now, border closing never. The Department of Homeland Security is not required to build a fence (which was ordered by the Secure Fence Act signed by President George W. Bush). DHS is required only to submit a plan.
If the DHS Secretary decides she has not reached 90 percent of border security, a "trigger" kicks in: the creation of a Southern Border Security Commission empowered (horrors!) to make recommendations. After six months of pondering its mission, the Commission automatically self-liquidates, so there will never be border security.
The Gang of Eight bill will give legal residence to 11 million illegal aliens, which is the actual goal for which they undertook their journey and broke U.S. law. Their new U.S. legality will be concealed under the pompous bureaucratic title, Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) status.
This amnesty will cost the U.S. taxpayers $6.3 trillion over the lifetimes of the amnestied persons, mostly outside the 10-year window used for CBO calculations. This horrendous sum, which includes all forms of public benefits less the taxes they pay, was copiously documented by the Heritage Foundation.
The Gang of Eight authorizes the issuance of 33 million lifetime work permits (for 11 million amnesties plus accelerated chain migration) over the next 10 years. This enormous influx of job seekers will flood our labor markets and communities, thus continuing the high unemployment of Americans, driving down the wages of those who do have jobs and eliminating their hope of ever rising to the middle class and achieving the American dream.
Every amnestied person will become eligible for Obamacare upon receiving a green card, and within five years will be able to cash in on our 79 means-tested welfare benefits. The timetable for these generous benefits will almost certainly be advanced because of Senator Chuck Schumer's demands, Obama's executive orders or lawsuits brought before judges who believe in a "living" Constitution.
The promises made about E-Verify have a loophole for existing employees and even for those who steal American identities to get a job. Members of the Gang of Eight even included special provisions (earmarks) to import cheap labor to work in their own state's industries.
The Gang of Eight's so-called requirement that those amnestied will have to pay back taxes is a sham. They will be asked to pay only any taxes already computed and assessed by the Internal Revenue Service and, since the many years the illegals worked off the books never came to the attention of the IRS, those years will not be counted.
There are so many loopholes and exemptions to the so-called requirement that amnestied aliens speak English that it's a total farce.
All 11 million amnestied immigrants are supposed to have a background check, but the mere recital of such a requirement sounds like a joke. Our FBI and CIA missed so many obvious clues that the Boston Marathon bomber Tamarlan was a potential terrorist that government background checks on 11 million persons should provoke an "are you kidding?" laugh.
IRS bureaucrats testified in the congressional hearing that the IRS was so overwhelmed by the copious paperwork involved in a few hundred Tea Party applications that the IRS had to perform "triage." So how can the IRS cope with 11 million applications for RPI status from people whose paperwork is mostly forged or stolen?
Any government program managed by the liberals always includes a "follow the money" segment. The Gang of Eight's claim to promote "immigrant integration" is a ruse to give taxpayers' money to leftwing and Islamist activist groups such as CASA, La Raza, MALDEF and CAIR.
The Gang of Eight bill defines these groups as "nonprofit organizations including those with legal advocacy experience working with immigrant countries." They are actually Alinsky-style community organizers that focus on recruiting and politicizing immigrants.
Current U.S. law provides for the yearly admission of more than one million persons, more than any nation in the world, and the Gang of Eight's bill will double that number. Because of our government's failure to enforce so many existing laws, such as using a biometric entry-and-exit system to track visitors, we should have a pause in legal immigration until current laws are obeyed.
One big fraud in the current admission of legal immigrants is illustrated by the entry of the Boston bomber's family as refugees. Remember, they were given welfare benefits worth $100,000.
The Gang of Eight bill will reduce Republicans and conservatives to a permanent minority status. For the last century, immigrants who came in big waves voted at least 2-to-1 Democratic, in recent years it was 3-to-1, and there is zero evidence that the amnestied persons believe in Republican principles such as limited government and balanced budgets.
SOURCE
23 May, 2013
VIDEO: Immigration Fraud Expert Featured in New Series?
Fraud rates were in the double digits in nearly every benefit program audited
A top immigration fraud expert tells of fraud and national security risks in our legal immigration system and what should be done about it, in a new video series from the Center for Immigration Studies.
Louis "Don" Crocetti, Jr., architect and former (retired) chief of the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS) of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), discusses the nature and volume of fraud detected, actions taken to combat it, and vulnerabilities that continue to exist, while simultaneously being responsive to qualified applicants.
Mr. Crocetti says in the introduction video, "The principal types that we're talking about that have the double digit rates that exceed 10 to 20 percent in some areas, perhaps even 30 to 40 percent in others, do track back to more of the employment-based and asylum applications and petitions. Marriage obviously has a double digit fraud rate - below 20 percent - but in my opinion, that is pretty significant."
Crocetti's observations and recommendations take on new importance as the Senate debates the Schumer-Rubio bill, S. 744, which would dramatically expand guest worker and legal immigration programs, as well as legalize an estimated 11 million illegal aliens. The union representing 12,000 USCIS employees who administer these programs announced its opposition to the bill on Monday, warning of fraud, among other things. The union's president said "USCIS adjudications officers are pressured to rubber stamp applications instead of conducting diligent case review and investigation."
Interview Table of Contents
1. An Introduction to FDNS
2. An Introduction to Immigration Fraud
3. Benefit Fraud Assessments
4. Marriage Fraud
5. A Modern Employment Visa Program
6. Immigration Fraud and National Security
7. Confidentiality Provisions and Privacy
8. Evaluating DACA
9. Affidavits of Support and Sponsers
10. The Value of Compliance Reviews
11. Overseas Verification Program
12. The Resolution of Fraud Cases
13.Benefit Fraud Assessments
14. FDNS Needs
15. Moving Towards a Cost Effective Immigration System
Among the points made by Crocetti:
Terrorists and criminals continue to exploit our immigration system, which shows the need for more thorough and recurring screening of applicants, as well as better information-sharing between agencies.
Fraud rates were in double digits among employment and marriage-based categories, and asylum applications, including the controversial H-1B program.
Unlike years past, technology is available to detect and deter fraud and identify threats to national security and public safety; we simply need to use it more effectively and on all applications. USCIS must collect biometrics to establish identity, conduct background checks, and verify information critical to determining eligibility.
Compliance audits, verification, and assessments have proven invaluable to identifying fraud. In one application type (green card replacement) USCIS was able to nearly eliminate fraud through collection of biometrics. In another category (religious workers), fraud was significantly reduced through site visits to verify information on the petition. These tools need to be used for all categories, but their implementation has been stalled.
USCIS adjudicators need to be provided more anti-fraud training and allowed additional time to pursue suspected fraud, as well as empowered to place those who are denied a benefit into removal proceedings if unlawfully present.
The video can be viewed here.
Stockholm burns as rioters battle police after three days of violence in immigrant 'ghetto'
Sweden is reeling after a third night of rioting in largely run-down immigrant areas of the capital Stockholm. In the last 48 hours violence has spread to at least ten suburbs with mobs of youths torching hundreds of cars and clashing with police.
It is Sweden's worst disorder in years and has shocked the country and provoked a debate on how Sweden is coping with youth unemployment and an influx of immigrants.
The disorder has intensified despite a call for calm from Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt.
Last night, rioters attacked the police station in the Jakosberg area in the northwest of the city and set fire to 30 cars.
Groups of youths also smashed shop windows and burned down a 19th Century cultural centre.
Gangs of up to 60 set fire to a school and a nursery and hurled rocks at police and firefighters.
The unrest appears to have been sparked by the police killing of a 69-year-old man wielding a machete in the suburb of Husby on Sunday, which prompted accusations of police brutality.
It has provoked fierce debate in the country, which prides itself on a reputation for social justice, on the government's economic policies.
The violence has sparked debate in the country on the effect of the government's social policies
Critics say immigrant ghettos have been created where unemployment is high and there are few opportunities for residents.
The left-leaning tabloid Aftonbladet said the riots represented a 'gigantic failure' of government policies, which had underpinned the rise of ghettos in the suburbs. 'We have failed to give many of the people in the suburbs a hope for the future,' Anna-Margrethe Livh of the opposition Left Party wrote in the daily Svenska Dagbladet.
An anti-immigrant party, the Sweden Democrats, has risen to third in polls ahead of a general election due next year, reflecting unease about immigrants among many voters.
Eight people were arrested last night but police said they had no reports of injuries.
Kjell Lindgren, spokesman for Stockholm police, said today: 'We've had around 30 cars set on fire last night, fires that we connect to youth gangs and criminals.'
Prime Minister Reinfeldt told reporters yesterday: 'Everyone must pitch in restore calm - parents [and] adults.'
After decades of practising the 'Swedish model' of generous welfare benefits, the country has been reducing the role of the state since the 1990s, spurring the fastest growth in inequality of any advanced OECD economy.
While average living standards are still among the highest in Europe, governments have failed to substantially reduce long-term youth unemployment and poverty, which have affected immigrant communities worst.
Some 15 per cent of the population is foreign-born, the highest proportion in the Nordic region.
Unemployment among those born outside Sweden stands at 16 per cent, compared with just six per cent for native Swedes, according to OECD data.
Among 44 industrialised countries, Sweden ranked fourth in the absolute number of asylum seekers, and second relative to its population, according to U.N. figures.
SOURCE
Make Reason Part of the Immigration Debate
Donate to the Center for Immigration Studies
An 850+ page bill to grant blanket amnesty and massively increase legal immigration is now being debated in the Senate. It would be the eighth amnesty enacted since 1986 and would flood the labor market with millions of workers at a time of record unemployment. It would also create enormous fiscal costs while ceding control of the immigration system to an administration that has refused to enforce the law.
The bill has the support of Democrat and Republican leaders, the media, and almost every single interest group. In just the last few years, $1.5 billion dollars has gone to lobbying on immigration. More than 98 percent was spent by an elite coalition that benefits politically and financially from open borders. In contrast, most Americans want existing immigration law enforced, but their position is barely represented in Washington.
The Center for Immigration Studies is the only think tank devoted exclusively to detailing the impact of immigration. Our research informs a debate that has been defined by emotion and distortion.
We provide a complete statistical profile of the immigrant population, including their social, economic, and fiscal impact. No one else provides such data and analysis, which is relied on by those in Congress seeking to regain control of the immigration system. We testify more than any other immigration group. A lobbyist recently told the Washington Post that our research is one of the few reasons that mass amnesty has not already been enacted.
Despite our unique and vital role, we operate on a relatively tiny budget and have actually had to cut staff over the last year. Open-border groups, like the National Council of La Raza, receive millions of dollars from the federal government. And the current Senate bill would appropriate up to $150 million more to such groups. In contrast, we depend on the generosity of private citizens who want to preserve the rule of law.
Please invest in our research so the facts will be represented in this critical debate that will determine the future of America.
Donate Today.
Gang of Eight Betrays Americans
The Gang of Eight immigration bill can be summed up as amnesty now, border closing never. The Department of Homeland Security is not required to build a fence (which was ordered by the Secure Fence Act signed by President George W. Bush). DHS is required only to submit a plan.
If the DHS Secretary decides she has not reached 90 percent of border security, a "trigger" kicks in: the creation of a Southern Border Security Commission empowered (horrors!) to make recommendations. After six months of pondering its mission, the Commission automatically self-liquidates, so there will never be border security.
The Gang of Eight bill will give legal residence to 11 million illegal aliens, which is the actual goal for which they undertook their journey and broke U.S. law. Their new U.S. legality will be concealed under the pompous bureaucratic title, Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) status.
This amnesty will cost the U.S. taxpayers $6.3 trillion over the lifetimes of the amnestied persons, mostly outside the 10-year window used for CBO calculations. This horrendous sum, which includes all forms of public benefits less the taxes they pay, was copiously documented by the Heritage Foundation.
The Gang of Eight authorizes the issuance of 33 million lifetime work permits (for 11 million amnesties plus accelerated chain migration) over the next 10 years. This enormous influx of job seekers will flood our labor markets and communities, thus continuing the high unemployment of Americans, driving down the wages of those who do have jobs and eliminating their hope of ever rising to the middle class and achieving the American dream.
Every amnestied person will become eligible for Obamacare upon receiving a green card, and within five years will be able to cash in on our 79 means-tested welfare benefits. The timetable for these generous benefits will almost certainly be advanced because of Senator Chuck Schumer's demands, Obama's executive orders or lawsuits brought before judges who believe in a "living" Constitution.
The promises made about E-Verify have a loophole for existing employees and even for those who steal American identities to get a job. Members of the Gang of Eight even included special provisions (earmarks) to import cheap labor to work in their own state's industries.
The Gang of Eight's so-called requirement that those amnestied will have to pay back taxes is a sham. They will be asked to pay only any taxes already computed and assessed by the Internal Revenue Service and, since the many years the illegals worked off the books never came to the attention of the IRS, those years will not be counted.
There are so many loopholes and exemptions to the so-called requirement that amnestied aliens speak English that it's a total farce.
All 11 million amnestied immigrants are supposed to have a background check, but the mere recital of such a requirement sounds like a joke. Our FBI and CIA missed so many obvious clues that the Boston Marathon bomber Tamarlan was a potential terrorist that government background checks on 11 million persons should provoke an "are you kidding?" laugh.
IRS bureaucrats testified in the congressional hearing that the IRS was so overwhelmed by the copious paperwork involved in a few hundred Tea Party applications that the IRS had to perform "triage." So how can the IRS cope with 11 million applications for RPI status from people whose paperwork is mostly forged or stolen?
Any government program managed by the liberals always includes a "follow the money" segment. The Gang of Eight's claim to promote "immigrant integration" is a ruse to give taxpayers' money to leftwing and Islamist activist groups such as CASA, La Raza, MALDEF and CAIR.
The Gang of Eight bill defines these groups as "nonprofit organizations including those with legal advocacy experience working with immigrant countries." They are actually Alinsky-style community organizers that focus on recruiting and politicizing immigrants.
Current U.S. law provides for the yearly admission of more than one million persons, more than any nation in the world, and the Gang of Eight's bill will double that number. Because of our government's failure to enforce so many existing laws, such as using a biometric entry-and-exit system to track visitors, we should have a pause in legal immigration until current laws are obeyed.
One big fraud in the current admission of legal immigrants is illustrated by the entry of the Boston bomber's family as refugees. Remember, they were given welfare benefits worth $100,000.
The Gang of Eight bill will reduce Republicans and conservatives to a permanent minority status. For the last century, immigrants who came in big waves voted at least 2-to-1 Democratic, in recent years it was 3-to-1, and there is zero evidence that the amnestied persons believe in Republican principles such as limited government and balanced budgets.
SOURCE
23 May, 2013
VIDEO: Immigration Fraud Expert Featured in New Series?
Fraud rates were in the double digits in nearly every benefit program audited
A top immigration fraud expert tells of fraud and national security risks in our legal immigration system and what should be done about it, in a new video series from the Center for Immigration Studies.
Louis "Don" Crocetti, Jr., architect and former (retired) chief of the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS) of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), discusses the nature and volume of fraud detected, actions taken to combat it, and vulnerabilities that continue to exist, while simultaneously being responsive to qualified applicants.
Mr. Crocetti says in the introduction video, "The principal types that we're talking about that have the double digit rates that exceed 10 to 20 percent in some areas, perhaps even 30 to 40 percent in others, do track back to more of the employment-based and asylum applications and petitions. Marriage obviously has a double digit fraud rate - below 20 percent - but in my opinion, that is pretty significant."
Crocetti's observations and recommendations take on new importance as the Senate debates the Schumer-Rubio bill, S. 744, which would dramatically expand guest worker and legal immigration programs, as well as legalize an estimated 11 million illegal aliens. The union representing 12,000 USCIS employees who administer these programs announced its opposition to the bill on Monday, warning of fraud, among other things. The union's president said "USCIS adjudications officers are pressured to rubber stamp applications instead of conducting diligent case review and investigation."
Interview Table of Contents
1. An Introduction to FDNS
2. An Introduction to Immigration Fraud
3. Benefit Fraud Assessments
4. Marriage Fraud
5. A Modern Employment Visa Program
6. Immigration Fraud and National Security
7. Confidentiality Provisions and Privacy
8. Evaluating DACA
9. Affidavits of Support and Sponsers
10. The Value of Compliance Reviews
11. Overseas Verification Program
12. The Resolution of Fraud Cases
13.Benefit Fraud Assessments
14. FDNS Needs
15. Moving Towards a Cost Effective Immigration System
Among the points made by Crocetti:
Terrorists and criminals continue to exploit our immigration system, which shows the need for more thorough and recurring screening of applicants, as well as better information-sharing between agencies.
Fraud rates were in double digits among employment and marriage-based categories, and asylum applications, including the controversial H-1B program.
Unlike years past, technology is available to detect and deter fraud and identify threats to national security and public safety; we simply need to use it more effectively and on all applications. USCIS must collect biometrics to establish identity, conduct background checks, and verify information critical to determining eligibility.
Compliance audits, verification, and assessments have proven invaluable to identifying fraud. In one application type (green card replacement) USCIS was able to nearly eliminate fraud through collection of biometrics. In another category (religious workers), fraud was significantly reduced through site visits to verify information on the petition. These tools need to be used for all categories, but their implementation has been stalled.
USCIS adjudicators need to be provided more anti-fraud training and allowed additional time to pursue suspected fraud, as well as empowered to place those who are denied a benefit into removal proceedings if unlawfully present.
The video can be viewed here.
Stockholm burns as rioters battle police after three days of violence in immigrant 'ghetto'
Sweden is reeling after a third night of rioting in largely run-down immigrant areas of the capital Stockholm. In the last 48 hours violence has spread to at least ten suburbs with mobs of youths torching hundreds of cars and clashing with police.
It is Sweden's worst disorder in years and has shocked the country and provoked a debate on how Sweden is coping with youth unemployment and an influx of immigrants.
The disorder has intensified despite a call for calm from Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt.
Last night, rioters attacked the police station in the Jakosberg area in the northwest of the city and set fire to 30 cars.
Groups of youths also smashed shop windows and burned down a 19th Century cultural centre.
Gangs of up to 60 set fire to a school and a nursery and hurled rocks at police and firefighters.
The unrest appears to have been sparked by the police killing of a 69-year-old man wielding a machete in the suburb of Husby on Sunday, which prompted accusations of police brutality.
It has provoked fierce debate in the country, which prides itself on a reputation for social justice, on the government's economic policies.
The violence has sparked debate in the country on the effect of the government's social policies
Critics say immigrant ghettos have been created where unemployment is high and there are few opportunities for residents.
The left-leaning tabloid Aftonbladet said the riots represented a 'gigantic failure' of government policies, which had underpinned the rise of ghettos in the suburbs. 'We have failed to give many of the people in the suburbs a hope for the future,' Anna-Margrethe Livh of the opposition Left Party wrote in the daily Svenska Dagbladet.
An anti-immigrant party, the Sweden Democrats, has risen to third in polls ahead of a general election due next year, reflecting unease about immigrants among many voters.
Eight people were arrested last night but police said they had no reports of injuries.
Kjell Lindgren, spokesman for Stockholm police, said today: 'We've had around 30 cars set on fire last night, fires that we connect to youth gangs and criminals.'
Prime Minister Reinfeldt told reporters yesterday: 'Everyone must pitch in restore calm - parents [and] adults.'
After decades of practising the 'Swedish model' of generous welfare benefits, the country has been reducing the role of the state since the 1990s, spurring the fastest growth in inequality of any advanced OECD economy.
While average living standards are still among the highest in Europe, governments have failed to substantially reduce long-term youth unemployment and poverty, which have affected immigrant communities worst.
Some 15 per cent of the population is foreign-born, the highest proportion in the Nordic region.
Unemployment among those born outside Sweden stands at 16 per cent, compared with just six per cent for native Swedes, according to OECD data.
Among 44 industrialised countries, Sweden ranked fourth in the absolute number of asylum seekers, and second relative to its population, according to U.N. figures.
SOURCE
Thursday, May 23, 2013
VIDEO: Immigration Fraud Expert Featured in New Series?
Fraud rates were in the double digits in nearly every benefit program audited
A top immigration fraud expert tells of fraud and national security risks in our legal immigration system and what should be done about it, in a new video series from the Center for Immigration Studies.
Louis "Don" Crocetti, Jr., architect and former (retired) chief of the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS) of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), discusses the nature and volume of fraud detected, actions taken to combat it, and vulnerabilities that continue to exist, while simultaneously being responsive to qualified applicants.
Mr. Crocetti says in the introduction video, "The principal types that we're talking about that have the double digit rates that exceed 10 to 20 percent in some areas, perhaps even 30 to 40 percent in others, do track back to more of the employment-based and asylum applications and petitions. Marriage obviously has a double digit fraud rate - below 20 percent - but in my opinion, that is pretty significant."
Crocetti's observations and recommendations take on new importance as the Senate debates the Schumer-Rubio bill, S. 744, which would dramatically expand guest worker and legal immigration programs, as well as legalize an estimated 11 million illegal aliens. The union representing 12,000 USCIS employees who administer these programs announced its opposition to the bill on Monday, warning of fraud, among other things. The union's president said "USCIS adjudications officers are pressured to rubber stamp applications instead of conducting diligent case review and investigation."
Interview Table of Contents
1. An Introduction to FDNS
2. An Introduction to Immigration Fraud
3. Benefit Fraud Assessments
4. Marriage Fraud
5. A Modern Employment Visa Program
6. Immigration Fraud and National Security
7. Confidentiality Provisions and Privacy
8. Evaluating DACA
9. Affidavits of Support and Sponsers
10. The Value of Compliance Reviews
11. Overseas Verification Program
12. The Resolution of Fraud Cases
13.Benefit Fraud Assessments
14. FDNS Needs
15. Moving Towards a Cost Effective Immigration System
Among the points made by Crocetti:
Terrorists and criminals continue to exploit our immigration system, which shows the need for more thorough and recurring screening of applicants, as well as better information-sharing between agencies.
Fraud rates were in double digits among employment and marriage-based categories, and asylum applications, including the controversial H-1B program.
Unlike years past, technology is available to detect and deter fraud and identify threats to national security and public safety; we simply need to use it more effectively and on all applications. USCIS must collect biometrics to establish identity, conduct background checks, and verify information critical to determining eligibility.
Compliance audits, verification, and assessments have proven invaluable to identifying fraud. In one application type (green card replacement) USCIS was able to nearly eliminate fraud through collection of biometrics. In another category (religious workers), fraud was significantly reduced through site visits to verify information on the petition. These tools need to be used for all categories, but their implementation has been stalled.
USCIS adjudicators need to be provided more anti-fraud training and allowed additional time to pursue suspected fraud, as well as empowered to place those who are denied a benefit into removal proceedings if unlawfully present.
The video can be viewed here.
Stockholm burns as rioters battle police after three days of violence in immigrant 'ghetto'
Sweden is reeling after a third night of rioting in largely run-down immigrant areas of the capital Stockholm. In the last 48 hours violence has spread to at least ten suburbs with mobs of youths torching hundreds of cars and clashing with police.
It is Sweden's worst disorder in years and has shocked the country and provoked a debate on how Sweden is coping with youth unemployment and an influx of immigrants.
The disorder has intensified despite a call for calm from Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt.
Last night, rioters attacked the police station in the Jakosberg area in the northwest of the city and set fire to 30 cars.
Groups of youths also smashed shop windows and burned down a 19th Century cultural centre.
Gangs of up to 60 set fire to a school and a nursery and hurled rocks at police and firefighters.
The unrest appears to have been sparked by the police killing of a 69-year-old man wielding a machete in the suburb of Husby on Sunday, which prompted accusations of police brutality.
It has provoked fierce debate in the country, which prides itself on a reputation for social justice, on the government's economic policies.
The violence has sparked debate in the country on the effect of the government's social policies
Critics say immigrant ghettos have been created where unemployment is high and there are few opportunities for residents.
The left-leaning tabloid Aftonbladet said the riots represented a 'gigantic failure' of government policies, which had underpinned the rise of ghettos in the suburbs. 'We have failed to give many of the people in the suburbs a hope for the future,' Anna-Margrethe Livh of the opposition Left Party wrote in the daily Svenska Dagbladet.
An anti-immigrant party, the Sweden Democrats, has risen to third in polls ahead of a general election due next year, reflecting unease about immigrants among many voters.
Eight people were arrested last night but police said they had no reports of injuries.
Kjell Lindgren, spokesman for Stockholm police, said today: 'We've had around 30 cars set on fire last night, fires that we connect to youth gangs and criminals.'
Prime Minister Reinfeldt told reporters yesterday: 'Everyone must pitch in restore calm - parents [and] adults.'
After decades of practising the 'Swedish model' of generous welfare benefits, the country has been reducing the role of the state since the 1990s, spurring the fastest growth in inequality of any advanced OECD economy.
While average living standards are still among the highest in Europe, governments have failed to substantially reduce long-term youth unemployment and poverty, which have affected immigrant communities worst.
Some 15 per cent of the population is foreign-born, the highest proportion in the Nordic region.
Unemployment among those born outside Sweden stands at 16 per cent, compared with just six per cent for native Swedes, according to OECD data.
Among 44 industrialised countries, Sweden ranked fourth in the absolute number of asylum seekers, and second relative to its population, according to U.N. figures.
SOURCE
VIDEO: Immigration Fraud Expert Featured in New Series?
Fraud rates were in the double digits in nearly every benefit program audited
A top immigration fraud expert tells of fraud and national security risks in our legal immigration system and what should be done about it, in a new video series from the Center for Immigration Studies.
Louis "Don" Crocetti, Jr., architect and former (retired) chief of the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS) of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), discusses the nature and volume of fraud detected, actions taken to combat it, and vulnerabilities that continue to exist, while simultaneously being responsive to qualified applicants.
Mr. Crocetti says in the introduction video, "The principal types that we're talking about that have the double digit rates that exceed 10 to 20 percent in some areas, perhaps even 30 to 40 percent in others, do track back to more of the employment-based and asylum applications and petitions. Marriage obviously has a double digit fraud rate - below 20 percent - but in my opinion, that is pretty significant."
Crocetti's observations and recommendations take on new importance as the Senate debates the Schumer-Rubio bill, S. 744, which would dramatically expand guest worker and legal immigration programs, as well as legalize an estimated 11 million illegal aliens. The union representing 12,000 USCIS employees who administer these programs announced its opposition to the bill on Monday, warning of fraud, among other things. The union's president said "USCIS adjudications officers are pressured to rubber stamp applications instead of conducting diligent case review and investigation."
Interview Table of Contents
1. An Introduction to FDNS
2. An Introduction to Immigration Fraud
3. Benefit Fraud Assessments
4. Marriage Fraud
5. A Modern Employment Visa Program
6. Immigration Fraud and National Security
7. Confidentiality Provisions and Privacy
8. Evaluating DACA
9. Affidavits of Support and Sponsers
10. The Value of Compliance Reviews
11. Overseas Verification Program
12. The Resolution of Fraud Cases
13.Benefit Fraud Assessments
14. FDNS Needs
15. Moving Towards a Cost Effective Immigration System
Among the points made by Crocetti:
Terrorists and criminals continue to exploit our immigration system, which shows the need for more thorough and recurring screening of applicants, as well as better information-sharing between agencies.
Fraud rates were in double digits among employment and marriage-based categories, and asylum applications, including the controversial H-1B program.
Unlike years past, technology is available to detect and deter fraud and identify threats to national security and public safety; we simply need to use it more effectively and on all applications. USCIS must collect biometrics to establish identity, conduct background checks, and verify information critical to determining eligibility.
Compliance audits, verification, and assessments have proven invaluable to identifying fraud. In one application type (green card replacement) USCIS was able to nearly eliminate fraud through collection of biometrics. In another category (religious workers), fraud was significantly reduced through site visits to verify information on the petition. These tools need to be used for all categories, but their implementation has been stalled.
USCIS adjudicators need to be provided more anti-fraud training and allowed additional time to pursue suspected fraud, as well as empowered to place those who are denied a benefit into removal proceedings if unlawfully present.
The video can be viewed here.
Stockholm burns as rioters battle police after three days of violence in immigrant 'ghetto'
Sweden is reeling after a third night of rioting in largely run-down immigrant areas of the capital Stockholm. In the last 48 hours violence has spread to at least ten suburbs with mobs of youths torching hundreds of cars and clashing with police.
It is Sweden's worst disorder in years and has shocked the country and provoked a debate on how Sweden is coping with youth unemployment and an influx of immigrants.
The disorder has intensified despite a call for calm from Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt.
Last night, rioters attacked the police station in the Jakosberg area in the northwest of the city and set fire to 30 cars.
Groups of youths also smashed shop windows and burned down a 19th Century cultural centre.
Gangs of up to 60 set fire to a school and a nursery and hurled rocks at police and firefighters.
The unrest appears to have been sparked by the police killing of a 69-year-old man wielding a machete in the suburb of Husby on Sunday, which prompted accusations of police brutality.
It has provoked fierce debate in the country, which prides itself on a reputation for social justice, on the government's economic policies.
The violence has sparked debate in the country on the effect of the government's social policies
Critics say immigrant ghettos have been created where unemployment is high and there are few opportunities for residents.
The left-leaning tabloid Aftonbladet said the riots represented a 'gigantic failure' of government policies, which had underpinned the rise of ghettos in the suburbs. 'We have failed to give many of the people in the suburbs a hope for the future,' Anna-Margrethe Livh of the opposition Left Party wrote in the daily Svenska Dagbladet.
An anti-immigrant party, the Sweden Democrats, has risen to third in polls ahead of a general election due next year, reflecting unease about immigrants among many voters.
Eight people were arrested last night but police said they had no reports of injuries.
Kjell Lindgren, spokesman for Stockholm police, said today: 'We've had around 30 cars set on fire last night, fires that we connect to youth gangs and criminals.'
Prime Minister Reinfeldt told reporters yesterday: 'Everyone must pitch in restore calm - parents [and] adults.'
After decades of practising the 'Swedish model' of generous welfare benefits, the country has been reducing the role of the state since the 1990s, spurring the fastest growth in inequality of any advanced OECD economy.
While average living standards are still among the highest in Europe, governments have failed to substantially reduce long-term youth unemployment and poverty, which have affected immigrant communities worst.
Some 15 per cent of the population is foreign-born, the highest proportion in the Nordic region.
Unemployment among those born outside Sweden stands at 16 per cent, compared with just six per cent for native Swedes, according to OECD data.
Among 44 industrialised countries, Sweden ranked fourth in the absolute number of asylum seekers, and second relative to its population, according to U.N. figures.
SOURCE
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Crossing the Rio Grande… upsurge in Mexicans trying to get over border
Rio Grande Valley arrests rose 65 per cent last year and they hit 16,000 in March alone, fuelled by human smugglers who pay tax to drug cartels.
Attempts to cross the border alone are met with violence. About 70 bodies were found in the area in the six months from October, more than twice as many as the same period in the previous year.
Just across the Rio Grande from Brownsville, Texas, stands a dormitory-style shelter filled with people recently deported and other migrants waiting to cross the border.
The long rows of bunk beds offer immigrants a place to rest on their long journey. But the shelter is no safe haven in a town controlled by the Gulf cartel.
Armed men once showed up and took away 15 men, who were probably put to work as gunmen, lookouts or human mules hauling bales of marijuana into the United States.
As Congress takes up immigration reform, lawmakers may have to confront the reality of this place and others like it, where people say the current system of immigration enforcement and deportation produces a constant flow of people north and south that provides the cartel with a vulnerable labor pool and steady source of revenue.
'This vicious circle favours organised crime because the migrant is going to pay for safe passage', said the Rev. Francisco Gallardo, who oversees immigrant-assistance efforts for the Matamoros Catholic diocese.
The cartel controls who crosses the border and profits from each immigrant by taxing human smugglers.
At the shelter, the cartel threat was so alarming that shelter administrators began encouraging immigrants to go into the streets during the day, thinking they would be harder to round up than at the shelter.
There have been record numbers of deportations in recent years and tens of thousands landed in Tamaulipas already this year, the state that borders Texas from Matamoros to Nuevo Laredo.
Arizona is often singled out as the busiest border crossing for immigrants entering the US, but more and more migrants are being caught in the southernmost tip of Texas, in the Border Patrol's Rio Grande Valley sector.
Apprehension statistics are imperfect measures because they only capture a fraction of the real flow, but the arrest numbers are definitely shifting. Arrests in the Tucson, Ariz., sector dropped 3 per cent last year, while Rio Grande Valley arrests rose 65 percent.
The makeup of the immigrants apprehended here is changing, too, driven by people flowing out of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.
The Border Patrol made 94,532 arrests of non-Mexican immigrants along the south-west border last year, more than double the year before. And nearly half of those came in the Rio Grande Valley sector.
The Border Patrol is responding by redirecting personnel, sending most new graduates from its academy to the Rio Grande Valley, according to senior Border Patrol officials.
When immigrants from Central America and Mexico arrive in Matamoros ahead of their trip to America, they are met by smugglers who have to pay the cartel tax for every person they take across the border.
Attempts to cross alone are met with violence. Some immigrants are kidnapped and their families extorted by the organisation.
Reported murders in Tamaulipas, the state that borders Texas from Matamoros to Nuevo Laredo, increased more than 250 percent in the past four years, according to the Mexican government.
Official statistics are generally thought to undercount the real toll. Soldiers recently killed six gunmen in a clash in Matamoros.
And yet, even with the high-degree of danger for immigrants crossing this part of the border, they keep coming.
Central American migrants continue to use the route up the Gulf Coast side of Mexico and through Tamaulipas because it's the shortest to the US, said Rodolfo Casillas Ramirez, a professor at Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales in Mexico City.
The smugglers choose the route, and even if immigrants have heard about the violence in Tamaulipas, 'they trust that the premium they've paid includes the right of passage,' he said.
They continue to leave their home countries for economic reasons. Although the US economy has provided fewer jobs for immigrants during the Great Recession and a long, slow recovery, opportunities south of the border have been even more limited, Casillas said.
That's why the Rev. Alejandro Solalinde, a Roman Catholic priest who founded a shelter for immigrants in the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca, said the answer is in regional development, not increased border security.
'This situation has grown because ultimately the migrants are merchandise and organised crime profits in volume,' he said during a recent visit to Matamoros.
Filemon Vela, a member of the House Homeland Security Committee whose district includes Brownsville, said the immigration-reform debate has so far left out discussion of the security and economic development in Mexico.
'The incentive for people to cross over illegally from Mexico will never subside until these individuals feel safe and until they are able to feed themselves and their families,' Vela said.
At the 150-bed shelter, more than half of the immigrants have just been deported from the US, Gallardo said. The others are immigrants preparing to cross. He said shelter workers constantly chase out infiltrators who are paid by smugglers to recruit inside.
At Solalinde's shelter in southern Mexico, threats from organised crime forced them to bring in four state police officers and four federal ones, who have lived at his shelter for the past year as protection.
Solalinde now travels with bodyguards after having fled Mexico for a couple of months last year following threats.
One immigrant at the Matamoros shelter was a 48-year-old man who would only give his name as 'Gordo' because he feared for his safety. He said he had arrived two days earlier after traveling from Copan, Honduras. Gordo said he had lived in Los Angeles for 10 years but had been in Honduras for the past four. He was trying to make it back to California, where he has a 15-year-old daughter.
Asked about his prospects for successfully crossing the river, he said: 'It's difficult, not so much for the Border Patrol'. His chief concern being the cartels.
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
Congressional Testimony
1. The Fiscal and Economic Impact of Immigration on the United States
Media
2. Op-Ed: We Trust Barack Obama
3. Op-Ed: The Fiscal Impact of Immigration
4. TV: Jessica Vaughan Discusses In-state Tuition in MA
Publications
5. The First Quarter of 2013 Employment Picture
6. Rubio’s Deceptive Amnesty Ad
Blogs
7. Schumer-Rubio Amnesty Would Legalize 45 Percent of ICE Criminal Caseload
8. Key Amendment to S.744 – Do the Amnestied REALLY Need to Pay Back Taxes?
9. Lord, Give Us Biometrics – But Not Yet
10. Immigration and Trust in Government: R.I.P. Part 1
11. Immigration Has Little Impact on U.S. Aging
12. What Happened to Sen. Schumer's National Employment Card?
13. Differential Treatment of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests
14. Five Myths about Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants in Senate Bill
15. Gang of Eight Prevails on H-1B in Judiciary Hearing
16. Sessions' Amendments Fail at Senate Judiciary
17. Consternation with the Administration? We Can Relate
18. Naked Political Interest: The Bipartisan Kind
19. A Hopeful Story — H-1B Age Discrimination Victim Fights Back
20. Contra Norquist
21. Two Harmless Bits of S.744 – Exceptions that Prove the Rule
Crossing the Rio Grande… upsurge in Mexicans trying to get over border
Rio Grande Valley arrests rose 65 per cent last year and they hit 16,000 in March alone, fuelled by human smugglers who pay tax to drug cartels.
Attempts to cross the border alone are met with violence. About 70 bodies were found in the area in the six months from October, more than twice as many as the same period in the previous year.
Just across the Rio Grande from Brownsville, Texas, stands a dormitory-style shelter filled with people recently deported and other migrants waiting to cross the border.
The long rows of bunk beds offer immigrants a place to rest on their long journey. But the shelter is no safe haven in a town controlled by the Gulf cartel.
Armed men once showed up and took away 15 men, who were probably put to work as gunmen, lookouts or human mules hauling bales of marijuana into the United States.
As Congress takes up immigration reform, lawmakers may have to confront the reality of this place and others like it, where people say the current system of immigration enforcement and deportation produces a constant flow of people north and south that provides the cartel with a vulnerable labor pool and steady source of revenue.
'This vicious circle favours organised crime because the migrant is going to pay for safe passage', said the Rev. Francisco Gallardo, who oversees immigrant-assistance efforts for the Matamoros Catholic diocese.
The cartel controls who crosses the border and profits from each immigrant by taxing human smugglers.
At the shelter, the cartel threat was so alarming that shelter administrators began encouraging immigrants to go into the streets during the day, thinking they would be harder to round up than at the shelter.
There have been record numbers of deportations in recent years and tens of thousands landed in Tamaulipas already this year, the state that borders Texas from Matamoros to Nuevo Laredo.
Arizona is often singled out as the busiest border crossing for immigrants entering the US, but more and more migrants are being caught in the southernmost tip of Texas, in the Border Patrol's Rio Grande Valley sector.
Apprehension statistics are imperfect measures because they only capture a fraction of the real flow, but the arrest numbers are definitely shifting. Arrests in the Tucson, Ariz., sector dropped 3 per cent last year, while Rio Grande Valley arrests rose 65 percent.
The makeup of the immigrants apprehended here is changing, too, driven by people flowing out of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.
The Border Patrol made 94,532 arrests of non-Mexican immigrants along the south-west border last year, more than double the year before. And nearly half of those came in the Rio Grande Valley sector.
The Border Patrol is responding by redirecting personnel, sending most new graduates from its academy to the Rio Grande Valley, according to senior Border Patrol officials.
When immigrants from Central America and Mexico arrive in Matamoros ahead of their trip to America, they are met by smugglers who have to pay the cartel tax for every person they take across the border.
Attempts to cross alone are met with violence. Some immigrants are kidnapped and their families extorted by the organisation.
Reported murders in Tamaulipas, the state that borders Texas from Matamoros to Nuevo Laredo, increased more than 250 percent in the past four years, according to the Mexican government.
Official statistics are generally thought to undercount the real toll. Soldiers recently killed six gunmen in a clash in Matamoros.
And yet, even with the high-degree of danger for immigrants crossing this part of the border, they keep coming.
Central American migrants continue to use the route up the Gulf Coast side of Mexico and through Tamaulipas because it's the shortest to the US, said Rodolfo Casillas Ramirez, a professor at Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales in Mexico City.
The smugglers choose the route, and even if immigrants have heard about the violence in Tamaulipas, 'they trust that the premium they've paid includes the right of passage,' he said.
They continue to leave their home countries for economic reasons. Although the US economy has provided fewer jobs for immigrants during the Great Recession and a long, slow recovery, opportunities south of the border have been even more limited, Casillas said.
That's why the Rev. Alejandro Solalinde, a Roman Catholic priest who founded a shelter for immigrants in the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca, said the answer is in regional development, not increased border security.
'This situation has grown because ultimately the migrants are merchandise and organised crime profits in volume,' he said during a recent visit to Matamoros.
Filemon Vela, a member of the House Homeland Security Committee whose district includes Brownsville, said the immigration-reform debate has so far left out discussion of the security and economic development in Mexico.
'The incentive for people to cross over illegally from Mexico will never subside until these individuals feel safe and until they are able to feed themselves and their families,' Vela said.
At the 150-bed shelter, more than half of the immigrants have just been deported from the US, Gallardo said. The others are immigrants preparing to cross. He said shelter workers constantly chase out infiltrators who are paid by smugglers to recruit inside.
At Solalinde's shelter in southern Mexico, threats from organised crime forced them to bring in four state police officers and four federal ones, who have lived at his shelter for the past year as protection.
Solalinde now travels with bodyguards after having fled Mexico for a couple of months last year following threats.
One immigrant at the Matamoros shelter was a 48-year-old man who would only give his name as 'Gordo' because he feared for his safety. He said he had arrived two days earlier after traveling from Copan, Honduras. Gordo said he had lived in Los Angeles for 10 years but had been in Honduras for the past four. He was trying to make it back to California, where he has a 15-year-old daughter.
Asked about his prospects for successfully crossing the river, he said: 'It's difficult, not so much for the Border Patrol'. His chief concern being the cartels.
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
Congressional Testimony
1. The Fiscal and Economic Impact of Immigration on the United States
Media
2. Op-Ed: We Trust Barack Obama
3. Op-Ed: The Fiscal Impact of Immigration
4. TV: Jessica Vaughan Discusses In-state Tuition in MA
Publications
5. The First Quarter of 2013 Employment Picture
6. Rubio’s Deceptive Amnesty Ad
Blogs
7. Schumer-Rubio Amnesty Would Legalize 45 Percent of ICE Criminal Caseload
8. Key Amendment to S.744 – Do the Amnestied REALLY Need to Pay Back Taxes?
9. Lord, Give Us Biometrics – But Not Yet
10. Immigration and Trust in Government: R.I.P. Part 1
11. Immigration Has Little Impact on U.S. Aging
12. What Happened to Sen. Schumer's National Employment Card?
13. Differential Treatment of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests
14. Five Myths about Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants in Senate Bill
15. Gang of Eight Prevails on H-1B in Judiciary Hearing
16. Sessions' Amendments Fail at Senate Judiciary
17. Consternation with the Administration? We Can Relate
18. Naked Political Interest: The Bipartisan Kind
19. A Hopeful Story — H-1B Age Discrimination Victim Fights Back
20. Contra Norquist
21. Two Harmless Bits of S.744 – Exceptions that Prove the Rule
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Immigration Officers' Union Blasts Immigration Bill
The Senate's immigration bill will raise national security risks and the Obama administration will do little more than "rubber-stamp" illegal immigrants into the program, endangering Americans, says the labor union representing the 12,000 employees who will have to approve the applications.
Kenneth Palinkas, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Council 119, which represents officers and staff at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, will deliver a damning critique of the Senate bill Monday, according to a copy of his statement obtained by The Washington Times.
His statement goes well beyond the current debate, portraying an agency intent on approving as many illegal immigrants as possible.
"The culture at USCIS encourages all applications to be approved, discouraging proper investigation into red flags and discouraging the denial of any applications," his remarks say. "USCIS has been turned into an 'approval machine.'"
The union becomes the second key Homeland Security Department labor group to oppose the bill. Its opposition dents the bill and deals a blow to the AFL-CIO — the coalition of labor unions that has put major legislative muscle behind the bill this year but is seeing its members peel off.
Mr. Palinkas says the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" senators who wrote the Senate bill never talked to the USCIS and that the legislation is riddled with special-interest loopholes and shirks security checks.
"The legislation was written with special interests — producing a bill that makes the current system worse, not better," Mr. Palinkas' remarks say. The bill "will damage public safety and national security and should be opposed by lawmakers."
That was the same complaint made by Chris Crane, chief of the union representing agents and officers of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Mr. Crane has said the Senate bill would hurt ICE agents' ability to enforce the law.
But the USCIS officers' opposition could be even more potent. They describe themselves as the "backbone" of any legalization effort — the officers who will have to review each application and decide whether it meets the standards and whether the person is a security risk.
Their warnings could carry weight with lawmakers worried about a repeat of the amnesty in 1986, when hundreds of thousands of immigrants defrauded the system. All sides say they want to avoid the same scenario.
Chief among the USCIS union's worries is the way the administration has handled President Obama's non-deportation policy for "Dreamers" — illegal immigrants who arrived as children and who the Obama administration has said should not be deported.
Last year, Mr. Obama announced a policy titled Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals that grants a two-year stay of deportation and work permits.
The latest statistics show that the administration is approving almost every application it receives: 99.2 percent of all applications decided through the end of April, according to numbers released Friday.
About 500,000 applications have been submitted in the 8 months the deferred action has been available. Of those, 291,859 have been approved while 2,352 have been denied. The rest are still in processing.
The action is seen as a test-run should Congress pass the Senate's legalization bill, which would apply to a broad swath of 11 million illegal immigrants estimated to be in the U.S.
Mr. Palinkas said the reason so many deferred action applicants are being approved is because the Obama administration has determined that they don't need in-person interviews, which "virtually guarantees widespread fraud and places public safety at risk."
The Senate Judiciary Committee is working its way through hundreds of amendments to the bill written by the Gang of Eight.
The crux of the bill gives quick legal status to illegal immigrants but withholds the full path to citizenship until the Homeland Security Department spends more on border security, puts an electronic verification system for workers into place and creates a working entry-exit system to check visitors as they come and go at airports and seaports.
Obama administration officials cheered the progress from the sidelines Sunday.
"Comprehensive immigration reform is continuing to move forward in the Senate. That's a really good sign," White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer told CNN's "State of the Union" program Sunday.
The ICE and USCIS union objections could become a problem for the AFL-CIO, which enthusiastically embraced the bill this year.
Mr. Crane has accused the AFL-CIO of "threatening" those who disagreed with its stance.
The AFL-CIO has put major muscle behind this year's push for the Senate bill, having negotiated terms of the legislation's guest-worker program with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
On a conference call with reporters this month, Ana Avendano, who works on immigration issues for the AFL-CIO, said the union saw such positive signs for passage that Mr. Obama should stop most deportations now because the bill likely would give the immigrants legal status.
She also disputed a reporter's characterization of opponents' efforts to poke holes in the bill, saying the coalition behind the legislation remains strong.
"It's dangerous to treat the bill as fragile because it's not fragile. By treating it as fragile, it really gives the nativists power," she said.
SOURCE
Schumer-Rubio Amnesty Would Legalize Tens of Thousands of Offenders
The eligibility criteria established for the Schumer-Rubio amnesty, S.744, are so generous that 45 percent of the criminal aliens in ICE's recent caseload would qualify for legal status, according to the Center for Immigration Studies' examination of ICE records.
Tens of thousands of illegal immigrants with criminal convictions, and tens of thousands of aliens with arrests on top of serious immigration violations would be legalized under the provisions of the Gang of Eight bill.
The proposed amnesty would significantly curtail ICE efforts to expel immigrants who have been a threat to public safety in American communities, including gang members, drunk drivers, and other offenders considered non-serious by the bill's proponents.
For more details see: here.
"It's no wonder so many law enforcement leaders have gone public with their opposition to the Schumer-Rubio amnesty bill. This measure will legalize tens of thousands of offenders who should be deported instead. I shudder to think about how many Americans and legal immigrants will become the victims of their future crimes. The Gang of Eight seems more intent on protecting lawbreakers than protecting our communities."
While interior enforcement and removals of convicted criminals have declined very noticeably in the last two years under the Obama administration's "prosecutorial discretion" policies, ICE has continued to remove some of the aliens who are referred after arrest by state, local, and federal law enforcement agencies under the Secure Communities program.
In the most recent six-month reporting period (October 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013), ICE removed 38,547 aliens who had been identified as a result of arrest by a state, local, or other federal law enforcement agency. Of these, 55 percent (21,339) were convicted of a felony or at least three misdemeanors. The other 45 percent (17,208) were lesser offenders who would be exempt from deportation and eligible for legalization under the Schumer-Rubio amnesty.
The 15 states most affected, in terms of the number of criminal aliens who would be legalized, are, in order of magnitude: California, Texas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, New York, Washington, North Carolina, Colorado, Virginia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Nevada, and Illinois. However, Texas has by far the highest number of convicted criminals, as opposed to mere arrested immigration violators, who would be legalized. The state with the highest percentage of its criminal aliens who would qualify for amnesty is New York.
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
Immigration Officers' Union Blasts Immigration Bill
The Senate's immigration bill will raise national security risks and the Obama administration will do little more than "rubber-stamp" illegal immigrants into the program, endangering Americans, says the labor union representing the 12,000 employees who will have to approve the applications.
Kenneth Palinkas, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Council 119, which represents officers and staff at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, will deliver a damning critique of the Senate bill Monday, according to a copy of his statement obtained by The Washington Times.
His statement goes well beyond the current debate, portraying an agency intent on approving as many illegal immigrants as possible.
"The culture at USCIS encourages all applications to be approved, discouraging proper investigation into red flags and discouraging the denial of any applications," his remarks say. "USCIS has been turned into an 'approval machine.'"
The union becomes the second key Homeland Security Department labor group to oppose the bill. Its opposition dents the bill and deals a blow to the AFL-CIO — the coalition of labor unions that has put major legislative muscle behind the bill this year but is seeing its members peel off.
Mr. Palinkas says the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" senators who wrote the Senate bill never talked to the USCIS and that the legislation is riddled with special-interest loopholes and shirks security checks.
"The legislation was written with special interests — producing a bill that makes the current system worse, not better," Mr. Palinkas' remarks say. The bill "will damage public safety and national security and should be opposed by lawmakers."
That was the same complaint made by Chris Crane, chief of the union representing agents and officers of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Mr. Crane has said the Senate bill would hurt ICE agents' ability to enforce the law.
But the USCIS officers' opposition could be even more potent. They describe themselves as the "backbone" of any legalization effort — the officers who will have to review each application and decide whether it meets the standards and whether the person is a security risk.
Their warnings could carry weight with lawmakers worried about a repeat of the amnesty in 1986, when hundreds of thousands of immigrants defrauded the system. All sides say they want to avoid the same scenario.
Chief among the USCIS union's worries is the way the administration has handled President Obama's non-deportation policy for "Dreamers" — illegal immigrants who arrived as children and who the Obama administration has said should not be deported.
Last year, Mr. Obama announced a policy titled Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals that grants a two-year stay of deportation and work permits.
The latest statistics show that the administration is approving almost every application it receives: 99.2 percent of all applications decided through the end of April, according to numbers released Friday.
About 500,000 applications have been submitted in the 8 months the deferred action has been available. Of those, 291,859 have been approved while 2,352 have been denied. The rest are still in processing.
The action is seen as a test-run should Congress pass the Senate's legalization bill, which would apply to a broad swath of 11 million illegal immigrants estimated to be in the U.S.
Mr. Palinkas said the reason so many deferred action applicants are being approved is because the Obama administration has determined that they don't need in-person interviews, which "virtually guarantees widespread fraud and places public safety at risk."
The Senate Judiciary Committee is working its way through hundreds of amendments to the bill written by the Gang of Eight.
The crux of the bill gives quick legal status to illegal immigrants but withholds the full path to citizenship until the Homeland Security Department spends more on border security, puts an electronic verification system for workers into place and creates a working entry-exit system to check visitors as they come and go at airports and seaports.
Obama administration officials cheered the progress from the sidelines Sunday.
"Comprehensive immigration reform is continuing to move forward in the Senate. That's a really good sign," White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer told CNN's "State of the Union" program Sunday.
The ICE and USCIS union objections could become a problem for the AFL-CIO, which enthusiastically embraced the bill this year.
Mr. Crane has accused the AFL-CIO of "threatening" those who disagreed with its stance.
The AFL-CIO has put major muscle behind this year's push for the Senate bill, having negotiated terms of the legislation's guest-worker program with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
On a conference call with reporters this month, Ana Avendano, who works on immigration issues for the AFL-CIO, said the union saw such positive signs for passage that Mr. Obama should stop most deportations now because the bill likely would give the immigrants legal status.
She also disputed a reporter's characterization of opponents' efforts to poke holes in the bill, saying the coalition behind the legislation remains strong.
"It's dangerous to treat the bill as fragile because it's not fragile. By treating it as fragile, it really gives the nativists power," she said.
SOURCE
Schumer-Rubio Amnesty Would Legalize Tens of Thousands of Offenders
The eligibility criteria established for the Schumer-Rubio amnesty, S.744, are so generous that 45 percent of the criminal aliens in ICE's recent caseload would qualify for legal status, according to the Center for Immigration Studies' examination of ICE records.
Tens of thousands of illegal immigrants with criminal convictions, and tens of thousands of aliens with arrests on top of serious immigration violations would be legalized under the provisions of the Gang of Eight bill.
The proposed amnesty would significantly curtail ICE efforts to expel immigrants who have been a threat to public safety in American communities, including gang members, drunk drivers, and other offenders considered non-serious by the bill's proponents.
For more details see: here.
"It's no wonder so many law enforcement leaders have gone public with their opposition to the Schumer-Rubio amnesty bill. This measure will legalize tens of thousands of offenders who should be deported instead. I shudder to think about how many Americans and legal immigrants will become the victims of their future crimes. The Gang of Eight seems more intent on protecting lawbreakers than protecting our communities."
While interior enforcement and removals of convicted criminals have declined very noticeably in the last two years under the Obama administration's "prosecutorial discretion" policies, ICE has continued to remove some of the aliens who are referred after arrest by state, local, and federal law enforcement agencies under the Secure Communities program.
In the most recent six-month reporting period (October 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013), ICE removed 38,547 aliens who had been identified as a result of arrest by a state, local, or other federal law enforcement agency. Of these, 55 percent (21,339) were convicted of a felony or at least three misdemeanors. The other 45 percent (17,208) were lesser offenders who would be exempt from deportation and eligible for legalization under the Schumer-Rubio amnesty.
The 15 states most affected, in terms of the number of criminal aliens who would be legalized, are, in order of magnitude: California, Texas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, New York, Washington, North Carolina, Colorado, Virginia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Nevada, and Illinois. However, Texas has by far the highest number of convicted criminals, as opposed to mere arrested immigration violators, who would be legalized. The state with the highest percentage of its criminal aliens who would qualify for amnesty is New York.
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
Monday, May 20, 2013
Biometric database of all adult Americans hidden in immigration reform
The immigration reform measure the Senate began debating yesterday would create a national biometric database of virtually every adult in the U.S., in what privacy groups fear could be the first step to a ubiquitous national identification system.
Buried in the more than 800 pages of the bipartisan legislation (.pdf) is language mandating the creation of the innocuously-named “photo tool,” a massive federal database administered by the Department of Homeland Security and containing names, ages, Social Security numbers and photographs of everyone in the country with a driver’s license or other state-issued photo ID.
Employers would be obliged to look up every new hire in the database to verify that they match their photo.
This piece of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act is aimed at curbing employment of undocumented immigrants. But privacy advocates fear the inevitable mission creep, ending with the proof of self being required at polling places, to rent a house, buy a gun, open a bank account, acquire credit, board a plane or even attend a sporting event or log on the internet. Think of it as a government version of Foursquare, with Big Brother cataloging every check-in.
“It starts to change the relationship between the citizen and state, you do have to get permission to do things,” said Chris Calabrese, a congressional lobbyist with the American Civil Liberties Union. “More fundamentally, it could be the start of keeping a record of all things.”
For now, the legislation allows the database to be used solely for employment purposes. But historically such limitations don’t last. The Social Security card, for example, was created to track your government retirement benefits. Now you need it to purchase health insurance.
“The Social Security number itself, it’s pretty ubiquitous in your life,” Calabrese said.
David Bier, an analyst with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, agrees with the ACLU’s fears.
“The most worrying aspect is that this creates a principle of permission basically to do certain activities and it can be used to restrict activities,” he said. “It’s like a national ID system without the card.”
For the moment, the debate in the Senate Judiciary Committee is focused on the parameters of legalization for unauthorized immigrants, a border fence and legal immigration in the future.
The committee is scheduled to resume debate on the package Tuesday.
SOURCE
Immigration to Germany soars as workers fleeing crisis-hit southern Europe join waves of Poles, Bulgarians and Romanians
Immigration into Germany has soared as people from crisis-hit southern European countries join waves of Poles, Romanians and Bulgarians seeking jobs and homes in the EU's economic powerhouse.
Official figures show immigration reached a 17-year high, a sign of what Britain can expect when borders are opened to workers from new EU countries in January next year.
And as in the UK, they have fuelled a debate about new strains on the Germany's welfare system and the long term consequences for the country's economy.
In all, 1.08million people moved to Germany last year, according to the Federal Statistics Office, a 13 per cent increase on 2011.
The numbers reveal how the eurozone's debt crisis is reshaping the fabric of European society as well as individual national economies.
The biggest increases came from people moving from the stricken economies of Spain, Greece, Portugal and Italy, but the most people came from Poland (68,100), while 45,700 came from Romania, and 51,500 from from Hungary and Bulgaria.
'Until recently, Germany was an emigration country, but now people are flocking to Germany in search of work, as their home countries are mired in recession,' said Wolfgang Nagl, a labour market expert at the Ifo institute.
The number of people moving to Germany from Spain jumped 45 per cent in 2012 from a year earlier to 30,000.
Some 42,000 people moved to Germany from Italy - a 40 per cent spike - while the number of immigrants to Germany from Greece and Portugal rose 43 per cent for each country, highlighting an acceleration which started in 2010 after the Greek economy imploded.
Strains are already being felt. In Duisburg, an old industrial city on the Rhine, Roma people are accused of turning neighbourhoods into rubbish-strewn ghettos.
Mayor Soren Link claims Romanian and Bulgarian migrants are causing havoc, committing crimes and costing his authority close to o15million a year to house, feed and police.
He 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' in many places because of the economic refugees.
On the other hand, many of those from southern countries are welcomed because they contribute to the economy.
According to the Expert Council of German Foundations on Integration and Migration, immigrants are on average 10 years younger than German natives and more likely to have a university degree.
'Germany is reaping the measurable rewards of free movement thanks to skilled immigrants from other EU countries. This has received too little attention to date,' said the group's chairman Christine Langenfeld.
Immigration from Slovenia was up 62 per cent as the transition period toward free labour movement ended in May 2011. The number of Hungarians moving to Germany rose 31 per cent.
SOURCE
Biometric database of all adult Americans hidden in immigration reform
The immigration reform measure the Senate began debating yesterday would create a national biometric database of virtually every adult in the U.S., in what privacy groups fear could be the first step to a ubiquitous national identification system.
Buried in the more than 800 pages of the bipartisan legislation (.pdf) is language mandating the creation of the innocuously-named “photo tool,” a massive federal database administered by the Department of Homeland Security and containing names, ages, Social Security numbers and photographs of everyone in the country with a driver’s license or other state-issued photo ID.
Employers would be obliged to look up every new hire in the database to verify that they match their photo.
This piece of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act is aimed at curbing employment of undocumented immigrants. But privacy advocates fear the inevitable mission creep, ending with the proof of self being required at polling places, to rent a house, buy a gun, open a bank account, acquire credit, board a plane or even attend a sporting event or log on the internet. Think of it as a government version of Foursquare, with Big Brother cataloging every check-in.
“It starts to change the relationship between the citizen and state, you do have to get permission to do things,” said Chris Calabrese, a congressional lobbyist with the American Civil Liberties Union. “More fundamentally, it could be the start of keeping a record of all things.”
For now, the legislation allows the database to be used solely for employment purposes. But historically such limitations don’t last. The Social Security card, for example, was created to track your government retirement benefits. Now you need it to purchase health insurance.
“The Social Security number itself, it’s pretty ubiquitous in your life,” Calabrese said.
David Bier, an analyst with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, agrees with the ACLU’s fears.
“The most worrying aspect is that this creates a principle of permission basically to do certain activities and it can be used to restrict activities,” he said. “It’s like a national ID system without the card.”
For the moment, the debate in the Senate Judiciary Committee is focused on the parameters of legalization for unauthorized immigrants, a border fence and legal immigration in the future.
The committee is scheduled to resume debate on the package Tuesday.
SOURCE
Immigration to Germany soars as workers fleeing crisis-hit southern Europe join waves of Poles, Bulgarians and Romanians
Immigration into Germany has soared as people from crisis-hit southern European countries join waves of Poles, Romanians and Bulgarians seeking jobs and homes in the EU's economic powerhouse.
Official figures show immigration reached a 17-year high, a sign of what Britain can expect when borders are opened to workers from new EU countries in January next year.
And as in the UK, they have fuelled a debate about new strains on the Germany's welfare system and the long term consequences for the country's economy.
In all, 1.08million people moved to Germany last year, according to the Federal Statistics Office, a 13 per cent increase on 2011.
The numbers reveal how the eurozone's debt crisis is reshaping the fabric of European society as well as individual national economies.
The biggest increases came from people moving from the stricken economies of Spain, Greece, Portugal and Italy, but the most people came from Poland (68,100), while 45,700 came from Romania, and 51,500 from from Hungary and Bulgaria.
'Until recently, Germany was an emigration country, but now people are flocking to Germany in search of work, as their home countries are mired in recession,' said Wolfgang Nagl, a labour market expert at the Ifo institute.
The number of people moving to Germany from Spain jumped 45 per cent in 2012 from a year earlier to 30,000.
Some 42,000 people moved to Germany from Italy - a 40 per cent spike - while the number of immigrants to Germany from Greece and Portugal rose 43 per cent for each country, highlighting an acceleration which started in 2010 after the Greek economy imploded.
Strains are already being felt. In Duisburg, an old industrial city on the Rhine, Roma people are accused of turning neighbourhoods into rubbish-strewn ghettos.
Mayor Soren Link claims Romanian and Bulgarian migrants are causing havoc, committing crimes and costing his authority close to o15million a year to house, feed and police.
He 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' in many places because of the economic refugees.
On the other hand, many of those from southern countries are welcomed because they contribute to the economy.
According to the Expert Council of German Foundations on Integration and Migration, immigrants are on average 10 years younger than German natives and more likely to have a university degree.
'Germany is reaping the measurable rewards of free movement thanks to skilled immigrants from other EU countries. This has received too little attention to date,' said the group's chairman Christine Langenfeld.
Immigration from Slovenia was up 62 per cent as the transition period toward free labour movement ended in May 2011. The number of Hungarians moving to Germany rose 31 per cent.
SOURCE
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Jump off here for the UK: Looking like Casper the Ghost, migrants smuggled here inside a flour tanker... only to be set free by border officials and told how to claim asylum
Covered in flour, they clamber from a foreign lorry – to the amazement of other motorists on a busy motorway. This is the moment that at least nine suspected illegal immigrants emerged from their hiding place after smuggling themselves into the UK.
The gang brazenly strolled off into the English countryside. And although all were caught within minutes, almost half were immediately set free. They were even taken to a hostel, given free accommodation and told how to apply for asylum and benefits.
The graphic illustration of how Britain remains a soft touch for migrants occurred on the M26 in Kent this week. And it seems it was not a rare event. Kent Police say that for the past two years they have received on average one report a day relating to clandestine immigration.
The incident happened near the junction with the M25, as rush-hour traffic slowed to a crawl, and was photographed by a Daily Mail reader. The immigrants opened the hatch in the top of the German food tanker, which had apparently just arrived from France via the Channel Tunnel and was parked on the hard shoulder of the motorway.
They emerged one by one, then jumped down on to the ground in a shower of dust. Several witnesses called police, while the tanker driver was also apparently on the phone to the authorities as his stowaway passengers fled.
One caller told officers the flour-covered Middle Eastern fugitives would be easy to spot as they all ‘looked like Casper the Friendly Ghost’. They were picked up within the hour at the nearby village of Otford. But after Kent Police handed the nine men over to the Border Agency, four were allowed to go free.
The other five remain in detention ‘pending removal from the UK’ but may yet wage legal bids to stay.
It is believed the group had sneaked into the tanker – assumed to have been used previously for transporting flour or other foodstuffs – somewhere in France before being brought to England without the knowledge of the driver.
Lorry drivers face heavy fines for bringing illegals into the country, and the Border Agency – under fire for its failure to tackle unauthorised immigration – claims to have tightened security checks for stowaways, with specialist equipment to detect body heat or breath. But it seems the flow of people sneaking in continues regardless.
The Daily Mail reader who photographed the gang said: ‘I was just near the M25 when I saw this German lorry on the hard shoulder. The driver was talking on his mobile. Maybe he heard something inside his tanker, so stopped.
‘As I went past the tanker, I saw these people start coming out of the hatch on top. They were all covered in this white stuff that looked like flour, but seemed to be from the Middle East. They were a bit unshaven and shaggy.
‘They were not running across the fields, just walking slowly and smiling. I think they were happy because they managed to cross the border.’
Last night Kent Police said: ‘We were called at around 8.15am on Tuesday by several members of the public who reported seeing a group of men getting off a lorry on the westbound M26, near to where it joins the M25. The men were on foot, described as being covered in a white, flour-like powder.
‘Officers, assisted by sightings by members of the public, arrested nine men in the Sevenoaks area on suspicion of entering the country illegally. They have been taken to Dover and handed over to the UK Border Agency.’
The Border Agency said: ‘Immigration Enforcement officials were contacted by Kent Police after they attended an incident on the M26 on Tuesday.
‘Nine men – four Syrians, two Iranians, an Egyptian, an Iraqi and a Palestinian – were arrested at the scene on suspicion of immigration offences.’ But it admitted: ‘Four of the men – two Syrians, an Egyptian and an Iranian – have since been released on immigration bail while their cases are considered by the Home Office.
‘If they are found to have no right to remain in the UK they will face removal. The other men remain in immigration detention pending their removal from the UK.’
The Home Office said: ‘When suspected illegal immigrants found on lorries are arrested by police, we respond quickly.
‘We work closely with police to tackle illegal immigration. Where someone is found to have no legal right to remain in the UK we will take action to remove them.’
Last night a Home Office spokesman refused to discuss the nine arrivals in detail but suggested that the four who were set free would have been given transport to a hostel where they would be housed rent-free. They would be given information on how to apply for benefits for asylum seekers, which would start with cash payments of £36 a week, and be told to check in regularly to dissuade them from absconding again.
The Home Office spokesman claimed to have no figures for the number of clandestine arrivals caught in Kent – saying immigration control centres were in France and Belgium, not England.
SOURCE
Immigrants now make up 13% of the British population as it’s revealed more Europeans arrived in the UK in the past decade than in the previous 50 years
The number of migrants in England and Wales has doubled over the past decade, census figures have revealed.
They now make up one in eight of the population after more arrived between 2001 and 2011 than in the previous five decades put together.
The number living in the country is now 7.5million.
More than half of those arrived over the ten years since 2001, according to a national census analysis published yesterday.
The figures show 3.8million people came to Britain from abroad in the period – more than the 3.7million who came during the previous 50 years.
The breakdown comes from an analysis of the ten-yearly census carried out in March 2011.
The figures have already revealed that at the time there were almost half a million more people living in the country than previously suspected
The latest analysis provides a fresh illustration of the impact of the wave of immigration under the governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
They come in the week former minister Lord Mandelson acknowledged the scale of migration encouraged by Labour had made life difficult for people who are now hard-pressed to find or keep jobs.
He said that in 2004 ‘we were sending out search parties for people to come’.
Sir Andrew Green of MigrationWatch said: ‘It is simply astonishing that the number of immigrants in the country should have been allowed to double in ten years.’
There were more than 4.6million people born abroad and officially considered to be immigrants in 2001.
Around 900,000 of them died, returned to their countries of origin, or moved on elsewhere over the subsequent decade.
According to the breakdown, nearly a third of the current immigrant population of the country arrived in just five years between 2004 and 2009 – the years after Poland and seven other Eastern European countries joined the EU.
About 2.4million people came to Britain over the five-year period, during which Labour ministers had predicted that Eastern European migrants would come at the rate of 13,000 a year.
The decade after 2001 also saw high immigration from countries outside Europe.
‘Over half of all residents born in Nigeria, South Africa and the United States arrived since 2001,’ the ONS report said.
‘For residents born in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh the decade 2001-2011 also had the highest percentage of arrivals.
‘By contrast 60 per cent of Jamaican-born residents arrived before 1981.’
SOURCE
May 17, 2013
Rep. Steve King: Gang of 8 Immigration Bill `Destroys the Rule of Law'
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said immigration reform being considered in the Senate "destroys the rule of law" by granting amnesty to illegal aliens.
"It destroys the rule of law," King said at a Tuesday press conference outside Capitol Hill. "And the rule of law is an essential pillar of American exceptionalism, many people come here because we have equal justice under the law."
"If we reward people who break the law, they're unlikely to raise their children to respect it," he said. "The rule of law, at least with regard to immigration, would be destroyed."
"And the promise that the law would be enforced from this point forward? I don't know how we can listen to that with a straight face," King said.
The "Gang of Eight" bill, brought forth by a bipartisan group of Senators, including Florida Republican Marco Rubio, is currently in mark-up in the Judiciary Committee. The bill (S. 744) would give a pathway to citizenship for an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants. It also requires the Department of Homeland Security to secure the border within five years-but if not, the legislation will set up a commission to address the issue.
King and other House Republicans said on Monday that they offered "another viewpoint" from Republicans who believe amnesty is necessary for the GOP following the 2012 election. He said the bill is "being stampeded" without enough scrutiny.
"The people on the other side of the aisle, they want amnesty for a number of reasons, the biggest one it's a big political boost for them," King said. "I don't understand why Republicans think it's a good idea, but somehow they've bought into this idea."
He also said the bill is a "terrible idea" from an economic perspective. "At no stage in their lives does the universe of those who would receive amnesty make a net financial contribution to this country," King said. "At no stage. Not a single year."
A member of the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, King cited the Heritage Foundation's recent report by Robert Rector and Jason Richwine that found granting amnesty to illegal immigrants would add $6.3 trillion to the federal deficit and $9.4 trillion in government benefits to the newly minted citizens.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) has also warned that the bill gives Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano "virtually unlimited discretion to waiver" prohibitions on obtaining legal status, such as criminal activity or previous deportation.
"The big question I would pose out there is, why?" King said. "Why is that 844-page bill, why is it good for America and Americans?"
"I can't get that answer on why it's good for us," he said
SOURCE
Immigration Has Little Impact on U.S. Aging
New Census projections show small effect on working-age share of population
The Census Bureau has released new projections which examine the impact of different levels of immigration on the United States. The projections, analyzed by the Center for Immigration Studies, show what demographers have long known: immigration has only a small impact on slowing the aging of America. Many promoters of the Gang of Eight immigration bill, which roughly doubles legal immigration, argue it's needed to forestall aging, but the Bureau's new projections show immigration's impact is slight.
The Center's Director of Research, Steven Camarota, observes, "Many worry that there won't be enough workers in the future to support the economy or pay for government. While immigrants often arrive young, and have somewhat larger families than natives, immigrants age just like everyone else, and the differences with natives are not large enough to fundamentally alter the nation's age structure. The debate over immigration should focus on other areas where it actually has a significant effect."
The tables released by the Census Bureau show:
The Bureau's high-immigration projection shows that if net immigration totals 67 million by 2060, a total of 57.3% of the U.S. population will be of working age (18 to 64). The low-immigration projection (35 million immigrants by 2060) shows a working-age share of 56.4%.
The high-immigration projection assumes 67 million arrivals by 2060, roughly double the 35 million that the low projection assumes. Yet the working-age (18-64) share of the population increases by less than one percentage point.
Turning to the 65 and older population, the new projections also show immigration has only a small impact. The high-immigration projections show that 21.3% of the population would be of retirement age in 2060, compared to 22.6% under the low-immigration projection.
Mathematically, immigration levels simply cannot have a large impact on aging. An important 1992 article in Demography, the leading academic journal in the field, points out that "constant inflows of immigrants, even at relatively young ages, do not necessarily rejuvenate low-fertility populations. In fact, immigration may even contribute to population aging."
The Census Bureau concluded in projections done in 2000 that immigration is a "highly inefficient" means for increasing the percentage of the population that is of working-age in the long run.
To understand why immigration has a small impact on aging it is helpful to remember that although many immigrants arrive young, they grow older like everyone else. As a result, in 2012 the average age of an immigrant was 43 years compared to 37 years for natives.
It is also important to note that the Total Fertility Rate in the United States (for immigrants and the native-born together) is 1.98 children per women (ages 15-49). Without immigrants, the rate is 1.88. So immigrants do increase the nation's TFR, but only by .1 children on average.
The Census Bureau's new projections are here
Table 17 shows the net immigration levels under the Bureau's high and low immigration assumptions. Table 3 shows the share of the population to 2060 that is of working age - ages 18 through 64 - under the Bureau's high- and low-immigration projections.
The 1992 Demography article mentioned above was authored by Carl P. Schmertmann. It is entitled: "Immigrants' Ages and the Structure of Stationary Populations with Below-Replacement Fertility", (Vol. 29, No. 4). The 2000 Census Bureau population projections mentioned above can be found here (PDF). The average age figures for immigrants and natives discussed above is from the public use file of the Annual Social and Economic Supplement of the Current Population Survey from 2012. The Total Fertility Rate discussed above is from the public use file of the 2011 American Community Survey, also collected by the Census Bureau.
View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony and commentary here
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
Jump off here for the UK: Looking like Casper the Ghost, migrants smuggled here inside a flour tanker... only to be set free by border officials and told how to claim asylum
Covered in flour, they clamber from a foreign lorry – to the amazement of other motorists on a busy motorway. This is the moment that at least nine suspected illegal immigrants emerged from their hiding place after smuggling themselves into the UK.
The gang brazenly strolled off into the English countryside. And although all were caught within minutes, almost half were immediately set free. They were even taken to a hostel, given free accommodation and told how to apply for asylum and benefits.
The graphic illustration of how Britain remains a soft touch for migrants occurred on the M26 in Kent this week. And it seems it was not a rare event. Kent Police say that for the past two years they have received on average one report a day relating to clandestine immigration.
The incident happened near the junction with the M25, as rush-hour traffic slowed to a crawl, and was photographed by a Daily Mail reader. The immigrants opened the hatch in the top of the German food tanker, which had apparently just arrived from France via the Channel Tunnel and was parked on the hard shoulder of the motorway.
They emerged one by one, then jumped down on to the ground in a shower of dust. Several witnesses called police, while the tanker driver was also apparently on the phone to the authorities as his stowaway passengers fled.
One caller told officers the flour-covered Middle Eastern fugitives would be easy to spot as they all ‘looked like Casper the Friendly Ghost’. They were picked up within the hour at the nearby village of Otford. But after Kent Police handed the nine men over to the Border Agency, four were allowed to go free.
The other five remain in detention ‘pending removal from the UK’ but may yet wage legal bids to stay.
It is believed the group had sneaked into the tanker – assumed to have been used previously for transporting flour or other foodstuffs – somewhere in France before being brought to England without the knowledge of the driver.
Lorry drivers face heavy fines for bringing illegals into the country, and the Border Agency – under fire for its failure to tackle unauthorised immigration – claims to have tightened security checks for stowaways, with specialist equipment to detect body heat or breath. But it seems the flow of people sneaking in continues regardless.
The Daily Mail reader who photographed the gang said: ‘I was just near the M25 when I saw this German lorry on the hard shoulder. The driver was talking on his mobile. Maybe he heard something inside his tanker, so stopped.
‘As I went past the tanker, I saw these people start coming out of the hatch on top. They were all covered in this white stuff that looked like flour, but seemed to be from the Middle East. They were a bit unshaven and shaggy.
‘They were not running across the fields, just walking slowly and smiling. I think they were happy because they managed to cross the border.’
Last night Kent Police said: ‘We were called at around 8.15am on Tuesday by several members of the public who reported seeing a group of men getting off a lorry on the westbound M26, near to where it joins the M25. The men were on foot, described as being covered in a white, flour-like powder.
‘Officers, assisted by sightings by members of the public, arrested nine men in the Sevenoaks area on suspicion of entering the country illegally. They have been taken to Dover and handed over to the UK Border Agency.’
The Border Agency said: ‘Immigration Enforcement officials were contacted by Kent Police after they attended an incident on the M26 on Tuesday.
‘Nine men – four Syrians, two Iranians, an Egyptian, an Iraqi and a Palestinian – were arrested at the scene on suspicion of immigration offences.’ But it admitted: ‘Four of the men – two Syrians, an Egyptian and an Iranian – have since been released on immigration bail while their cases are considered by the Home Office.
‘If they are found to have no right to remain in the UK they will face removal. The other men remain in immigration detention pending their removal from the UK.’
The Home Office said: ‘When suspected illegal immigrants found on lorries are arrested by police, we respond quickly.
‘We work closely with police to tackle illegal immigration. Where someone is found to have no legal right to remain in the UK we will take action to remove them.’
Last night a Home Office spokesman refused to discuss the nine arrivals in detail but suggested that the four who were set free would have been given transport to a hostel where they would be housed rent-free. They would be given information on how to apply for benefits for asylum seekers, which would start with cash payments of £36 a week, and be told to check in regularly to dissuade them from absconding again.
The Home Office spokesman claimed to have no figures for the number of clandestine arrivals caught in Kent – saying immigration control centres were in France and Belgium, not England.
SOURCE
Immigrants now make up 13% of the British population as it’s revealed more Europeans arrived in the UK in the past decade than in the previous 50 years
The number of migrants in England and Wales has doubled over the past decade, census figures have revealed.
They now make up one in eight of the population after more arrived between 2001 and 2011 than in the previous five decades put together.
The number living in the country is now 7.5million.
More than half of those arrived over the ten years since 2001, according to a national census analysis published yesterday.
The figures show 3.8million people came to Britain from abroad in the period – more than the 3.7million who came during the previous 50 years.
The breakdown comes from an analysis of the ten-yearly census carried out in March 2011.
The figures have already revealed that at the time there were almost half a million more people living in the country than previously suspected
The latest analysis provides a fresh illustration of the impact of the wave of immigration under the governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
They come in the week former minister Lord Mandelson acknowledged the scale of migration encouraged by Labour had made life difficult for people who are now hard-pressed to find or keep jobs.
He said that in 2004 ‘we were sending out search parties for people to come’.
Sir Andrew Green of MigrationWatch said: ‘It is simply astonishing that the number of immigrants in the country should have been allowed to double in ten years.’
There were more than 4.6million people born abroad and officially considered to be immigrants in 2001.
Around 900,000 of them died, returned to their countries of origin, or moved on elsewhere over the subsequent decade.
According to the breakdown, nearly a third of the current immigrant population of the country arrived in just five years between 2004 and 2009 – the years after Poland and seven other Eastern European countries joined the EU.
About 2.4million people came to Britain over the five-year period, during which Labour ministers had predicted that Eastern European migrants would come at the rate of 13,000 a year.
The decade after 2001 also saw high immigration from countries outside Europe.
‘Over half of all residents born in Nigeria, South Africa and the United States arrived since 2001,’ the ONS report said.
‘For residents born in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh the decade 2001-2011 also had the highest percentage of arrivals.
‘By contrast 60 per cent of Jamaican-born residents arrived before 1981.’
SOURCE
May 17, 2013
Rep. Steve King: Gang of 8 Immigration Bill `Destroys the Rule of Law'
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said immigration reform being considered in the Senate "destroys the rule of law" by granting amnesty to illegal aliens.
"It destroys the rule of law," King said at a Tuesday press conference outside Capitol Hill. "And the rule of law is an essential pillar of American exceptionalism, many people come here because we have equal justice under the law."
"If we reward people who break the law, they're unlikely to raise their children to respect it," he said. "The rule of law, at least with regard to immigration, would be destroyed."
"And the promise that the law would be enforced from this point forward? I don't know how we can listen to that with a straight face," King said.
The "Gang of Eight" bill, brought forth by a bipartisan group of Senators, including Florida Republican Marco Rubio, is currently in mark-up in the Judiciary Committee. The bill (S. 744) would give a pathway to citizenship for an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants. It also requires the Department of Homeland Security to secure the border within five years-but if not, the legislation will set up a commission to address the issue.
King and other House Republicans said on Monday that they offered "another viewpoint" from Republicans who believe amnesty is necessary for the GOP following the 2012 election. He said the bill is "being stampeded" without enough scrutiny.
"The people on the other side of the aisle, they want amnesty for a number of reasons, the biggest one it's a big political boost for them," King said. "I don't understand why Republicans think it's a good idea, but somehow they've bought into this idea."
He also said the bill is a "terrible idea" from an economic perspective. "At no stage in their lives does the universe of those who would receive amnesty make a net financial contribution to this country," King said. "At no stage. Not a single year."
A member of the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, King cited the Heritage Foundation's recent report by Robert Rector and Jason Richwine that found granting amnesty to illegal immigrants would add $6.3 trillion to the federal deficit and $9.4 trillion in government benefits to the newly minted citizens.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) has also warned that the bill gives Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano "virtually unlimited discretion to waiver" prohibitions on obtaining legal status, such as criminal activity or previous deportation.
"The big question I would pose out there is, why?" King said. "Why is that 844-page bill, why is it good for America and Americans?"
"I can't get that answer on why it's good for us," he said
SOURCE
Immigration Has Little Impact on U.S. Aging
New Census projections show small effect on working-age share of population
The Census Bureau has released new projections which examine the impact of different levels of immigration on the United States. The projections, analyzed by the Center for Immigration Studies, show what demographers have long known: immigration has only a small impact on slowing the aging of America. Many promoters of the Gang of Eight immigration bill, which roughly doubles legal immigration, argue it's needed to forestall aging, but the Bureau's new projections show immigration's impact is slight.
The Center's Director of Research, Steven Camarota, observes, "Many worry that there won't be enough workers in the future to support the economy or pay for government. While immigrants often arrive young, and have somewhat larger families than natives, immigrants age just like everyone else, and the differences with natives are not large enough to fundamentally alter the nation's age structure. The debate over immigration should focus on other areas where it actually has a significant effect."
The tables released by the Census Bureau show:
The Bureau's high-immigration projection shows that if net immigration totals 67 million by 2060, a total of 57.3% of the U.S. population will be of working age (18 to 64). The low-immigration projection (35 million immigrants by 2060) shows a working-age share of 56.4%.
The high-immigration projection assumes 67 million arrivals by 2060, roughly double the 35 million that the low projection assumes. Yet the working-age (18-64) share of the population increases by less than one percentage point.
Turning to the 65 and older population, the new projections also show immigration has only a small impact. The high-immigration projections show that 21.3% of the population would be of retirement age in 2060, compared to 22.6% under the low-immigration projection.
Mathematically, immigration levels simply cannot have a large impact on aging. An important 1992 article in Demography, the leading academic journal in the field, points out that "constant inflows of immigrants, even at relatively young ages, do not necessarily rejuvenate low-fertility populations. In fact, immigration may even contribute to population aging."
The Census Bureau concluded in projections done in 2000 that immigration is a "highly inefficient" means for increasing the percentage of the population that is of working-age in the long run.
To understand why immigration has a small impact on aging it is helpful to remember that although many immigrants arrive young, they grow older like everyone else. As a result, in 2012 the average age of an immigrant was 43 years compared to 37 years for natives.
It is also important to note that the Total Fertility Rate in the United States (for immigrants and the native-born together) is 1.98 children per women (ages 15-49). Without immigrants, the rate is 1.88. So immigrants do increase the nation's TFR, but only by .1 children on average.
The Census Bureau's new projections are here
Table 17 shows the net immigration levels under the Bureau's high and low immigration assumptions. Table 3 shows the share of the population to 2060 that is of working age - ages 18 through 64 - under the Bureau's high- and low-immigration projections.
The 1992 Demography article mentioned above was authored by Carl P. Schmertmann. It is entitled: "Immigrants' Ages and the Structure of Stationary Populations with Below-Replacement Fertility", (Vol. 29, No. 4). The 2000 Census Bureau population projections mentioned above can be found here (PDF). The average age figures for immigrants and natives discussed above is from the public use file of the Annual Social and Economic Supplement of the Current Population Survey from 2012. The Total Fertility Rate discussed above is from the public use file of the 2011 American Community Survey, also collected by the Census Bureau.
View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony and commentary here
The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: center@cis.org. Contact: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@cis.org. The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Marco Rubio's Deceptive Amnesty Ad
CIS fact-checks claims about Senate immigration bill
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) appears in a new television advertisement designed to promote the immigration bill currently being debated in the Senate. The 60-second spot calls the proposal "conservative immigration reform" and is intended to make amnesty appealing to Republican voters. Partisan politics aside, the ad is misleading on a number of counts, as outlined in a new Center for Immigration Studies analysis.
The ad was produced by "Americans for a Conservative Direction", the Republican front group of the "FWD.us" lobbying organization, founded by Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg. The ad includes a number of misleading claims, including that the bill has "tough border triggers" and "no giveaways for law breakers". At one point, Sen. Rubio claims the bill "puts in place the toughest enforcement measures in the history of the United States, potentially in the world".
The CIS analysis of the ad is here
"Rubio makes many strong claims in the TV ad, but he's selling a bill that doesn't exist," said Jon Feere, Legal Policy Analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies. "Some of his claims are simply incorrect, while some of the provisions he highlights are swallowed by the bill's many waivers, exemptions, and grants of discretion to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano."
The CIS analysis examines each statement in the ad and concludes that the amnesty bill currently being debated by the Senate's "Gang of Eight" is far from the "tough line on immigration" that Rubio claims it to be.
View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony and commentary here.
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
The Fiscal Impact of Immigration
Heritage's finding that less-educated immigrants are a large fiscal drain is incontrovertible
The Heritage Foundation's recent study authored by Robert Rector, a leading expert on immigration and welfare, clarifies the Schumer-Rubio bill's fiscal cost to the American public. The Center for Immigration Studies' analysis of the study finds that its basic conclusion that less-educated immigrants are a large fiscal drain is incontrovertible.
Heritage determined that the current fiscal drain (services used minus taxes paid) from illegal-immigrant households was $55 billion a year, and if the immigrants receive permanent legal status it would rise to $106 billion a year. Over the lifetime of illegal immigrants, who are only 34 years old on average, the total price tag would be $6.5 trillion.
This imbalance results not from an unwillingness to work on the part of illegal immigrants. Rather, it stems from the fact that adult illegal immigrants only have about 10 years of schooling on average. In the modern American economy, those with relatively little education (whether immigrant or native-born) earn modest wages on average and make modest tax contributions. At the same time, they tend to use a good deal in welfare and other means-tested programs. As a group, the less-educated use more in services than they pay in taxes. Anyone who argues otherwise has simply not looked at the data the government collects on this subject.
"Our analysis of Census Bureau data shows that even less-educated immigrants who have been in the country for 20 years have high rates of welfare use and low income tax liability," said Dr. Steven Camarota, the Center's Director of Research. "If the size and cost of government were cut in half, then the fiscal outcome might be different. But until that happens, illegal immigrants as a group will be a significant net fiscal drain."
For a more detailed analysis see: here
Proponents of amnesty, led by the Cato Institute, have offered very weak arguments to attack Heritage. Some argue that Rector's methodology is non-standard because it looks at taxes paid and services used by households rather than individuals. In fact, this is the standard way to look at the issue. Critics also argue U.S.-born children should not be counted. But the impact must include both the immigrant and the family he brings or acquires, as the children are here only because their parents have been allowed into the country. It is worth noting that the National Research Council (NRC) study in 1997 did a fiscal analysis that excluded U.S.-born children, and it still found that less educated immigrants were a large fiscal drain by themselves.
The Schumer-Rubio bill may limit welfare access for the first 10 years after legalization, but the Heritage study shows that illegal-immigrant households already receive about $4,500 a year on average from means-tested programs. The U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants have access to all programs, the ban does not apply to every program, and the administration of these programs is far from airtight. Further, when the 10-year window expires, the costs explode.
Dr. Camarota emphasizes that there is no evidence that the economic benefits gained from having access to low-skilled immigrant labor offset the fiscal costs. "The NRC study, which was authored by many of the leading economists in the field, is the only study of which I am aware that tried to measure both the economic impact and the fiscal impact of all immigrants," notes Dr. Camarota. "That study found that the economic gain to the native-born from all immigrants was smaller than the fiscal drain created by all immigrant households. And that finding was for all immigrants, not just illegal immigrants, who are much less educated and poorer on average than immigrants generally."
The nation's top immigration economist, Harvard's George Borjas, observes, "Immigration is primarily a redistributive policy." To assume that immigration creates large gains to natives, one must invent benefits that are not demonstrated in the academic literature. Immigration makes the economy larger but, as Borjas' work shows, of that economic growth, "97.8 percent goes to the immigrants themselves in the form of wages and benefits."
View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony and commentary here
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
Marco Rubio's Deceptive Amnesty Ad
CIS fact-checks claims about Senate immigration bill
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) appears in a new television advertisement designed to promote the immigration bill currently being debated in the Senate. The 60-second spot calls the proposal "conservative immigration reform" and is intended to make amnesty appealing to Republican voters. Partisan politics aside, the ad is misleading on a number of counts, as outlined in a new Center for Immigration Studies analysis.
The ad was produced by "Americans for a Conservative Direction", the Republican front group of the "FWD.us" lobbying organization, founded by Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg. The ad includes a number of misleading claims, including that the bill has "tough border triggers" and "no giveaways for law breakers". At one point, Sen. Rubio claims the bill "puts in place the toughest enforcement measures in the history of the United States, potentially in the world".
The CIS analysis of the ad is here
"Rubio makes many strong claims in the TV ad, but he's selling a bill that doesn't exist," said Jon Feere, Legal Policy Analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies. "Some of his claims are simply incorrect, while some of the provisions he highlights are swallowed by the bill's many waivers, exemptions, and grants of discretion to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano."
The CIS analysis examines each statement in the ad and concludes that the amnesty bill currently being debated by the Senate's "Gang of Eight" is far from the "tough line on immigration" that Rubio claims it to be.
View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony and commentary here.
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
The Fiscal Impact of Immigration
Heritage's finding that less-educated immigrants are a large fiscal drain is incontrovertible
The Heritage Foundation's recent study authored by Robert Rector, a leading expert on immigration and welfare, clarifies the Schumer-Rubio bill's fiscal cost to the American public. The Center for Immigration Studies' analysis of the study finds that its basic conclusion that less-educated immigrants are a large fiscal drain is incontrovertible.
Heritage determined that the current fiscal drain (services used minus taxes paid) from illegal-immigrant households was $55 billion a year, and if the immigrants receive permanent legal status it would rise to $106 billion a year. Over the lifetime of illegal immigrants, who are only 34 years old on average, the total price tag would be $6.5 trillion.
This imbalance results not from an unwillingness to work on the part of illegal immigrants. Rather, it stems from the fact that adult illegal immigrants only have about 10 years of schooling on average. In the modern American economy, those with relatively little education (whether immigrant or native-born) earn modest wages on average and make modest tax contributions. At the same time, they tend to use a good deal in welfare and other means-tested programs. As a group, the less-educated use more in services than they pay in taxes. Anyone who argues otherwise has simply not looked at the data the government collects on this subject.
"Our analysis of Census Bureau data shows that even less-educated immigrants who have been in the country for 20 years have high rates of welfare use and low income tax liability," said Dr. Steven Camarota, the Center's Director of Research. "If the size and cost of government were cut in half, then the fiscal outcome might be different. But until that happens, illegal immigrants as a group will be a significant net fiscal drain."
For a more detailed analysis see: here
Proponents of amnesty, led by the Cato Institute, have offered very weak arguments to attack Heritage. Some argue that Rector's methodology is non-standard because it looks at taxes paid and services used by households rather than individuals. In fact, this is the standard way to look at the issue. Critics also argue U.S.-born children should not be counted. But the impact must include both the immigrant and the family he brings or acquires, as the children are here only because their parents have been allowed into the country. It is worth noting that the National Research Council (NRC) study in 1997 did a fiscal analysis that excluded U.S.-born children, and it still found that less educated immigrants were a large fiscal drain by themselves.
The Schumer-Rubio bill may limit welfare access for the first 10 years after legalization, but the Heritage study shows that illegal-immigrant households already receive about $4,500 a year on average from means-tested programs. The U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants have access to all programs, the ban does not apply to every program, and the administration of these programs is far from airtight. Further, when the 10-year window expires, the costs explode.
Dr. Camarota emphasizes that there is no evidence that the economic benefits gained from having access to low-skilled immigrant labor offset the fiscal costs. "The NRC study, which was authored by many of the leading economists in the field, is the only study of which I am aware that tried to measure both the economic impact and the fiscal impact of all immigrants," notes Dr. Camarota. "That study found that the economic gain to the native-born from all immigrants was smaller than the fiscal drain created by all immigrant households. And that finding was for all immigrants, not just illegal immigrants, who are much less educated and poorer on average than immigrants generally."
The nation's top immigration economist, Harvard's George Borjas, observes, "Immigration is primarily a redistributive policy." To assume that immigration creates large gains to natives, one must invent benefits that are not demonstrated in the academic literature. Immigration makes the economy larger but, as Borjas' work shows, of that economic growth, "97.8 percent goes to the immigrants themselves in the form of wages and benefits."
View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony and commentary here
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
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Immigrants? We sent out search parties to get them to come... and made it hard for Britons to get work, says Mandelson
Labour sent out ‘search parties’ for immigrants to get them to come to the UK, Lord Mandelson has admitted.
In a stunning confirmation that the Blair and Brown governments deliberately engineered mass immigration, the former Cabinet Minister and spin doctor said New Labour sought out foreign workers.
He also conceded that the influx of arrivals meant the party’s traditional supporters are now unable to find work.
By contrast, Labour leader Ed Miliband has said his party got it wrong on immigration but has refused to admit it was too high under Labour.
Between 1997 and 2010, net migration to Britain totalled more than 2.2million, more than twice the population of Birmingham.
The annual net figure quadrupled under Labour from 48,000 people in 1997 to 198,000 by 2009.
Lord Mandelson’s remarks come three years after Labour officials denied claims by former adviser Andrew Neather that they deliberately encouraged immigration in order to change the make-up of Britain.
Mr Neather said the policy was designed to ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity’. He said there was ‘a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural’.
Senior Labour figures have been reluctant to concede they deliberately engineered the influx of migrants who have transformed communities over the past decade.
But, at a rally for the Blairite think-tank Progress, Lord Mandelson said: ‘In 2004 when as a Labour government, we were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work, we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them, in some cases, to take up work in this country.’
He said: ‘The problem has grown during the period of economic stagnation over the last five, six years.’
When Labour encouraged new arrivals ‘we were almost ... a full employment economy’ but, he admitted: ‘The situation is different obviously now.
‘We have to just realise... entry to the labour market of many people of non-British origin is hard for people who are finding it very difficult to find jobs, who find it hard to keep jobs.
‘For these people immigration tends to loom large in their lives and in their worlds, now that is an inescapable fact, and we have to understand it, address it, engage with people in discussion about it.’
Mr Mandelson's admission that New Labour sought out foreign workers is a stunning confirmation that governments led by Tony Blair, left, and Gordon Brown, right, deliberately engineered mass immigration
His words are far franker than Mr Miliband’s. Asked earlier this month whether ‘too many people were allowed to come’, he replied: ‘I wouldn’t put it that way, no.’
Tory chairman Grant Shapps said: ‘Peter Mandelson’s candid admission that Labour were purposefully letting immigration spiral out of control when in government is yet another damning indictment on their record on immigration.’
Sir Andrew Green of Migration Watch said: ‘This is an astonishing admission from the highest level that Labour’s mass immigration policy was entirely deliberate.
‘It will be a very long time before their own working class supporters thank them for the enormous changes that have been imposed on their communities.’
Gordon Brown yesterday accused the Tories of emulating Enoch Powell by using immigration to head off the growing electoral threat from UKIP.
Mr Powell’s 1968 ‘rivers of blood’ speech ignited huge controversy in the debate on immigration.
Former prime minister Mr Brown – who once called for ‘British jobs for British workers’ – told a pro-union rally in Glasgow: ‘A party that was anti-Powellite on immigration is now becoming very close to being Powellite on that issue.’
SOURCE
A fifth of murder and rape suspects in Britain born abroad
A fifth of rape and murder suspects in the UK last year were foreign nationals. Figures showed a total of 93 people were charged with murder and 632 with rape.
The statistics of suspects born abroad compares to the overall numbers of 555 murder suspects and 3,436 murder suspects.
A survey of 43 English and Welsh police forces showed that just one failed to record any rape or murder charges against a non-UK citizen, The Sun reported.
More than a third of the 210 rape suspects charged in London last year were immigrants. Out of the 180 murder suspects in the capital 41 were from foreign. In the capital 24 were from Jamaica, 14 from Nigeria, 13 from Poland and ten from Portugal.
In Suffolk, 75 per cent of suspects charged with murder were immigrants.
Cumbria had a similarly high rate, with 63 per cent of murder suspects being foreigners.
But in rural Wales, Dyfed-Powys Police had no record of a rape or murder charge against a foreigner, The Sun reported.
Hampshire refused to reveal nationalities of eight foreigners charged with rape, explaining it would lead to ethnic victimisation.
The figures did not reveal how many were convicted or cleared, The Sun reported.
The latest YouGov survey showed 57 per cent of people named immigration as being among the top three issues facing the country, its highest level since June 2010 and up 11 per cent on a year ago.
The Prime Minister and his deputy promised an Immigration Bill to 'clamp down on those from overseas who abuse our public services' in the Queen's Speech last week.
Extra focus has fallen on plans to deal with the impact of immigration in the wake of the rise of UKIP, which took almost one in four votes in last week’s local elections.
The Immigration Bill aims to build on the coalition’s success, which has already seen the number of migrants fall by a third since 2010.
Figures in February showed that one in 12 people blames rape victims for their own fate if they flirt with their attacker or if they are drunk at the time they are raped, official figures reveal.
Around 2million people suffered domestic abuse in England or Wales last year, according to statistics - down by half since 1995.
The group most at risk from sexual assault and violence consists of women under the age of 25, with women who have separated from their husbands also disproportionately likely to be victims.
Figures from the Office for National Statistics suggest that six per cent of people think rape victims are to blame when they are drunk, and eight per cent criticise victims who are under the influence of drugs.
SOURCE
Immigrants? We sent out search parties to get them to come... and made it hard for Britons to get work, says Mandelson
Labour sent out ‘search parties’ for immigrants to get them to come to the UK, Lord Mandelson has admitted.
In a stunning confirmation that the Blair and Brown governments deliberately engineered mass immigration, the former Cabinet Minister and spin doctor said New Labour sought out foreign workers.
He also conceded that the influx of arrivals meant the party’s traditional supporters are now unable to find work.
By contrast, Labour leader Ed Miliband has said his party got it wrong on immigration but has refused to admit it was too high under Labour.
Between 1997 and 2010, net migration to Britain totalled more than 2.2million, more than twice the population of Birmingham.
The annual net figure quadrupled under Labour from 48,000 people in 1997 to 198,000 by 2009.
Lord Mandelson’s remarks come three years after Labour officials denied claims by former adviser Andrew Neather that they deliberately encouraged immigration in order to change the make-up of Britain.
Mr Neather said the policy was designed to ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity’. He said there was ‘a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural’.
Senior Labour figures have been reluctant to concede they deliberately engineered the influx of migrants who have transformed communities over the past decade.
But, at a rally for the Blairite think-tank Progress, Lord Mandelson said: ‘In 2004 when as a Labour government, we were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work, we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them, in some cases, to take up work in this country.’
He said: ‘The problem has grown during the period of economic stagnation over the last five, six years.’
When Labour encouraged new arrivals ‘we were almost ... a full employment economy’ but, he admitted: ‘The situation is different obviously now.
‘We have to just realise... entry to the labour market of many people of non-British origin is hard for people who are finding it very difficult to find jobs, who find it hard to keep jobs.
‘For these people immigration tends to loom large in their lives and in their worlds, now that is an inescapable fact, and we have to understand it, address it, engage with people in discussion about it.’
Mr Mandelson's admission that New Labour sought out foreign workers is a stunning confirmation that governments led by Tony Blair, left, and Gordon Brown, right, deliberately engineered mass immigration
His words are far franker than Mr Miliband’s. Asked earlier this month whether ‘too many people were allowed to come’, he replied: ‘I wouldn’t put it that way, no.’
Tory chairman Grant Shapps said: ‘Peter Mandelson’s candid admission that Labour were purposefully letting immigration spiral out of control when in government is yet another damning indictment on their record on immigration.’
Sir Andrew Green of Migration Watch said: ‘This is an astonishing admission from the highest level that Labour’s mass immigration policy was entirely deliberate.
‘It will be a very long time before their own working class supporters thank them for the enormous changes that have been imposed on their communities.’
Gordon Brown yesterday accused the Tories of emulating Enoch Powell by using immigration to head off the growing electoral threat from UKIP.
Mr Powell’s 1968 ‘rivers of blood’ speech ignited huge controversy in the debate on immigration.
Former prime minister Mr Brown – who once called for ‘British jobs for British workers’ – told a pro-union rally in Glasgow: ‘A party that was anti-Powellite on immigration is now becoming very close to being Powellite on that issue.’
SOURCE
A fifth of murder and rape suspects in Britain born abroad
A fifth of rape and murder suspects in the UK last year were foreign nationals. Figures showed a total of 93 people were charged with murder and 632 with rape.
The statistics of suspects born abroad compares to the overall numbers of 555 murder suspects and 3,436 murder suspects.
A survey of 43 English and Welsh police forces showed that just one failed to record any rape or murder charges against a non-UK citizen, The Sun reported.
More than a third of the 210 rape suspects charged in London last year were immigrants. Out of the 180 murder suspects in the capital 41 were from foreign. In the capital 24 were from Jamaica, 14 from Nigeria, 13 from Poland and ten from Portugal.
In Suffolk, 75 per cent of suspects charged with murder were immigrants.
Cumbria had a similarly high rate, with 63 per cent of murder suspects being foreigners.
But in rural Wales, Dyfed-Powys Police had no record of a rape or murder charge against a foreigner, The Sun reported.
Hampshire refused to reveal nationalities of eight foreigners charged with rape, explaining it would lead to ethnic victimisation.
The figures did not reveal how many were convicted or cleared, The Sun reported.
The latest YouGov survey showed 57 per cent of people named immigration as being among the top three issues facing the country, its highest level since June 2010 and up 11 per cent on a year ago.
The Prime Minister and his deputy promised an Immigration Bill to 'clamp down on those from overseas who abuse our public services' in the Queen's Speech last week.
Extra focus has fallen on plans to deal with the impact of immigration in the wake of the rise of UKIP, which took almost one in four votes in last week’s local elections.
The Immigration Bill aims to build on the coalition’s success, which has already seen the number of migrants fall by a third since 2010.
Figures in February showed that one in 12 people blames rape victims for their own fate if they flirt with their attacker or if they are drunk at the time they are raped, official figures reveal.
Around 2million people suffered domestic abuse in England or Wales last year, according to statistics - down by half since 1995.
The group most at risk from sexual assault and violence consists of women under the age of 25, with women who have separated from their husbands also disproportionately likely to be victims.
Figures from the Office for National Statistics suggest that six per cent of people think rape victims are to blame when they are drunk, and eight per cent criticise victims who are under the influence of drugs.
SOURCE
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Migrant loophole 'lets in 20,000 a year': Rule allows EU nationals living here to bring their families into Britain without checks
Twenty thousand migrants a year are being let into Britain under a loophole that could be exploited by sham-marriage racketeers, a report warns today.
Under European law, EU nationals living in this country are allowed to bring in spouses or partners and their families from anywhere in the world with no checks or qualifications.
But British citizens who want to bring in a wife, husband or partner and family from abroad must first show they have an income of £18,600 or more to guarantee their dependants will not become a burden on the taxpayer.
The report by the MigrationWatch UK think-tank warns that 20,000 people a year are now coming to live in Britain as partners of a citizen of another EU country.
The loophole means the system is wide open to abuse by racketeers who can charge vast sums of money to set up a sham marriage, it said.
Sir Andrew Green of MigrationWatch said: ‘This is a loophole that must be closed and soon.
'It is absurd that EU citizens should be in a more favourable position than our own citizens.
'Furthermore, 20,000 per year is a very large number to admit unconditionally, especially compared to the government’s target of tens of thousands for annual net migration.’
Under the rules, a member of the family of an EU citizen - who has the right to travel to and work freely in Britain - can bring in their family under a ‘European Economic Area family permit’.
The permit is issued to any national of another EU country who is living in Britain and applies for it.
The report said: ‘A Polish or French person can marry someone from outside the EU, say Kenya or Vietnam, and can bring their spouse into the UK, even if they do not have a job earning £18,600 or indeed any job.
‘The couple would be entitled to full access to the welfare state. A British or non-EU settled resident would not be allowed to bring in a spouse without this minimum income.’
A number of Indian nationals from the former Portuguese territory of Goa are thought to have taken advantage of the loophole. Indians living in Goa can claim they have Portuguese heritage and so claim Portuguese citizenship.
They can then move directly to Britain – without ever having to visit Portugal – and bring a family without meeting any qualification test.
SOURCE
Immigrants told they can only get housing and healthcare if they have paid taxes into Britain's welfare system
Immigrants to Britain will not be able to claim benefits without proving they have contributed to the welfare state by working, under plans to be set out by the government.
Benefits, housing and healthcare will be limited to new arrivals who are willing to work and paid taxes to fund state-backed support.
A package of reforms will be included in tomorrow’s Queen’s Speech including major law changes needed to limit the claims that can be made by Romanians and Bulgarians when controls are lifted next year.
Ministers will also use existing powers to enforce secondary legislation needed to stop ‘abuse’ of the tax and benefits system.
However, government sources say the details are yet to be fleshed out, and the flagship Immigration Bill is unlikely to be published in full until the autumn.
The moves will be seen as a reaction to the electoral threat posed by the UK Independence Party, which rocked the political establishment this week by taking votes and council seats from all the main parties.
UKIP leader Nigel Farage focussed on the impact of immigration, and how membership of the EU stopped Britain acting to limit it, during much of the local election campaign.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg today signalled that the days of Britain’s benefits ‘free-for-all’ for foreigners were over.
He said: ‘We have been very clear that we totally get that there’s a heightened level of public anxiety about immigration.
‘We should stamp out abuse and make sure our public services and benefits are not simply a free-for-all, there needs to be some relation between what you put in and what you get out,’ he told BBC Breakfast.
Ministers will use the Welfare Reform Act, passed in the last year, to close a loophole that allowed migrants who no longer have a right to work here to carry on claiming benefits.
The test that decides who can access benefits will also be tightened. Migrants from the European Economic Area will be told that they can only receive Jobseeker’s Allowance if they are genuinely looking for a job.
It will include a tougher test to ensure they can speak English properly.
Migrants will be given only six months to find a job before benefits stop, unless they can prove they are close to getting a job.
David Cameron responded to fears about the appeal of Britain's benefits system in drawing immigrants to Britain. He put immigration minister Mark Harper in charge of a Cabinet committee examining the 'pull factors' which needed to be addressed. It also included ministers for health, housing, legal aid and welfare.
Ministers are in talks with other EU countries about whether jobless migrants can be the responsibility of their home country before they start claiming benefits in the UK.
Britain would also like to curb the £36million paid every year in child benefit to 24,000 families who do live in the UK.
The government also wants to end the idea that the NHS is a ‘free international health service’.
Efforts will be stepped up to recoup costs from migrants who use the NHS, through charging or requiring private medical insurance.
One in ten new rentals of social homes goes to a foreign national. New guidance from this spring will set a local residence test, to ensure people with ties to a local area can get priority for housing.
Migrants will have to have lived – and worked - in the UK for two years before their qualify for a state-funded home.
Illegal immigrants will also face tougher checks to stop them getting driving licences, credit cards, personal loans or a council house.
Mr Clegg said: ‘This Government will take further measures to ensure that, yes, of course we should be a welcoming, generous country to those people who want to come here and make a contribution.
‘But people who want to come here – worst of all illegally – or want to come here and sort of abuse our generosity and use our benefits and public services when they’re not really properly entitled to do so, yes, we need to clamp down on that,’ he told ITV’s Daybreak.
‘So, yes, to a sort of open and tolerant Britain, but no to abuse of the immigration system and that’s what we will make sure happens.’
The immigration bill expected in tomorrow's Queen's Speech will implement the major legal changes which cannot be made using secondary legislation.
Mr Cameron has promised to ‘fight back very robustly’ against any attempts by the courts or the EU to block British curbs on benefits for migrants.
In a speech in March, Mr the next stage of reform is to say, ‘Let’s not just reform the immigration system. Let’s make sure the housing system, the welfare system, the legal aid system, all of these things actually fit in – the health system – fit in with our immigration policy,’ sending a very clear message that people can come and work, but they can’t come for the wrong reasons.
SOURCE
Migrant loophole 'lets in 20,000 a year': Rule allows EU nationals living here to bring their families into Britain without checks
Twenty thousand migrants a year are being let into Britain under a loophole that could be exploited by sham-marriage racketeers, a report warns today.
Under European law, EU nationals living in this country are allowed to bring in spouses or partners and their families from anywhere in the world with no checks or qualifications.
But British citizens who want to bring in a wife, husband or partner and family from abroad must first show they have an income of £18,600 or more to guarantee their dependants will not become a burden on the taxpayer.
The report by the MigrationWatch UK think-tank warns that 20,000 people a year are now coming to live in Britain as partners of a citizen of another EU country.
The loophole means the system is wide open to abuse by racketeers who can charge vast sums of money to set up a sham marriage, it said.
Sir Andrew Green of MigrationWatch said: ‘This is a loophole that must be closed and soon.
'It is absurd that EU citizens should be in a more favourable position than our own citizens.
'Furthermore, 20,000 per year is a very large number to admit unconditionally, especially compared to the government’s target of tens of thousands for annual net migration.’
Under the rules, a member of the family of an EU citizen - who has the right to travel to and work freely in Britain - can bring in their family under a ‘European Economic Area family permit’.
The permit is issued to any national of another EU country who is living in Britain and applies for it.
The report said: ‘A Polish or French person can marry someone from outside the EU, say Kenya or Vietnam, and can bring their spouse into the UK, even if they do not have a job earning £18,600 or indeed any job.
‘The couple would be entitled to full access to the welfare state. A British or non-EU settled resident would not be allowed to bring in a spouse without this minimum income.’
A number of Indian nationals from the former Portuguese territory of Goa are thought to have taken advantage of the loophole. Indians living in Goa can claim they have Portuguese heritage and so claim Portuguese citizenship.
They can then move directly to Britain – without ever having to visit Portugal – and bring a family without meeting any qualification test.
SOURCE
Immigrants told they can only get housing and healthcare if they have paid taxes into Britain's welfare system
Immigrants to Britain will not be able to claim benefits without proving they have contributed to the welfare state by working, under plans to be set out by the government.
Benefits, housing and healthcare will be limited to new arrivals who are willing to work and paid taxes to fund state-backed support.
A package of reforms will be included in tomorrow’s Queen’s Speech including major law changes needed to limit the claims that can be made by Romanians and Bulgarians when controls are lifted next year.
Ministers will also use existing powers to enforce secondary legislation needed to stop ‘abuse’ of the tax and benefits system.
However, government sources say the details are yet to be fleshed out, and the flagship Immigration Bill is unlikely to be published in full until the autumn.
The moves will be seen as a reaction to the electoral threat posed by the UK Independence Party, which rocked the political establishment this week by taking votes and council seats from all the main parties.
UKIP leader Nigel Farage focussed on the impact of immigration, and how membership of the EU stopped Britain acting to limit it, during much of the local election campaign.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg today signalled that the days of Britain’s benefits ‘free-for-all’ for foreigners were over.
He said: ‘We have been very clear that we totally get that there’s a heightened level of public anxiety about immigration.
‘We should stamp out abuse and make sure our public services and benefits are not simply a free-for-all, there needs to be some relation between what you put in and what you get out,’ he told BBC Breakfast.
Ministers will use the Welfare Reform Act, passed in the last year, to close a loophole that allowed migrants who no longer have a right to work here to carry on claiming benefits.
The test that decides who can access benefits will also be tightened. Migrants from the European Economic Area will be told that they can only receive Jobseeker’s Allowance if they are genuinely looking for a job.
It will include a tougher test to ensure they can speak English properly.
Migrants will be given only six months to find a job before benefits stop, unless they can prove they are close to getting a job.
David Cameron responded to fears about the appeal of Britain's benefits system in drawing immigrants to Britain. He put immigration minister Mark Harper in charge of a Cabinet committee examining the 'pull factors' which needed to be addressed. It also included ministers for health, housing, legal aid and welfare.
Ministers are in talks with other EU countries about whether jobless migrants can be the responsibility of their home country before they start claiming benefits in the UK.
Britain would also like to curb the £36million paid every year in child benefit to 24,000 families who do live in the UK.
The government also wants to end the idea that the NHS is a ‘free international health service’.
Efforts will be stepped up to recoup costs from migrants who use the NHS, through charging or requiring private medical insurance.
One in ten new rentals of social homes goes to a foreign national. New guidance from this spring will set a local residence test, to ensure people with ties to a local area can get priority for housing.
Migrants will have to have lived – and worked - in the UK for two years before their qualify for a state-funded home.
Illegal immigrants will also face tougher checks to stop them getting driving licences, credit cards, personal loans or a council house.
Mr Clegg said: ‘This Government will take further measures to ensure that, yes, of course we should be a welcoming, generous country to those people who want to come here and make a contribution.
‘But people who want to come here – worst of all illegally – or want to come here and sort of abuse our generosity and use our benefits and public services when they’re not really properly entitled to do so, yes, we need to clamp down on that,’ he told ITV’s Daybreak.
‘So, yes, to a sort of open and tolerant Britain, but no to abuse of the immigration system and that’s what we will make sure happens.’
The immigration bill expected in tomorrow's Queen's Speech will implement the major legal changes which cannot be made using secondary legislation.
Mr Cameron has promised to ‘fight back very robustly’ against any attempts by the courts or the EU to block British curbs on benefits for migrants.
In a speech in March, Mr the next stage of reform is to say, ‘Let’s not just reform the immigration system. Let’s make sure the housing system, the welfare system, the legal aid system, all of these things actually fit in – the health system – fit in with our immigration policy,’ sending a very clear message that people can come and work, but they can’t come for the wrong reasons.
SOURCE
Monday, May 13, 2013
Beware of Liberals Who Come in Evangelicals' Clothing
Ann Coulter
Every few months since at least 2006, The New York Times takes time out from brow-beating Evangelicals to praise them for supporting amnesty for illegal aliens.
Most of the "Evangelicals" the Times cites are liberal frauds, far from "unlikely allies" in amnesty, as alleged. It is a specialty of the left to pose as something they're not in order to create the impression of a zeitgeist. The only one I haven't seen quoted yet is the ACLU's minister, Barry Lynn.
The Times keeps touting Evangelicals for Amnesty as evidence of a "shift," a "change of heart" and a "secret weapon." Breaking the same news story every two months since 2006 isn't a shift; it's propaganda.
Any Evangelical promoting the McCain-Rubio amnesty plan has the moral framework of Planned Parenthood. Like the abortion lobby, they have boundless compassion for the people they can see, but none for those they can't see.
One Evangelical after another told the Times that they no longer believe Americans should have control over who immigrates here on the basis of having met illegal aliens in their pews. The millions harmed by illegal immigration are left out of the equation. They don't go to church here.
Similarly, the pro-choice crowd is brimming with compassion for girls who have gotten pregnant by accident. They're in high school, their whole lives are ahead of them, it's one mistake! The babies don't count because they're out of sight.
The Rev. David Uth, head pastor of First Baptist Orlando, said that based on "the stories out there in the pews" from illegals who "have made friends and who have become close with people here," there was momentum in his church to "do something to address their needs."
Mr. Uth and his parishioners will never hear stories from the thousands of Americans killed every year by illegal aliens. They won't be sitting in the pews with those murdered and maimed in Boston last month by a conspiracy of immigrants.
They won't hear from hospitals and school systems in border states forced into bankruptcy because they have to provide free services to illegals. They won't chat with farmers and ranchers whose livestock and property are stolen or destroyed by illegal aliens.
Jay Crenshaw, a parishioner at First Baptist Orlando, told the Times that he was a conservative Christian, but his views had changed "as a result of personal encounters with immigrants in church." After a fellow parishioner was arrested for driving illegally, "Mr. Crenshaw said he realized that his friend, an active church member who was supporting his mother and a brother" -- by the way, so are you, readers! -- "could be deported."
(You know who else's views changed as a result of a personal encounter with an illegal alien? The 31-year-old mother allegedly shot to death by illegal immigrant Jose Zarate in Arizona earlier this year because she wouldn't allow the 25-year-old to date her 13-year-old daughter.)
Noting that he had "a lot of compassion," Crenshaw explained that once you have "walked with someone and put a face and family behind the immigration issue, it very much personalizes it."
Unfortunately for educated Europeans desperate to escape their collapsing socialist societies being overridden with Muslims, Mr. Crenshaw has not met them and therefore cannot "personalize" their troubles. They're barred from coming here, and he's fine with that.
This new Christian ethic of compassion-by-personal-encounter is also bad news for the millions of American blue-collar workers unable to find work because of the massive influx of unskilled immigrants.
And there will be no compassion for the tens of millions of Americans who will never see a dime of their promised Social Security payments, even as their taxes go through the roof, because Mr. Crenshaw's compassion requires that this country turn itself into the welfare ward of the world.
This is the same moral courage that allows some of these ministers to rain fire and brimstone on gays, while never getting around to criticizing divorce. They don't know any gays -- but they have lots of divorcees in their pews.
Principles do not vary depending on personal circumstances. But these so-called Evangelicals wouldn't know a principle unless it sat next to them in the pew.
Another Christian interviewed by the Times, Stewart Hall, also restricts his Christian compassion to those he can see. "It occurs to me," Hall said of the illegal immigrants in his church, "that if Jesus was sitting next to me, he would not care whether they were illegal or legal."
Would Jesus care if they were gay? Would he care if they'd had abortions? Because if that's the test for public policy, it's abortion-on-demand and gay marriage all around!
Moreover, it's not clear that Jesus wouldn't care how people came to this country. Did they come here in disobedience of the laws of God and of man? Was their first act on American soil to defy the law of the nation?
And why can't Jesus love them if they're back in Mexico? Does the Bible say that Christ died only for U.S. legal residents? Maybe that passage is buried in the Book of Malachi. (I never read that one carefully!)
Adopting a classic liberal trait, these Christians incapable of abstract thinking seem to believe that true compassion consists of giving away something that isn't theirs. They repeatedly cite the biblical passage about treating the stranger as you would yourself. But I note that they don't invite strangers to move into their houses, sleep in their beds, eat their food and have sex with their wives.
No, they demand that we transform our country into a bankrupt, Third World hellhole so that they can feel good about themselves. But every American has an interest in what kind of country this is. America isn't theirs to give away out of phony "Christian" compassion.
SOURCE
No, it's not racist to stop illegals conning their way into Britain
Baroness Warsi
Immigration is one of the biggest political issues of our time – yet for too long we weren’t allowed to discuss it for fear of being labelled racist.
Remember Gillian Duffy? In 2010, when the Rochdale pensioner raised her concerns about the numbers of people coming into Britain, Gordon Brown called her a bigot.
She and thousands like her were deemed narrow-minded for questioning Labour’s mass immigration policy - a policy that saw 2.2 million migrants arrive during Labour’s 13-year rule.
At the time, we were consistently told that this was for economic reasons, that we needed more newcomers to boost productivity.
In fact, it was also a politically motivated ploy to change the make-up of Britain. According to former Labour adviser Andrew Neather, it was designed to ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’.
But after a decade of misguided social engineering, today’s politicians have a responsibility to confront this issue; as Conservative politicians, I believe it is our duty.
To do this we need to change the nature of the debate – and we’ve had some success. As the then chair of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission Trevor Phillips said, David Cameron has deracialised the immigration dilemma.
Cutting the numbers of immigrants has nothing to do with race but to do with the pressure on services such as schools, hospitals and housing.
To use a former Conservative election mantra, it’s not racist to limit immigration and our aim has always been to cut it.
That is why we announced last week in the Queen’s Speech that the new Immigration Bill will stop illegal immigrants being able to access public services, make it easier for us to deport foreign criminals, and change the law to stop spurious appeals.
I can’t think of anyone who would argue that British taxpayers should subsidise healthcare or benefits for those who are not entitled to them.
As an immigration lawyer, I saw too many unmeritorious cases, legal loopholes, delays to proceedings and claims that were nothing more than cons and scams.
As the daughter of an immigrant, I have no hesitation in confronting this issue and saying this is not about the colour of people’s skin, it’s about the capacity of our country.
Nearly a decade ago, while canvassing on the streets of my hometown of Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, it became clear that the pace of change in our communities was creating a sense of unease.
Labour’s dispersal policy, where huge numbers of asylum-seekers were dropped into small towns and villages, had serious social consequences.
Large numbers of predominantly young male asylum seekers were moved to West Yorkshire. Families who had been used to living next door to each other for generations suddenly found they were next to large groups of young men.
Small villages on the outskirts of Wakefield, already challenged by multiple deprivation issues, suddenly found themselves the unwilling hosts of large and traumatised communities fleeing war zones.
Fights on the streets and racial attacks became an all-too-often occurrence, with both locals and new arrivals feeling unsupported, unsafe and uneasy.
This is important. We rely on people to get along and live alongside each other comfortably but if people start to feel a sense of unease, it starts to eat away at the fabric of society.
Too often the economic case for more immigration is made; it’s time to make the economic case for less immigration.
So often those people who are struggling at the bottom end of the social sphere – struggling with schools, jobs and access to good healthcare – are themselves from minority ethnic backgrounds.
They’re not immigrants but second or third generation Bangladeshi, Somali or Pakistani.
I talk about this because it matters and it’s personal. The backlash of far-Right extremism that foments because of this underlying current of anxiety is directed at people like my children, simply because they are not white. We have as much of an interest in this as anyone.
Even those on the Left have been forced to admit that immigration is a problem, yet it is those on the Right who have credibility on this issue.
I genuinely believe the Conservatives have got the correct vision and I also know we’re starting to deliver.
In three years, we have managed to get a grip on Britain’s out-of-control immigration, cutting the numbers of those coming here by a third.
This has been achieved by what Theresa May has been doing: Cracking down on bogus colleges and reforming the student visa system, capping the number of people who come here and tightening up our borders.
As a result, net immigration into the UK in the year ending June 2012 was 163,000 compared with 235,000 in June 2010.
This is still way too high; we need to go further and faster. Labour introduced convoluted procedures for what they thought were controls but they didn’t work.
The system was so overloaded and inefficient, there was a sense that people thought that if they delayed their case for long enough, they would be allowed to stay. They were right.
So our measures are not only fair, they’re long overdue. I know what benefits immigration can bring.
When my father arrived in Dewsbury from the Punjab, he got a job in the rag mills. Hard work and an in-built sense of wanting to improve his life took him from being a mill worker to a mill owner.
The fact is we wouldn’t be the country we are today without the people who came here after the War – people like my dad – to work in our industries and help rebuild the country.
Britain wouldn’t be competing in the global race without the races from around the globe that make up our diverse nation.
We are rightly proud that Britain is a tolerant, diverse society – and that is something we must protect. We will always be open to the brightest, the best and those genuinely in need. What we can’t do is open the doors to anyone and everyone.
For those who do come here to live, our message is equally robust. If you aspire to join our nation, if you aspire to come to these shores, then you must sign up to our shared values of fairness, responsibility and playing your part.
You must join our common language and make every effort to integrate into society. We are no longer a soft touch and there are no more free rides.
As the Minister who is responsible for integration, I am working hard on policies that support this message.
As a mainstream, responsible party we must not be ashamed or frightened to make the case as to why these controls are essential.
We have to acknowledge that people such as Gillian Duffy have legitimate concerns and we must be the ones to articulate a solution.
This is nothing to do with current electoral realities, nor is it a repositioning of the party. On the contrary, I think we’ve grown more confident.
Now we need to communicate what we have already achieved, and we need to continue to confront the issues that our predecessors thought too taboo.
SOURCE
Beware of Liberals Who Come in Evangelicals' Clothing
Ann Coulter
Every few months since at least 2006, The New York Times takes time out from brow-beating Evangelicals to praise them for supporting amnesty for illegal aliens.
Most of the "Evangelicals" the Times cites are liberal frauds, far from "unlikely allies" in amnesty, as alleged. It is a specialty of the left to pose as something they're not in order to create the impression of a zeitgeist. The only one I haven't seen quoted yet is the ACLU's minister, Barry Lynn.
The Times keeps touting Evangelicals for Amnesty as evidence of a "shift," a "change of heart" and a "secret weapon." Breaking the same news story every two months since 2006 isn't a shift; it's propaganda.
Any Evangelical promoting the McCain-Rubio amnesty plan has the moral framework of Planned Parenthood. Like the abortion lobby, they have boundless compassion for the people they can see, but none for those they can't see.
One Evangelical after another told the Times that they no longer believe Americans should have control over who immigrates here on the basis of having met illegal aliens in their pews. The millions harmed by illegal immigration are left out of the equation. They don't go to church here.
Similarly, the pro-choice crowd is brimming with compassion for girls who have gotten pregnant by accident. They're in high school, their whole lives are ahead of them, it's one mistake! The babies don't count because they're out of sight.
The Rev. David Uth, head pastor of First Baptist Orlando, said that based on "the stories out there in the pews" from illegals who "have made friends and who have become close with people here," there was momentum in his church to "do something to address their needs."
Mr. Uth and his parishioners will never hear stories from the thousands of Americans killed every year by illegal aliens. They won't be sitting in the pews with those murdered and maimed in Boston last month by a conspiracy of immigrants.
They won't hear from hospitals and school systems in border states forced into bankruptcy because they have to provide free services to illegals. They won't chat with farmers and ranchers whose livestock and property are stolen or destroyed by illegal aliens.
Jay Crenshaw, a parishioner at First Baptist Orlando, told the Times that he was a conservative Christian, but his views had changed "as a result of personal encounters with immigrants in church." After a fellow parishioner was arrested for driving illegally, "Mr. Crenshaw said he realized that his friend, an active church member who was supporting his mother and a brother" -- by the way, so are you, readers! -- "could be deported."
(You know who else's views changed as a result of a personal encounter with an illegal alien? The 31-year-old mother allegedly shot to death by illegal immigrant Jose Zarate in Arizona earlier this year because she wouldn't allow the 25-year-old to date her 13-year-old daughter.)
Noting that he had "a lot of compassion," Crenshaw explained that once you have "walked with someone and put a face and family behind the immigration issue, it very much personalizes it."
Unfortunately for educated Europeans desperate to escape their collapsing socialist societies being overridden with Muslims, Mr. Crenshaw has not met them and therefore cannot "personalize" their troubles. They're barred from coming here, and he's fine with that.
This new Christian ethic of compassion-by-personal-encounter is also bad news for the millions of American blue-collar workers unable to find work because of the massive influx of unskilled immigrants.
And there will be no compassion for the tens of millions of Americans who will never see a dime of their promised Social Security payments, even as their taxes go through the roof, because Mr. Crenshaw's compassion requires that this country turn itself into the welfare ward of the world.
This is the same moral courage that allows some of these ministers to rain fire and brimstone on gays, while never getting around to criticizing divorce. They don't know any gays -- but they have lots of divorcees in their pews.
Principles do not vary depending on personal circumstances. But these so-called Evangelicals wouldn't know a principle unless it sat next to them in the pew.
Another Christian interviewed by the Times, Stewart Hall, also restricts his Christian compassion to those he can see. "It occurs to me," Hall said of the illegal immigrants in his church, "that if Jesus was sitting next to me, he would not care whether they were illegal or legal."
Would Jesus care if they were gay? Would he care if they'd had abortions? Because if that's the test for public policy, it's abortion-on-demand and gay marriage all around!
Moreover, it's not clear that Jesus wouldn't care how people came to this country. Did they come here in disobedience of the laws of God and of man? Was their first act on American soil to defy the law of the nation?
And why can't Jesus love them if they're back in Mexico? Does the Bible say that Christ died only for U.S. legal residents? Maybe that passage is buried in the Book of Malachi. (I never read that one carefully!)
Adopting a classic liberal trait, these Christians incapable of abstract thinking seem to believe that true compassion consists of giving away something that isn't theirs. They repeatedly cite the biblical passage about treating the stranger as you would yourself. But I note that they don't invite strangers to move into their houses, sleep in their beds, eat their food and have sex with their wives.
No, they demand that we transform our country into a bankrupt, Third World hellhole so that they can feel good about themselves. But every American has an interest in what kind of country this is. America isn't theirs to give away out of phony "Christian" compassion.
SOURCE
No, it's not racist to stop illegals conning their way into Britain
Baroness Warsi
Immigration is one of the biggest political issues of our time – yet for too long we weren’t allowed to discuss it for fear of being labelled racist.
Remember Gillian Duffy? In 2010, when the Rochdale pensioner raised her concerns about the numbers of people coming into Britain, Gordon Brown called her a bigot.
She and thousands like her were deemed narrow-minded for questioning Labour’s mass immigration policy - a policy that saw 2.2 million migrants arrive during Labour’s 13-year rule.
At the time, we were consistently told that this was for economic reasons, that we needed more newcomers to boost productivity.
In fact, it was also a politically motivated ploy to change the make-up of Britain. According to former Labour adviser Andrew Neather, it was designed to ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’.
But after a decade of misguided social engineering, today’s politicians have a responsibility to confront this issue; as Conservative politicians, I believe it is our duty.
To do this we need to change the nature of the debate – and we’ve had some success. As the then chair of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission Trevor Phillips said, David Cameron has deracialised the immigration dilemma.
Cutting the numbers of immigrants has nothing to do with race but to do with the pressure on services such as schools, hospitals and housing.
To use a former Conservative election mantra, it’s not racist to limit immigration and our aim has always been to cut it.
That is why we announced last week in the Queen’s Speech that the new Immigration Bill will stop illegal immigrants being able to access public services, make it easier for us to deport foreign criminals, and change the law to stop spurious appeals.
I can’t think of anyone who would argue that British taxpayers should subsidise healthcare or benefits for those who are not entitled to them.
As an immigration lawyer, I saw too many unmeritorious cases, legal loopholes, delays to proceedings and claims that were nothing more than cons and scams.
As the daughter of an immigrant, I have no hesitation in confronting this issue and saying this is not about the colour of people’s skin, it’s about the capacity of our country.
Nearly a decade ago, while canvassing on the streets of my hometown of Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, it became clear that the pace of change in our communities was creating a sense of unease.
Labour’s dispersal policy, where huge numbers of asylum-seekers were dropped into small towns and villages, had serious social consequences.
Large numbers of predominantly young male asylum seekers were moved to West Yorkshire. Families who had been used to living next door to each other for generations suddenly found they were next to large groups of young men.
Small villages on the outskirts of Wakefield, already challenged by multiple deprivation issues, suddenly found themselves the unwilling hosts of large and traumatised communities fleeing war zones.
Fights on the streets and racial attacks became an all-too-often occurrence, with both locals and new arrivals feeling unsupported, unsafe and uneasy.
This is important. We rely on people to get along and live alongside each other comfortably but if people start to feel a sense of unease, it starts to eat away at the fabric of society.
Too often the economic case for more immigration is made; it’s time to make the economic case for less immigration.
So often those people who are struggling at the bottom end of the social sphere – struggling with schools, jobs and access to good healthcare – are themselves from minority ethnic backgrounds.
They’re not immigrants but second or third generation Bangladeshi, Somali or Pakistani.
I talk about this because it matters and it’s personal. The backlash of far-Right extremism that foments because of this underlying current of anxiety is directed at people like my children, simply because they are not white. We have as much of an interest in this as anyone.
Even those on the Left have been forced to admit that immigration is a problem, yet it is those on the Right who have credibility on this issue.
I genuinely believe the Conservatives have got the correct vision and I also know we’re starting to deliver.
In three years, we have managed to get a grip on Britain’s out-of-control immigration, cutting the numbers of those coming here by a third.
This has been achieved by what Theresa May has been doing: Cracking down on bogus colleges and reforming the student visa system, capping the number of people who come here and tightening up our borders.
As a result, net immigration into the UK in the year ending June 2012 was 163,000 compared with 235,000 in June 2010.
This is still way too high; we need to go further and faster. Labour introduced convoluted procedures for what they thought were controls but they didn’t work.
The system was so overloaded and inefficient, there was a sense that people thought that if they delayed their case for long enough, they would be allowed to stay. They were right.
So our measures are not only fair, they’re long overdue. I know what benefits immigration can bring.
When my father arrived in Dewsbury from the Punjab, he got a job in the rag mills. Hard work and an in-built sense of wanting to improve his life took him from being a mill worker to a mill owner.
The fact is we wouldn’t be the country we are today without the people who came here after the War – people like my dad – to work in our industries and help rebuild the country.
Britain wouldn’t be competing in the global race without the races from around the globe that make up our diverse nation.
We are rightly proud that Britain is a tolerant, diverse society – and that is something we must protect. We will always be open to the brightest, the best and those genuinely in need. What we can’t do is open the doors to anyone and everyone.
For those who do come here to live, our message is equally robust. If you aspire to join our nation, if you aspire to come to these shores, then you must sign up to our shared values of fairness, responsibility and playing your part.
You must join our common language and make every effort to integrate into society. We are no longer a soft touch and there are no more free rides.
As the Minister who is responsible for integration, I am working hard on policies that support this message.
As a mainstream, responsible party we must not be ashamed or frightened to make the case as to why these controls are essential.
We have to acknowledge that people such as Gillian Duffy have legitimate concerns and we must be the ones to articulate a solution.
This is nothing to do with current electoral realities, nor is it a repositioning of the party. On the contrary, I think we’ve grown more confident.
Now we need to communicate what we have already achieved, and we need to continue to confront the issues that our predecessors thought too taboo.
SOURCE
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Mass immigration has left an alarming legacy in Britain
The recent surge has put pressure on the fabric of society
It is one of the most startling examples of disconnection between rulers and ruled in recent memory. The Labour Party flung open Britain’s doors to an unprecedented wave of mass immigration – and then professed itself bewildered by the complaints from those who found themselves unable to cope with the flow of new arrivals. Even now, anger over immigration has played a powerful part in the success of Ukip in the local elections, with its candidates falling over themselves to condemn the European Union rules on freedom of movement that will soon allow Bulgarians and Romanians to join their Eastern European neighbours in the British employment market.
One of the most obvious criticisms of mass immigration, now widely if belatedly accepted, was that the greater the volume of newcomers, the harder it would prove to integrate them. The latest research from the think tank Demos bears out this fear. It shows a continuing pattern of “white flight” from areas where indigenous Britons find themselves surrounded by new minority communities. Indeed, according to the latest Census, the number of white Britons in London was some 600,000 fewer in 2011 than in 2001 – the equivalent of a city the size of Glasgow – even though the city’s total population increased by almost a million. In the areas such people have abandoned, minority communities have become more concentrated and more isolated, raising the risk – as David Goodhart, Demos’s director, delicately puts it – of their having “limited familiarity with majority cultural codes”. In the words of Trevor Phillips, the former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, this is “not good news for the cause of integration”.
It is important not to exaggerate the scale of the problem: one encouraging phenomenon is the way that members of ethnic minorities have been absorbed into communities, away from the major cities, that were previously overwhelmingly white (what Mr Phillips calls “the Ambridge effect”). But one has only to look at the ghettos of Paris to see what happens when immigrants are encouraged to build lives on the edge of the economy and society, and permitted to cluster in islands of deprivation without being absorbed into the mainstream.
Britain has an enviable track record in assimilating immigrants, yet the recent surge has put pressure not just on public services, but in some places on the fabric of society. That so many Britons should be on the move suggests that politicians have still not come to terms with the depths of the public’s disquiet, or done enough to reassure them that things will be different in future.
SOURCE
The Crucifixion of Jason Richwine
Michelle Malkin presents the facts below but may not make it completely clear that there are two pieces of writing involved: The Heritage report on the costs of immigration and Richwine's Ph.D. dissertation. Richwine was only a junior contributor to the Heritage report.
When the open-borders clique found that the Heritage report was too difficult to rebut, they went off on a tangent and started to shriek about Richwine's Ph.D. dissertation and the bad things he said in it. In good Leftist "ad hominem" style, they attempted to discredit the Heritage report by saying that one of its authors was a bad man.
What they found in Richwine's dissertation did surprise me. Richwine touched the third rail of American politics: IQ. IQ studies are not terribly controversial among professors of psychology who work in the field but they are dynamite in American politics. IQ studies are COMPLETELY inconsistent with the great Leftist myth that "All men are equal". God may value all men equally (a rather unscriptural assertion) but they are not equal in any other sense. All men are different. And IQ studies show that clearly.
Even worse, however, is that some RACES are different too. That is not intrinsically surprising but it clashes with the widespread American wish that the whole topic of race will go away and that any effect of slavery or Jim Crow will simply wash out eventually. It won't. IQ tests have been showing time after time for around the last 100 years that blacks have a severe intellectual disadvantage compared to whites. Every effort under the sun has been made to find fault with that finding but nothing works. After all criticisms are allowed for, the large black/white gap remains.
So why a young researcher like Richwine stepped into that quagmire, I do not know. He showed that Hispanics too have low average IQs, though not as low as for blacks. He was taking a huge risk of being attacked just by mentioning the topic -- let alone by doing a comprehensive survey of the evidence on it.
I am myself a psychometrician who has made a couple of minor contributions to the academic literature on IQ but I can assure you that I said nothing on the topic until I had tenure.
So it is sad that an honest man has had his name dragged through the mud for no good reason but he really should have left the topic to those who are in a better position to resist the slings and arrows of a deeply corrupt but powerful Left.
The people I condemn most are the powers that be at Heritage. They have fired Richwine in a cowardly attempt to take the heat off themselves. I am a regular donor to American and Israeli conservative organizations but Heritage will get not one cent from me from now on. Any existing donors reading this should also write to them and tell them "no more"
How low will supporters of the Gang of Eight immigration bill go to get their way? This low: They've shamelessly branded an accomplished Ivy League-trained quantitative analyst a "racist" and will stop at nothing to destroy his career as they pave their legislative path to another massive illegal alien benefits bonanza.
Jason Richwine works for the conservative Heritage Foundation. He's a Harvard University Ph.D. who co-authored a study that pegs the cost of the Ted Kennedy Memorial Open Borders Act 2.0 legislation at $6.3 trillion. Lead author Robert Rector is a senior research fellow at Heritage, a former United States Office of Personnel Management analyst and the intellectual godfather of welfare reform. He holds a master's degree in political science from Johns Hopkins University.
Both Democrats and Republicans leaped to discredit the 102-page report without bothering to read it. The Washington Post falsely claimed that the study did not take into account increased revenues from amnestied illegal alien workers. It did. Haley Barbour immediately proclaimed that the Heritage assessment of government costs incurred by amnestied illegal aliens was "not serious."
They want to talk gravitas? Let's talk gravitas. Blowhard Barbour is a career politician and paid lobbyist for the government of Mexico who has carried water for open borders since the Bush years.
Richwine received his doctorate in public policy in 2009 from Harvard University's prestigious Kennedy School of Government. He holds bachelor's degrees in mathematics and political science from American University. Before joining Heritage in 2010, he worked at the American Enterprise Institute on a dissertation fellowship.
Richwine's 166-page dissertation, "IQ and Immigration Policy," is now being used to smear him -- and, by extension, all of Heritage's scholarship -- as "racist." While the punditocracy and political establishment sanctimoniously call for "honest discussions" on race, they rush to crush bona fide, dispassionate academic inquiries into the controversial subjects of intelligence, racial and ethnic differences, and domestic policy.
Richwine's entire thesis is now online here.
Part One reviews the science of IQ. Part Two delves into empirical research comparing IQs of the native-born American population with that of immigrant groups, with the Hispanic population broken out. Richwine explores the causes of an immigrant IQ deficit that appears to persist among Hispanic immigrants to the U.S. through several generations.
The thesis analyzes social policy consequences of these findings and uses a model of the labor market "to show how immigrant IQ affects the economic surplus accruing to natives and the wage impact on low-skill natives."
The smug dismissal of Richwine's credentials and scholarship is to be expected by liberal hacks and clown operatives. But a reckless and cowardly pileup of knee-jerk dilettantes on the right -- including former McCain campaign co-chair Ana Navarro and conservative Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin -- have joined the character assassins of the Soros-sphere, MSNBC and Mother Jones in deeming Richwine a "racist." The drooling attack dogs of the far-left blog Daily Kos have now launched a pressure campaign against the JFK School demanding to know "why the school awarded Richwine a Ph.D. and what they plan to do in the future to prevent it from happening again.”
No researcher or academic institution is safe if this smear campaign succeeds. Richwine's dissertation committee at Harvard included George Borjas, Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy. The Cuban-born scholar received his Ph.D. in economics from Columbia. He is an award-winning labor economist, a research associate with the National Bureau of Economic Research and the author of countless books, including a widely used labor economics textbook now in its sixth edition.
Richard J. Zeckhauser, the Frank P. Ramsey Professor of Political Economy at JFK, also signed off on Richwine's dissertation. Zeckhauser earned a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard. He belongs to the Econometric Society, the American Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine (National Academy of Sciences).
The final member of Richwine's "racist" thesis committee is Christopher Jencks, the Malcolm Wiener Professor of Social Policy at Harvard's JFK School. He is a renowned left-wing academic who has taught at Harvard, Northwestern, the University of Chicago and the University of California, Santa Barbara. He edited the liberal New Republic magazine in the 1960s and has written several scholarly books tackling poverty, economic inequality, affirmative action, welfare reform and, yes, racial differences ("The Black-White Test Score Gap").
The willingness of Republican Gang of 8'ers to allow a young conservative researcher and married father of two to be strung up by the p.c. lynch mob for the crime of unflinching social science research is chilling, sickening and suicidal.
These are serious people doing serious work. The crucifiers of Jason Richwine pretend to defend sound science. But if it is now inherently racist to study racial and ethnic differences among demographic groups, then it's time to shut down every social sciences department in the country.
SOURCE
Mass immigration has left an alarming legacy in Britain
The recent surge has put pressure on the fabric of society
It is one of the most startling examples of disconnection between rulers and ruled in recent memory. The Labour Party flung open Britain’s doors to an unprecedented wave of mass immigration – and then professed itself bewildered by the complaints from those who found themselves unable to cope with the flow of new arrivals. Even now, anger over immigration has played a powerful part in the success of Ukip in the local elections, with its candidates falling over themselves to condemn the European Union rules on freedom of movement that will soon allow Bulgarians and Romanians to join their Eastern European neighbours in the British employment market.
One of the most obvious criticisms of mass immigration, now widely if belatedly accepted, was that the greater the volume of newcomers, the harder it would prove to integrate them. The latest research from the think tank Demos bears out this fear. It shows a continuing pattern of “white flight” from areas where indigenous Britons find themselves surrounded by new minority communities. Indeed, according to the latest Census, the number of white Britons in London was some 600,000 fewer in 2011 than in 2001 – the equivalent of a city the size of Glasgow – even though the city’s total population increased by almost a million. In the areas such people have abandoned, minority communities have become more concentrated and more isolated, raising the risk – as David Goodhart, Demos’s director, delicately puts it – of their having “limited familiarity with majority cultural codes”. In the words of Trevor Phillips, the former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, this is “not good news for the cause of integration”.
It is important not to exaggerate the scale of the problem: one encouraging phenomenon is the way that members of ethnic minorities have been absorbed into communities, away from the major cities, that were previously overwhelmingly white (what Mr Phillips calls “the Ambridge effect”). But one has only to look at the ghettos of Paris to see what happens when immigrants are encouraged to build lives on the edge of the economy and society, and permitted to cluster in islands of deprivation without being absorbed into the mainstream.
Britain has an enviable track record in assimilating immigrants, yet the recent surge has put pressure not just on public services, but in some places on the fabric of society. That so many Britons should be on the move suggests that politicians have still not come to terms with the depths of the public’s disquiet, or done enough to reassure them that things will be different in future.
SOURCE
The Crucifixion of Jason Richwine
Michelle Malkin presents the facts below but may not make it completely clear that there are two pieces of writing involved: The Heritage report on the costs of immigration and Richwine's Ph.D. dissertation. Richwine was only a junior contributor to the Heritage report.
When the open-borders clique found that the Heritage report was too difficult to rebut, they went off on a tangent and started to shriek about Richwine's Ph.D. dissertation and the bad things he said in it. In good Leftist "ad hominem" style, they attempted to discredit the Heritage report by saying that one of its authors was a bad man.
What they found in Richwine's dissertation did surprise me. Richwine touched the third rail of American politics: IQ. IQ studies are not terribly controversial among professors of psychology who work in the field but they are dynamite in American politics. IQ studies are COMPLETELY inconsistent with the great Leftist myth that "All men are equal". God may value all men equally (a rather unscriptural assertion) but they are not equal in any other sense. All men are different. And IQ studies show that clearly.
Even worse, however, is that some RACES are different too. That is not intrinsically surprising but it clashes with the widespread American wish that the whole topic of race will go away and that any effect of slavery or Jim Crow will simply wash out eventually. It won't. IQ tests have been showing time after time for around the last 100 years that blacks have a severe intellectual disadvantage compared to whites. Every effort under the sun has been made to find fault with that finding but nothing works. After all criticisms are allowed for, the large black/white gap remains.
So why a young researcher like Richwine stepped into that quagmire, I do not know. He showed that Hispanics too have low average IQs, though not as low as for blacks. He was taking a huge risk of being attacked just by mentioning the topic -- let alone by doing a comprehensive survey of the evidence on it.
I am myself a psychometrician who has made a couple of minor contributions to the academic literature on IQ but I can assure you that I said nothing on the topic until I had tenure.
So it is sad that an honest man has had his name dragged through the mud for no good reason but he really should have left the topic to those who are in a better position to resist the slings and arrows of a deeply corrupt but powerful Left.
The people I condemn most are the powers that be at Heritage. They have fired Richwine in a cowardly attempt to take the heat off themselves. I am a regular donor to American and Israeli conservative organizations but Heritage will get not one cent from me from now on. Any existing donors reading this should also write to them and tell them "no more"
How low will supporters of the Gang of Eight immigration bill go to get their way? This low: They've shamelessly branded an accomplished Ivy League-trained quantitative analyst a "racist" and will stop at nothing to destroy his career as they pave their legislative path to another massive illegal alien benefits bonanza.
Jason Richwine works for the conservative Heritage Foundation. He's a Harvard University Ph.D. who co-authored a study that pegs the cost of the Ted Kennedy Memorial Open Borders Act 2.0 legislation at $6.3 trillion. Lead author Robert Rector is a senior research fellow at Heritage, a former United States Office of Personnel Management analyst and the intellectual godfather of welfare reform. He holds a master's degree in political science from Johns Hopkins University.
Both Democrats and Republicans leaped to discredit the 102-page report without bothering to read it. The Washington Post falsely claimed that the study did not take into account increased revenues from amnestied illegal alien workers. It did. Haley Barbour immediately proclaimed that the Heritage assessment of government costs incurred by amnestied illegal aliens was "not serious."
They want to talk gravitas? Let's talk gravitas. Blowhard Barbour is a career politician and paid lobbyist for the government of Mexico who has carried water for open borders since the Bush years.
Richwine received his doctorate in public policy in 2009 from Harvard University's prestigious Kennedy School of Government. He holds bachelor's degrees in mathematics and political science from American University. Before joining Heritage in 2010, he worked at the American Enterprise Institute on a dissertation fellowship.
Richwine's 166-page dissertation, "IQ and Immigration Policy," is now being used to smear him -- and, by extension, all of Heritage's scholarship -- as "racist." While the punditocracy and political establishment sanctimoniously call for "honest discussions" on race, they rush to crush bona fide, dispassionate academic inquiries into the controversial subjects of intelligence, racial and ethnic differences, and domestic policy.
Richwine's entire thesis is now online here.
Part One reviews the science of IQ. Part Two delves into empirical research comparing IQs of the native-born American population with that of immigrant groups, with the Hispanic population broken out. Richwine explores the causes of an immigrant IQ deficit that appears to persist among Hispanic immigrants to the U.S. through several generations.
The thesis analyzes social policy consequences of these findings and uses a model of the labor market "to show how immigrant IQ affects the economic surplus accruing to natives and the wage impact on low-skill natives."
The smug dismissal of Richwine's credentials and scholarship is to be expected by liberal hacks and clown operatives. But a reckless and cowardly pileup of knee-jerk dilettantes on the right -- including former McCain campaign co-chair Ana Navarro and conservative Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin -- have joined the character assassins of the Soros-sphere, MSNBC and Mother Jones in deeming Richwine a "racist." The drooling attack dogs of the far-left blog Daily Kos have now launched a pressure campaign against the JFK School demanding to know "why the school awarded Richwine a Ph.D. and what they plan to do in the future to prevent it from happening again.”
No researcher or academic institution is safe if this smear campaign succeeds. Richwine's dissertation committee at Harvard included George Borjas, Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy. The Cuban-born scholar received his Ph.D. in economics from Columbia. He is an award-winning labor economist, a research associate with the National Bureau of Economic Research and the author of countless books, including a widely used labor economics textbook now in its sixth edition.
Richard J. Zeckhauser, the Frank P. Ramsey Professor of Political Economy at JFK, also signed off on Richwine's dissertation. Zeckhauser earned a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard. He belongs to the Econometric Society, the American Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine (National Academy of Sciences).
The final member of Richwine's "racist" thesis committee is Christopher Jencks, the Malcolm Wiener Professor of Social Policy at Harvard's JFK School. He is a renowned left-wing academic who has taught at Harvard, Northwestern, the University of Chicago and the University of California, Santa Barbara. He edited the liberal New Republic magazine in the 1960s and has written several scholarly books tackling poverty, economic inequality, affirmative action, welfare reform and, yes, racial differences ("The Black-White Test Score Gap").
The willingness of Republican Gang of 8'ers to allow a young conservative researcher and married father of two to be strung up by the p.c. lynch mob for the crime of unflinching social science research is chilling, sickening and suicidal.
These are serious people doing serious work. The crucifiers of Jason Richwine pretend to defend sound science. But if it is now inherently racist to study racial and ethnic differences among demographic groups, then it's time to shut down every social sciences department in the country.
SOURCE
Friday, May 10, 2013
White House Staffer Tried to Undermine Enforcement in ’86 Amnesty
Will former La Raza lobbyist bring same agenda to Schumer-Rubio bill?
History shows us that for the most part, advocates of “comprehensive” immigration bills are only after the legalization portion and will do everything in their power to undermine the enforcement provisions as soon as the bill becomes law. A report published only a few years after passage of the 1986’s Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) proves this. The amnesty had only started to roll out, and yet La Raza produced a report calling for an end to workplace enforcement — the central enforcement provision of IRCA. The author of the La Raza report was Cecilia Munoz, currently the Obama administration’s chief immigration advisor. (Munoz was recently profiled in the New York Times).
In the report, “Unfinished Business: The Immigration Reform & Control Act of 1986” Munoz (then, a Senior Policy Analyst for La Raza) wrote that “Congress should repeal employer sanctions” and that Congress has a “moral obligation” to do so. She argued that workplace enforcement is “uneven and inconsistent” and “inherently discriminatory”. The full La Raza report is available here (PDF). Interestingly, in her report Munoz admits that mass legalization programs lead to increases in illegal immigration. She wrote:
“[The National Council of La Raza] estimates that the size of the undocumented population today [1990], perhaps three to four million persons, equals that of the early 1980s, when the debate over IRCA took place. ... In the wake of this ‘one-time only’ program, the nation appears to be left with at least as many undocumented people as when it first considered these proposals.”
Munoz called for yet another amnesty in this report — only four years after IRCA — to legalize the newly arrived illegal aliens. The Schumer-Rubio proposal is reportedly already encouraging illegal immigration, despite the fact that the bill would not offer amnesty to aliens arriving after December 31, 2011. It is likely that this new wave of illegal immigration will result in calls for additional amnesties in the future. If Munoz’s past is any guide, it is likely that the bill’s workplace enforcement provisions would be put on the back burner the moment it is signed into law.
“The Obama administration’s track record on immigration coupled with an apparent lack of support for critical provisions in the Schumer-Rubio bill necessitates that legalization is conditioned on all enforcement provisions being up and running and fully litigated,” said Jon Feere, Legal Policy Analyst for the Center for Immigration Studies. “Only until after E-Verify is in place, the border secured, and an Exit system fully functioning should the discussion on what to do with 11 million illegal immigrants begin.”
MORE here.
View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony and commentary here
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
The foreign rioters Britain cannot deport because of their 'right to family life'
Two foreign criminals jailed for their part in English riots have been allowed to stay in this country because of their "right to family life" under the Human Rights Act.
The Telegraph can reveal for the first time how the two rioters - who were both made an example of by the criminal courts for their roles in the 2011 disorder - have since overturned the Home Office’s attempts to have them sent home.
One was convicted of violent disorder after rampages involving attacks on shops and cars by a gang in two Home Counties towns, while the other was convicted of burglary for his part in the London riots.
The successful appeals by the rioters - under the "right to family life" - demonstrate how the immigration courts’ leniency sharply contradicts the determination of politicians and the criminal justice system to have exemplary action taken against those who caused £200 million damage in an orgy of violence.
Two senior immigration judges, Henry Latter and Andrew Grubb, even granted anonymity to one rioter in his immigration case even though the criminal courts had allowed him to be named.
Concern over the apparent abuse of human rights legislation has now prompted Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to draw up new laws to stop foreign criminals avoiding deportation. The measures will be in a new Immigration Bill which will be announced in this week’s Queen’s Speech.
The move is a victory for our End the Human Rights Farce campaign. The Bill will aim to tackle head on the abuse of Article Eight of the Human Rights Act, which guarantees a right to “family life”, but which has been used by criminals to beat rules which automatically deport any offender sentenced to more than 12 months in prison.
Under rules introduced last July by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, they should only be able to use Article Eight in “exceptional circumstances” - a move backed unanimously by the House of Commons, but these have been largely ignored by judges. Ministers believe that they will be unable to ignore the new legislation.
Last night Mark Harper, the immigration minister, spelled out the Home Office’s deep concern at the judgments.
“Any foreign national who abuses the privilege of coming to the UK by committing a serious offence should face the consequences,” he said.
“Many of those convicted of involvement in the 2011 summer’s riots are still behind bars - that’s where they belong. We are pursuing deportation in scores of cases and wherever possible we will remove them from the UK – regardless of whether they have family here.”
The cases of the rioters illustrate the depth of Home Office frustration. One rioter, a Zimbabwean who terrified passers-by as he rampaged through two Buckinghamshire towns in a gang of 30 to 50 youths, can only be identified as “TS”.
He left a woman bus driver “frightened for her life” after being part of an attack on her vehicle, which was kicked and hit as she attempted to get away. He was convicted of violent disorder and sentenced to 15 months in prison.
The second rioter, Ubong-Luke Nkanta, a Nigerian from Thamesmead, south-east London, was jailed for 18 months for burglary during the London riots.
Each succeeded in arguing that their family life in Britain gave them a “human right” to avoid deportation, which had been demanded by Mrs May for all foreign-born rioters.
Writing for The Telegraph today Dominic Raab, the Conservative MP who has campaigned for a change in the law, said: “These cases warp the moral balance of British justice, endanger the public and make human rights sound like dirty words to many people.”
It was “disturbing” the courts had agreed to grant anonymity to TS, he added, because the decision appeared to “cosset” violent criminals.
TS was hunted by police for his role in a 90-minute rampage through Bletchley and Milton Keynes in “copycat” riots on August 9, 2011, three days after the first night of disorder took place in Tottenham, north London.
The gang, later described in court as a “mindless mob”, destroyed dozens of shopfronts including a charity hospice shop, and the owners of the Golden Palace Chinese takeaway in Bletchley were punched and robbed of their takings.
TS was identified as one of the main criminals involved in an attack on a bus, which was kicked and pelted with objects while the terrified female driver tried to escape. She was described as “distressed and frightened for her life”. He was also one of four rioters identified in an attack on a shop where £4,000 of damage was caused.
An innocent motorist also had her vehicle kicked and hit as she tried to drive through the crowd. The rioters, many wearing hoods and scarves, were tracked down from CCTV images.
TS, who had already been cautioned for carrying an offensive weapon in 2007 when he was 17, pleaded guilty at Aylesbury Crown Court to violent disorder and was jailed for 15 months.
One of TS’s co-accused Lewis Nicholls, then 15, attended one court hearing in his school uniform. The judge lifted reporting restrictions which normally prevent juveniles from being named so three of the gang, including Nicholls, could be named and shamed, in an indication of how seriously criminal courts viewed the offences.
Despite this, TS has since been granted anonymity by the immigration judges even though he was already an adult at the time. They did not explain in their judgment why they had done this.
TS brought an appeal after the Home Office began deportation proceedings and was allowed to stay in Britain on two grounds, that he has been with a girlfriend for three years, although they have never lived together, and he came here as a child.
The Home Office appealed to the Upper Tribunal, saying the new tougher rules had not been taken into account, but judges upheld the earlier decision. They did, however, say: “Another tribunal might well have come to a different view.”
Vincent Kong, who manages the Chinese takeaway targeted by TS’s gang, said: “If you come to this country you should behave. It’s not right to come and cause trouble. If you do that, you should leave the country.”
Ebenezer Markose, 23, from India, who works at Sai Supermarket in Bletchley which was also targeted by TS’s gang, said: “He should be punished and he should be deported.”
TS’s 47-year-old father, who also cannot be named because of the anonymity order, said: “I don’t want to say anything about it. As his parent I will say he shouldn’t say anything.”
In the second case Nkanta, 25, was jailed for 18 months in November 2011 for committing a burglary during the London riots.
He entered a building while looting was taking place but did not steal anything, he told the court, because “there was nothing left to take”.
As he was approaching his release from prison last summer, the Home Office began deportation proceedings and Nkanta appealed, claiming he should stay in Britain under his “right to family life”.
He said his relationship with two biological children - by two mothers - as well as his new partner’s children meant he should not be deported.
The court ruling said: “It was submitted [by the Home Office] that this appellant has had plenty of opportunities to provide evidence of his relationship with his child with his current partner."
The Home Office claimed he had failed to prove his family life and submitted to the court that "most of his partner’s children do not live with his partner”.
However, the lower immigration tribunal found Nkanta had proved his family circumstances and his relationship with the children, and that his human rights would be breached if he was deported.
The Home Office appealed, claiming the lower court had failed to take proper account of Mrs May’s new immigration rules, and questioned whether Nkanta had been entitled to claim “family life”.
The Home Office claimed in court: “This is not a family whose family members all live together. Most of the children do not live with their mother.”
However, Upper Tribunal Judge Isabel Murray upheld the original decision and allowed his appeal under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights which is enshrined in British law by Labour's Human Rights Act.
Last week The Telegraph disclosed how drug dealer Hesham Mohammed Ali was able to claim family life despite abandoning two children, after arguing he coudl not be sent back to Iraq because of his tattoos.
SOURCE
May 9, 2013
Obama administration reverses course on ICE agents’ lawsuit
The Obama administration said Monday it’s willing to subject its new non-deportation policies to collective bargaining with the labor union that represents immigration agents — a reversal that comes as the Homeland Security Department tries to head off a potentially devastating defeat in court.
At stake is whether the department can force agents to not arrest illegal immigrants they encounter. That’s at the crux of the new Obama administration policies preventing most rank-and-file illegal immigrants from being deported, which the administration says has helped focus efforts on more dangerous criminal aliens.
A federal district judge in Texas last month ruled that the law requires agents to arrest all illegal immigrants they find, but he delayed implementing the ruling because he said it’s not clear that a court is the right place to decide the matter. He asked them both to file briefs exploring whether the issue should have been decided at the collective bargaining table instead.
Late last year Christopher Crane, the chief of the union, asked for collective bargaining but the administration turned him down, saying it was a management decision, not an area for negotiations.
Now, though, the administration says it not only wants to go through collective bargaining, but said that’s what the law requires.
“Channeling such disputes through the process established by the [Civil Service Reform Act] — and not allowing them to proceed directly in district court — is required even where the government employees’ lawsuit purports to be a ‘systemic challenge’ to government policy, rather than a challenge to a disciplinary action,” the administration lawyers said in their filing with the court.
Kris W. Kobach, the lawyer for the ICE union, said the administration is “looking for any way to push this case out of federal court” and are contradicting themselves to do it.
“Their argument is unsustainable as a matter of law, and remarkable in that it so clearly contradicts their client’s position,” he wrote in his own filing with the court.
Mr. Crane says agents and officers have been told if they ignore the order they will be subject to discipline.
The Obama administration has said it is using “prosecutorial discretion” to decide which illegal immigrants to put in deportation proceedings.
ICE Director John Morton issued a policy in 2011 directing that only the most serious criminals be put in deportation, and then last year President Obama announced a policy telling agents to stop deporting illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. before age 16.
But Judge Reed O'Connor issued an order last month that said the administration cannot ignore the law, which directs ICE agents and officers to arrest illegal immigrants. He said the administration could still exercise discretion later in the process to drop deportation proceedings.
Halting deportations of most rank-and-file immigrants has been central to the administration’s new policy.
Officials argue they are still deporting a record number of immigrants, though data introduced in the ICE agents’ lawsuit actually shows those numbers have been padded by deportations of recent arrivals at the border, rather than deportations from within the interior of the U.S.
Illegal immigrants within the interior of the U.S. run very little risk of being deported unless they are convicted of a major crime.
If Judge O'Connor sides with the agents, it will mean the administration will have to affirmatively decide to release them later — which could raise the stakes if one of those illegal immigrants who is released later commits a crime.
SOURCE
British landlords told: vet migrant tenants
Private landlords will be legally responsible for ensuring that they only let properties to people allowed to be in Britain under immigration laws to be announced in tomorrow’s Queen’s Speech.
Almost two million buy-to-let property owners will be responsible for checking the immigration status of potential tenants, with fines running into thousands of pounds for those breaking the law. Employers will also face “more substantial” fines for taking on illegal immigrants.
The measures are likely to prompt questions over whether ordinary people and employers are being made responsible for policing the immigration system after repeated failures by the UK Border Agency. They are included in an Immigration Bill which will also limit the ability of European immigrants to claim benefits and ensure that the right to reside in Britain on the basis of family commitments is not abused by criminals.
Temporary migrants will also be charged for using the NHS and only those who have lived in an area for at least two years will qualify for social housing.
The legislation has been drawn up as the Coalition struggles to contain the electoral threat posed by the UK Independence Party, which has wooed voters with its hard-line immigration policies.
In the document setting out the package, David Cameron and Nick Clegg will acknowledge that their experience of Government has been “tough”.
They will add: “But three years on, our resolve to turn our country around has never been stronger. We know that Britain can be great again because we’ve got the people to do it. Today’s Queen’s Speech shows that we will back them every step of the way. It is all about backing people who work hard and want to get on in life.”
The details of how the measures will be implemented will be set out later in the year. The plans will be the subject of a formal consultation in the coming months.
Ministers are expected to say that the legal requirements on landlords will affect those letting rooms in multi-occupancy properties. However, the measure will be universal and it will be the responsibility of all landlords to seek copies of passports and appropriate visas.
It is unclear how people are supposed to establish the authenticity of the information. The level of fines is also yet to be set but will run into “thousands of pounds”. The Immigration Bill will also contain provisions to ensure human rights laws giving people “the right to stay in the country because of family connections” are not abused by criminals. Courts will be ordered to “balance” the seriousness of the crime committed against the right to remain in Britain.
Regulations will also be amended to ensure that European immigrants cannot claim “certain benefits for more than six months” if they do not actively seek work and show they have a genuine chance of seeking employment. Other measures will limit the right of immigrants to claim legal aid, closing a loophole which allows those here illegally to rack up taxpayer-funded bills fighting deportation.
Earlier this year, the Prime Minister said in a speech that immigration needed to be “properly controlled”. Many of the measures are designed to reduce the attractiveness of Britain for Bulgarians and Romanians who will be able to live and work throughout the European Union when immigration controls are lifted next year. Critics have said many of the proposals would have a limited impact and the only way to address European immigration was to renegotiate EU migration treaties or leave the single market.
A number of Bills were dropped from the announcement, including legislation to ensure spending on international aid, a register of lobbyists and “snooping” laws. Mr Cameron also refused to agree to demands for legislation ensuring a referendum on membership of the EU by 2018.
SOURCE
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
It's only the enforcement that's "broken"
America Has More Trained STEM Graduates than STEM Job Openings
Additional foreign high-tech workers not needed
The supply of trained graduates in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) exceeds the number hired, and will into the foreseeable future, finds a new Center for Immigration Studies report. This new report coincides with Congress’ consideration of the Rubio-Schumer immigration bill which reflects the push by tech firms to bring more H-1B temporary workers, and other STEM workers, into the United States job market.
Every year the United States welcomes more than 1 million new permanent residents, plus more than 100,000 new H-1B workers; the latter group competes primarily in the IT field with resident workers. The analysis provided by Center fellow David North shows future trends for STEM workers: “there will be three new high-tech degree holders for every two high-tech job openings for the period 2010-2020, even if employers restricted their hiring to new grads only.” The report stresses that policy discussion should be focused on the total supply of STEM workers and the total need for such workers, not the number of new graduates.
“There is absolutely no need for more foreign ‘high-skilled’ labor,” notes Mr. North. “Big business ignores the reality in order to flood the labor market with low-cost labor. Sadly, it also displaces resident workers and depresses wages.”
The entire document can be found here
The report notes that were there, in fact, a skills shortage in the computer and math occupations then wages would have risen; in fact, over an 11-year period census data show that hourly wages have risen at an annual average of only 18 cents a year, from $37.27 in 2000 to $39.24 in 2011.
View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony and commentary here
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
The 500,000 Eastern European migrants that British officials didn't know were there: So many entered UK that authorities lost track
So many migrants flooded into Britain from Eastern Europe that authorities were unable to count them, Whitehall admitted yesterday.
Official migration figures missed out nearly half a million people who came to the UK after their countries joined the EU in 2004, according to a newly-published document.
The scale of the problem was only revealed in the 2011 census, which showed the population was even bigger than estimated.
The admission comes amid growing concern over immigration, as Britain prepares to open its doors to citizens from Romania and Bulgaria.
Workers from the two countries will have free access to jobs in this country from the end of the year, but the Government has failed to confirm how many people they expect to arrive.
The 2011 census found there were 464,000 more people living in England and Wales than originally thought.
Now a paper, published by the Office for National Statistics, has acknowledged for the first time that the majority of the people who slipped through the net were Eastern European migrants.
Between 2002 and 2010, mass immigration under the Labour government was running at its highest. Until now ONS officials claimed at least 200,000 were long-term British inhabitants. But the new ONS paper said: 'At national level the difference is believed to be largely due to international migration.
'In particular an underestimate of the number of immigrants from the countries of Central and Eastern Europe that joined the EU in 2004.'
The mistake led to repeated pronouncements that there were 700,000 or fewer Poles and Eastern Europeans in Britain. Now authorities accept that the figure is actually more than a million.
The ONS results show the difference between the official population count and the real population was more than 25 per cent in some places.
In Newham in East London there were supposed to have been 242,400 residents before the census. That figure has now been scaled up and revised to 310,500.
Romanian and Bulgarian citizens may work freely in Britain at the end of this year because the seven-year period in which Westminster was allowed to impose restrictions is at an end. Both countries joined the EU in 2007.
A BBC poll last week found that more than 8 per cent of Romanians and nearly 14 per cent of Bulgarians said they would consider migrating to Britain.
The MigrationWatch think-tank believes around 50,000 Bulgarian and Romanians will arrive every year for the next five years.
SOURCE
White House Staffer Tried to Undermine Enforcement in ’86 Amnesty
Will former La Raza lobbyist bring same agenda to Schumer-Rubio bill?
History shows us that for the most part, advocates of “comprehensive” immigration bills are only after the legalization portion and will do everything in their power to undermine the enforcement provisions as soon as the bill becomes law. A report published only a few years after passage of the 1986’s Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) proves this. The amnesty had only started to roll out, and yet La Raza produced a report calling for an end to workplace enforcement — the central enforcement provision of IRCA. The author of the La Raza report was Cecilia Munoz, currently the Obama administration’s chief immigration advisor. (Munoz was recently profiled in the New York Times).
In the report, “Unfinished Business: The Immigration Reform & Control Act of 1986” Munoz (then, a Senior Policy Analyst for La Raza) wrote that “Congress should repeal employer sanctions” and that Congress has a “moral obligation” to do so. She argued that workplace enforcement is “uneven and inconsistent” and “inherently discriminatory”. The full La Raza report is available here (PDF). Interestingly, in her report Munoz admits that mass legalization programs lead to increases in illegal immigration. She wrote:
“[The National Council of La Raza] estimates that the size of the undocumented population today [1990], perhaps three to four million persons, equals that of the early 1980s, when the debate over IRCA took place. ... In the wake of this ‘one-time only’ program, the nation appears to be left with at least as many undocumented people as when it first considered these proposals.”
Munoz called for yet another amnesty in this report — only four years after IRCA — to legalize the newly arrived illegal aliens. The Schumer-Rubio proposal is reportedly already encouraging illegal immigration, despite the fact that the bill would not offer amnesty to aliens arriving after December 31, 2011. It is likely that this new wave of illegal immigration will result in calls for additional amnesties in the future. If Munoz’s past is any guide, it is likely that the bill’s workplace enforcement provisions would be put on the back burner the moment it is signed into law.
“The Obama administration’s track record on immigration coupled with an apparent lack of support for critical provisions in the Schumer-Rubio bill necessitates that legalization is conditioned on all enforcement provisions being up and running and fully litigated,” said Jon Feere, Legal Policy Analyst for the Center for Immigration Studies. “Only until after E-Verify is in place, the border secured, and an Exit system fully functioning should the discussion on what to do with 11 million illegal immigrants begin.”
MORE here.
View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony and commentary here
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
The foreign rioters Britain cannot deport because of their 'right to family life'
Two foreign criminals jailed for their part in English riots have been allowed to stay in this country because of their "right to family life" under the Human Rights Act.
The Telegraph can reveal for the first time how the two rioters - who were both made an example of by the criminal courts for their roles in the 2011 disorder - have since overturned the Home Office’s attempts to have them sent home.
One was convicted of violent disorder after rampages involving attacks on shops and cars by a gang in two Home Counties towns, while the other was convicted of burglary for his part in the London riots.
The successful appeals by the rioters - under the "right to family life" - demonstrate how the immigration courts’ leniency sharply contradicts the determination of politicians and the criminal justice system to have exemplary action taken against those who caused £200 million damage in an orgy of violence.
Two senior immigration judges, Henry Latter and Andrew Grubb, even granted anonymity to one rioter in his immigration case even though the criminal courts had allowed him to be named.
Concern over the apparent abuse of human rights legislation has now prompted Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to draw up new laws to stop foreign criminals avoiding deportation. The measures will be in a new Immigration Bill which will be announced in this week’s Queen’s Speech.
The move is a victory for our End the Human Rights Farce campaign. The Bill will aim to tackle head on the abuse of Article Eight of the Human Rights Act, which guarantees a right to “family life”, but which has been used by criminals to beat rules which automatically deport any offender sentenced to more than 12 months in prison.
Under rules introduced last July by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, they should only be able to use Article Eight in “exceptional circumstances” - a move backed unanimously by the House of Commons, but these have been largely ignored by judges. Ministers believe that they will be unable to ignore the new legislation.
Last night Mark Harper, the immigration minister, spelled out the Home Office’s deep concern at the judgments.
“Any foreign national who abuses the privilege of coming to the UK by committing a serious offence should face the consequences,” he said.
“Many of those convicted of involvement in the 2011 summer’s riots are still behind bars - that’s where they belong. We are pursuing deportation in scores of cases and wherever possible we will remove them from the UK – regardless of whether they have family here.”
The cases of the rioters illustrate the depth of Home Office frustration. One rioter, a Zimbabwean who terrified passers-by as he rampaged through two Buckinghamshire towns in a gang of 30 to 50 youths, can only be identified as “TS”.
He left a woman bus driver “frightened for her life” after being part of an attack on her vehicle, which was kicked and hit as she attempted to get away. He was convicted of violent disorder and sentenced to 15 months in prison.
The second rioter, Ubong-Luke Nkanta, a Nigerian from Thamesmead, south-east London, was jailed for 18 months for burglary during the London riots.
Each succeeded in arguing that their family life in Britain gave them a “human right” to avoid deportation, which had been demanded by Mrs May for all foreign-born rioters.
Writing for The Telegraph today Dominic Raab, the Conservative MP who has campaigned for a change in the law, said: “These cases warp the moral balance of British justice, endanger the public and make human rights sound like dirty words to many people.”
It was “disturbing” the courts had agreed to grant anonymity to TS, he added, because the decision appeared to “cosset” violent criminals.
TS was hunted by police for his role in a 90-minute rampage through Bletchley and Milton Keynes in “copycat” riots on August 9, 2011, three days after the first night of disorder took place in Tottenham, north London.
The gang, later described in court as a “mindless mob”, destroyed dozens of shopfronts including a charity hospice shop, and the owners of the Golden Palace Chinese takeaway in Bletchley were punched and robbed of their takings.
TS was identified as one of the main criminals involved in an attack on a bus, which was kicked and pelted with objects while the terrified female driver tried to escape. She was described as “distressed and frightened for her life”. He was also one of four rioters identified in an attack on a shop where £4,000 of damage was caused.
An innocent motorist also had her vehicle kicked and hit as she tried to drive through the crowd. The rioters, many wearing hoods and scarves, were tracked down from CCTV images.
TS, who had already been cautioned for carrying an offensive weapon in 2007 when he was 17, pleaded guilty at Aylesbury Crown Court to violent disorder and was jailed for 15 months.
One of TS’s co-accused Lewis Nicholls, then 15, attended one court hearing in his school uniform. The judge lifted reporting restrictions which normally prevent juveniles from being named so three of the gang, including Nicholls, could be named and shamed, in an indication of how seriously criminal courts viewed the offences.
Despite this, TS has since been granted anonymity by the immigration judges even though he was already an adult at the time. They did not explain in their judgment why they had done this.
TS brought an appeal after the Home Office began deportation proceedings and was allowed to stay in Britain on two grounds, that he has been with a girlfriend for three years, although they have never lived together, and he came here as a child.
The Home Office appealed to the Upper Tribunal, saying the new tougher rules had not been taken into account, but judges upheld the earlier decision. They did, however, say: “Another tribunal might well have come to a different view.”
Vincent Kong, who manages the Chinese takeaway targeted by TS’s gang, said: “If you come to this country you should behave. It’s not right to come and cause trouble. If you do that, you should leave the country.”
Ebenezer Markose, 23, from India, who works at Sai Supermarket in Bletchley which was also targeted by TS’s gang, said: “He should be punished and he should be deported.”
TS’s 47-year-old father, who also cannot be named because of the anonymity order, said: “I don’t want to say anything about it. As his parent I will say he shouldn’t say anything.”
In the second case Nkanta, 25, was jailed for 18 months in November 2011 for committing a burglary during the London riots.
He entered a building while looting was taking place but did not steal anything, he told the court, because “there was nothing left to take”.
As he was approaching his release from prison last summer, the Home Office began deportation proceedings and Nkanta appealed, claiming he should stay in Britain under his “right to family life”.
He said his relationship with two biological children - by two mothers - as well as his new partner’s children meant he should not be deported.
The court ruling said: “It was submitted [by the Home Office] that this appellant has had plenty of opportunities to provide evidence of his relationship with his child with his current partner."
The Home Office claimed he had failed to prove his family life and submitted to the court that "most of his partner’s children do not live with his partner”.
However, the lower immigration tribunal found Nkanta had proved his family circumstances and his relationship with the children, and that his human rights would be breached if he was deported.
The Home Office appealed, claiming the lower court had failed to take proper account of Mrs May’s new immigration rules, and questioned whether Nkanta had been entitled to claim “family life”.
The Home Office claimed in court: “This is not a family whose family members all live together. Most of the children do not live with their mother.”
However, Upper Tribunal Judge Isabel Murray upheld the original decision and allowed his appeal under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights which is enshrined in British law by Labour's Human Rights Act.
Last week The Telegraph disclosed how drug dealer Hesham Mohammed Ali was able to claim family life despite abandoning two children, after arguing he coudl not be sent back to Iraq because of his tattoos.
SOURCE
May 9, 2013
Obama administration reverses course on ICE agents’ lawsuit
The Obama administration said Monday it’s willing to subject its new non-deportation policies to collective bargaining with the labor union that represents immigration agents — a reversal that comes as the Homeland Security Department tries to head off a potentially devastating defeat in court.
At stake is whether the department can force agents to not arrest illegal immigrants they encounter. That’s at the crux of the new Obama administration policies preventing most rank-and-file illegal immigrants from being deported, which the administration says has helped focus efforts on more dangerous criminal aliens.
A federal district judge in Texas last month ruled that the law requires agents to arrest all illegal immigrants they find, but he delayed implementing the ruling because he said it’s not clear that a court is the right place to decide the matter. He asked them both to file briefs exploring whether the issue should have been decided at the collective bargaining table instead.
Late last year Christopher Crane, the chief of the union, asked for collective bargaining but the administration turned him down, saying it was a management decision, not an area for negotiations.
Now, though, the administration says it not only wants to go through collective bargaining, but said that’s what the law requires.
“Channeling such disputes through the process established by the [Civil Service Reform Act] — and not allowing them to proceed directly in district court — is required even where the government employees’ lawsuit purports to be a ‘systemic challenge’ to government policy, rather than a challenge to a disciplinary action,” the administration lawyers said in their filing with the court.
Kris W. Kobach, the lawyer for the ICE union, said the administration is “looking for any way to push this case out of federal court” and are contradicting themselves to do it.
“Their argument is unsustainable as a matter of law, and remarkable in that it so clearly contradicts their client’s position,” he wrote in his own filing with the court.
Mr. Crane says agents and officers have been told if they ignore the order they will be subject to discipline.
The Obama administration has said it is using “prosecutorial discretion” to decide which illegal immigrants to put in deportation proceedings.
ICE Director John Morton issued a policy in 2011 directing that only the most serious criminals be put in deportation, and then last year President Obama announced a policy telling agents to stop deporting illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. before age 16.
But Judge Reed O'Connor issued an order last month that said the administration cannot ignore the law, which directs ICE agents and officers to arrest illegal immigrants. He said the administration could still exercise discretion later in the process to drop deportation proceedings.
Halting deportations of most rank-and-file immigrants has been central to the administration’s new policy.
Officials argue they are still deporting a record number of immigrants, though data introduced in the ICE agents’ lawsuit actually shows those numbers have been padded by deportations of recent arrivals at the border, rather than deportations from within the interior of the U.S.
Illegal immigrants within the interior of the U.S. run very little risk of being deported unless they are convicted of a major crime.
If Judge O'Connor sides with the agents, it will mean the administration will have to affirmatively decide to release them later — which could raise the stakes if one of those illegal immigrants who is released later commits a crime.
SOURCE
British landlords told: vet migrant tenants
Private landlords will be legally responsible for ensuring that they only let properties to people allowed to be in Britain under immigration laws to be announced in tomorrow’s Queen’s Speech.
Almost two million buy-to-let property owners will be responsible for checking the immigration status of potential tenants, with fines running into thousands of pounds for those breaking the law. Employers will also face “more substantial” fines for taking on illegal immigrants.
The measures are likely to prompt questions over whether ordinary people and employers are being made responsible for policing the immigration system after repeated failures by the UK Border Agency. They are included in an Immigration Bill which will also limit the ability of European immigrants to claim benefits and ensure that the right to reside in Britain on the basis of family commitments is not abused by criminals.
Temporary migrants will also be charged for using the NHS and only those who have lived in an area for at least two years will qualify for social housing.
The legislation has been drawn up as the Coalition struggles to contain the electoral threat posed by the UK Independence Party, which has wooed voters with its hard-line immigration policies.
In the document setting out the package, David Cameron and Nick Clegg will acknowledge that their experience of Government has been “tough”.
They will add: “But three years on, our resolve to turn our country around has never been stronger. We know that Britain can be great again because we’ve got the people to do it. Today’s Queen’s Speech shows that we will back them every step of the way. It is all about backing people who work hard and want to get on in life.”
The details of how the measures will be implemented will be set out later in the year. The plans will be the subject of a formal consultation in the coming months.
Ministers are expected to say that the legal requirements on landlords will affect those letting rooms in multi-occupancy properties. However, the measure will be universal and it will be the responsibility of all landlords to seek copies of passports and appropriate visas.
It is unclear how people are supposed to establish the authenticity of the information. The level of fines is also yet to be set but will run into “thousands of pounds”. The Immigration Bill will also contain provisions to ensure human rights laws giving people “the right to stay in the country because of family connections” are not abused by criminals. Courts will be ordered to “balance” the seriousness of the crime committed against the right to remain in Britain.
Regulations will also be amended to ensure that European immigrants cannot claim “certain benefits for more than six months” if they do not actively seek work and show they have a genuine chance of seeking employment. Other measures will limit the right of immigrants to claim legal aid, closing a loophole which allows those here illegally to rack up taxpayer-funded bills fighting deportation.
Earlier this year, the Prime Minister said in a speech that immigration needed to be “properly controlled”. Many of the measures are designed to reduce the attractiveness of Britain for Bulgarians and Romanians who will be able to live and work throughout the European Union when immigration controls are lifted next year. Critics have said many of the proposals would have a limited impact and the only way to address European immigration was to renegotiate EU migration treaties or leave the single market.
A number of Bills were dropped from the announcement, including legislation to ensure spending on international aid, a register of lobbyists and “snooping” laws. Mr Cameron also refused to agree to demands for legislation ensuring a referendum on membership of the EU by 2018.
SOURCE
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
It's only the enforcement that's "broken"
America Has More Trained STEM Graduates than STEM Job Openings
Additional foreign high-tech workers not needed
The supply of trained graduates in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) exceeds the number hired, and will into the foreseeable future, finds a new Center for Immigration Studies report. This new report coincides with Congress’ consideration of the Rubio-Schumer immigration bill which reflects the push by tech firms to bring more H-1B temporary workers, and other STEM workers, into the United States job market.
Every year the United States welcomes more than 1 million new permanent residents, plus more than 100,000 new H-1B workers; the latter group competes primarily in the IT field with resident workers. The analysis provided by Center fellow David North shows future trends for STEM workers: “there will be three new high-tech degree holders for every two high-tech job openings for the period 2010-2020, even if employers restricted their hiring to new grads only.” The report stresses that policy discussion should be focused on the total supply of STEM workers and the total need for such workers, not the number of new graduates.
“There is absolutely no need for more foreign ‘high-skilled’ labor,” notes Mr. North. “Big business ignores the reality in order to flood the labor market with low-cost labor. Sadly, it also displaces resident workers and depresses wages.”
The entire document can be found here
The report notes that were there, in fact, a skills shortage in the computer and math occupations then wages would have risen; in fact, over an 11-year period census data show that hourly wages have risen at an annual average of only 18 cents a year, from $37.27 in 2000 to $39.24 in 2011.
View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony and commentary here
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
The 500,000 Eastern European migrants that British officials didn't know were there: So many entered UK that authorities lost track
So many migrants flooded into Britain from Eastern Europe that authorities were unable to count them, Whitehall admitted yesterday.
Official migration figures missed out nearly half a million people who came to the UK after their countries joined the EU in 2004, according to a newly-published document.
The scale of the problem was only revealed in the 2011 census, which showed the population was even bigger than estimated.
The admission comes amid growing concern over immigration, as Britain prepares to open its doors to citizens from Romania and Bulgaria.
Workers from the two countries will have free access to jobs in this country from the end of the year, but the Government has failed to confirm how many people they expect to arrive.
The 2011 census found there were 464,000 more people living in England and Wales than originally thought.
Now a paper, published by the Office for National Statistics, has acknowledged for the first time that the majority of the people who slipped through the net were Eastern European migrants.
Between 2002 and 2010, mass immigration under the Labour government was running at its highest. Until now ONS officials claimed at least 200,000 were long-term British inhabitants. But the new ONS paper said: 'At national level the difference is believed to be largely due to international migration.
'In particular an underestimate of the number of immigrants from the countries of Central and Eastern Europe that joined the EU in 2004.'
The mistake led to repeated pronouncements that there were 700,000 or fewer Poles and Eastern Europeans in Britain. Now authorities accept that the figure is actually more than a million.
The ONS results show the difference between the official population count and the real population was more than 25 per cent in some places.
In Newham in East London there were supposed to have been 242,400 residents before the census. That figure has now been scaled up and revised to 310,500.
Romanian and Bulgarian citizens may work freely in Britain at the end of this year because the seven-year period in which Westminster was allowed to impose restrictions is at an end. Both countries joined the EU in 2007.
A BBC poll last week found that more than 8 per cent of Romanians and nearly 14 per cent of Bulgarians said they would consider migrating to Britain.
The MigrationWatch think-tank believes around 50,000 Bulgarian and Romanians will arrive every year for the next five years.
SOURCE
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Heritage: Amnestied Illegals Will Get $9.4T in Benefits; Increase Debt $6.3T'
Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants would cost $6.3 trillion, according to a new report by the Heritage Foundation.
“Unlawful immigration and amnesty for current unlawful immigrants can pose large fiscal costs for U.S. taxpayers,” states the report by Robert Rector and Jason Richwine, Ph.D.
Not only would the federal deficit increase, but the cost of benefits and services to millions of newly minted citizens would reach nearly $10 trillion.
“Over a lifetime, the former unlawful immigrants together would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay $3.1 trillion in taxes,” the report states. “They would generate a lifetime fiscal deficit (total benefits minus total taxes) of $6.3 trillion.”
Rector and Richwine took into account direct benefits, such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation, as well as means-tested welfare benefits, public education costs and population-based services in reaching their findings.
SOURCE
Gang of Eight Bill Rewards Lawbreakers and Undermines Law Enforcement
9/11 hijackers could qualify for legalization
A thorough analysis of the Gang of Eight bill’s enforcement and compliance provisions by the Center for Immigration Studies finds serious flaws which will have public safety, national security, and enforcement implications. The extent of the problem is often hidden by S.744’s deceptive language; it contains misleading subtitles which mask the rewards and protection given to lawbreakers. Because the bill excuses nearly all forms of immigration and identity fraud for amnesty applicants, the proposed legislation compromises the integrity of our immigration system.
A detailed analysis, including an extensive table citing the relevant sections of the bill, is here
“The problems in the Schumer-Rubio bill are so extensive that it is difficult to imagine that an abbreviated mark up or amendment process would be sufficient to reduce its impact on public safety and national security,” said Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies at the Center. “The passage of narrowly focused bills allowing for more input from law enforcement agencies would be more prudent and help ensure that we don’t create the conditions for another terrorist attack or allow more foreign gangs and criminal organizations to gain a larger foothold in our communities.”
Among the extensive list of flaws:
Public safety: The bill allows the legalization of aliens who have been convicted of up to three misdemeanors on separate occasions, not counting "minor" traffic offenses. This gives amnesty to aliens with multiple offenses for drunk driving, vehicular homicide, domestic violence, certain sex offenses, theft, identity theft, and other misdemeanors. And, the bill waives criminal offenses for amnesty applicants younger than 18, no matter the seriousness of the offense, and even if the offender was tried as an adult, which provides a loophole for teen-aged gang members to be legalized.
National security: The bill fails to mandate the creation of entry and exit tracking at land ports, and puts off a biometric entry-exit system at and sea ports for 10 years. It will allow arriving aliens to be granted political asylum on the spot, without background checks or in-depth examinations of the claims. It permits the entry of anyone in a loosely defined “persecuted group,” regardless of security concerns. It allows the DHS Secretary to waive background checks before the issuance of work permits and benefits. It withdraws authorization for DHS to designate lists of countries with security concerns whose citizens require enhanced screening.
Fraud: The bill forgives fraud committed by legalization applicants, including re-entry after deportation, use of false documents, skipping immigration hearings, and failure to depart when ordered. The bill provides no criminal penalties for application fraud, except for those applying as farm workers. It protects applicant information from law enforcement agencies.
View the Senate bill, and CIS analysis, testimony, and commentary on the bill, here
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
Heritage: Amnestied Illegals Will Get $9.4T in Benefits; Increase Debt $6.3T'
Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants would cost $6.3 trillion, according to a new report by the Heritage Foundation.
“Unlawful immigration and amnesty for current unlawful immigrants can pose large fiscal costs for U.S. taxpayers,” states the report by Robert Rector and Jason Richwine, Ph.D.
Not only would the federal deficit increase, but the cost of benefits and services to millions of newly minted citizens would reach nearly $10 trillion.
“Over a lifetime, the former unlawful immigrants together would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay $3.1 trillion in taxes,” the report states. “They would generate a lifetime fiscal deficit (total benefits minus total taxes) of $6.3 trillion.”
Rector and Richwine took into account direct benefits, such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation, as well as means-tested welfare benefits, public education costs and population-based services in reaching their findings.
SOURCE
Gang of Eight Bill Rewards Lawbreakers and Undermines Law Enforcement
9/11 hijackers could qualify for legalization
A thorough analysis of the Gang of Eight bill’s enforcement and compliance provisions by the Center for Immigration Studies finds serious flaws which will have public safety, national security, and enforcement implications. The extent of the problem is often hidden by S.744’s deceptive language; it contains misleading subtitles which mask the rewards and protection given to lawbreakers. Because the bill excuses nearly all forms of immigration and identity fraud for amnesty applicants, the proposed legislation compromises the integrity of our immigration system.
A detailed analysis, including an extensive table citing the relevant sections of the bill, is here
“The problems in the Schumer-Rubio bill are so extensive that it is difficult to imagine that an abbreviated mark up or amendment process would be sufficient to reduce its impact on public safety and national security,” said Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies at the Center. “The passage of narrowly focused bills allowing for more input from law enforcement agencies would be more prudent and help ensure that we don’t create the conditions for another terrorist attack or allow more foreign gangs and criminal organizations to gain a larger foothold in our communities.”
Among the extensive list of flaws:
Public safety: The bill allows the legalization of aliens who have been convicted of up to three misdemeanors on separate occasions, not counting "minor" traffic offenses. This gives amnesty to aliens with multiple offenses for drunk driving, vehicular homicide, domestic violence, certain sex offenses, theft, identity theft, and other misdemeanors. And, the bill waives criminal offenses for amnesty applicants younger than 18, no matter the seriousness of the offense, and even if the offender was tried as an adult, which provides a loophole for teen-aged gang members to be legalized.
National security: The bill fails to mandate the creation of entry and exit tracking at land ports, and puts off a biometric entry-exit system at and sea ports for 10 years. It will allow arriving aliens to be granted political asylum on the spot, without background checks or in-depth examinations of the claims. It permits the entry of anyone in a loosely defined “persecuted group,” regardless of security concerns. It allows the DHS Secretary to waive background checks before the issuance of work permits and benefits. It withdraws authorization for DHS to designate lists of countries with security concerns whose citizens require enhanced screening.
Fraud: The bill forgives fraud committed by legalization applicants, including re-entry after deportation, use of false documents, skipping immigration hearings, and failure to depart when ordered. The bill provides no criminal penalties for application fraud, except for those applying as farm workers. It protects applicant information from law enforcement agencies.
View the Senate bill, and CIS analysis, testimony, and commentary on the bill, here
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
Monday, May 6, 2013
Is the Gang of Eight Plan "Amnesty"?
A study of other recent amnesties indicates that it is
The "Gang of Eight" senators argue that their bill (S.744) is not an amnesty because illegal immigrants would have to pay a fine and fulfill other requirements as a condition of legalization. Yet seven recent tax and parking-ticket amnesties imposed conditions and payments on those who violated the law, and in every case these programs were considered to be an amnesty by elected officials, the public, and the media. Like the Schumer-Rubio immigration bill, each of the amnesties discussed below set aside the normal penalty but still required payments.
Examples of recent amnesties:
In 2012 Rhode Island offered what the state government and media outlets explicitly called a "tax amnesty". The state even created the website www.TaxAmnesty.ri.gov to promote it. The amnesty allowed certain taxpayers to pay overdue taxes plus seventy-five percent of interest due by November 15. The remaining interest and civil and criminal penalties were waived.
The town of Huntington, N.Y., just completed a parking ticket program described as an amnesty by the town board, town supervisor, and local media. To qualify for the amnesty, past due tickets issued January 1, 2005, or later had to be paid by April 30, 2013. The person had to pay the ticket value plus any penalties, but could do so at a 40 percent discount.
In 2009 Louisiana ran what the state itself called a "tax amnesty", even setting up a "Tax Amnesty Website". The media also referred to it as an amnesty. The program covered past due taxes from 2001 or later. If taxes owed and 50 percent of interest were paid during the two-month amnesty period, the remainder of the interest plus civil penalties were waived.
More examples here
Members of the Senate's Gang of Eight have argued that S.744 is not an amnesty. On his website promoting S.744, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) states that, "No one gets amnesty". He argues that because the beneficiaries have to meet requirements and pay fines it is not an amnesty. He even states, "no undocumented immigrant is rewarded with anything". Similarly, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) argued in a National Review opinion article, "This bill ensures that no illegal immigrant will be given amnesty or rewarded for illegal behavior." When asked if the bill was amnesty in a recent interview Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) stated, "not at all." Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) also claimed in a recent interview that the bill is not amnesty.
Despite claims to the contrary, S.744 is similar to the tax and parking ticket amnesties discussed above. The normal penalty for being in the United States illegally is that the alien must leave the country. Under S.744 this penalty is set aside and illegal immigrants who arrived prior to January 1, 2012 are given legal status and can remain in the country. They must also pay a fee of $500 initially, and undergo a background check. Like all the amnesties discussed above, S.744 includes conditions and payments. If S.744 is not an amnesty, then none of the tax and parking ticket amnesties discussed above are amnesties, even though everyone involved with them considers the programs to be amnesties.
"The Schumer-Rubio immigration bill is an amnesty, and those who claim otherwise are not being honest with the American people," said Steven Camarota, Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies.
View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony and commentary here
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
There Are No Jobs Americans Won't Do
Native-born dominate virtually all occupations
Supporters of the Schumer-Rubio amnesty argue that the bill's large increase in future legal immigration will have little impact on the employment of natives because immigrants do only jobs American's don't want. But a detailed analysis of 472 separate occupations by the Center for Immigration Studies shows there are only a tiny number of majority-immigrant occupations (legal and illegal immigrants combined). Thus, there are really no jobs that Americans won't do. Further, the Center found no occupations in which a majority of workers are illegal immigrants.
Co-author Steven Camarota, the Center's Director of Research, notes, "When more educated and affluent Americans argue that immigrants only do jobs Americans don't want, what they often mean is immigrants do jobs that they personally don't want. They forget the millions of their fellow Americans who do precisely these same jobs."
The millions of native-born Americans and legal immigrants already in the United States who work at low-paying and difficult jobs unfortunately do not seem to be represented in the legislation, which calls for a massive increase in immigration. The Schumer-Rubio bill creates a new guestworker program for less-skilled immigrants, it increases family immigration for a number of years, a large share of which is less-skilled, and creates new categories to admit additional less-educated workers.
The complete report can be viewed here. Among the findings:
Of the 472 civilian occupations, only six are majority immigrant (legal and illegal). These six occupations account for 1 percent of the total U.S. workforce. Moreover, native-born Americans still comprise 46 percent of workers even in these occupations.
Many jobs often thought to be overwhelmingly immigrant (legal and illegal) are in fact majority native-born:
- Maids and housekeepers: 51 percent native-born
- Taxi drivers and chauffeurs: 58 percent native-born
- Butchers and meat processors: 63 percent native-born
- Grounds maintenance workers: 64 percent native-born
- Construction laborers: 66 percent native-born
- Porters, bellhops, and concierges: 72 percent native-born
- Janitors: 73 percent native-born
There are 67 occupations in which 25 percent or more of workers are immigrants (legal and illegal). In these high-immigrant occupations, there are still 16.5 million natives - accounting for one out of eight natives in the labor force.
High-immigrant occupations (25 percent or more immigrant) are primarily, but not exclusively, lower-wage jobs that require relatively little formal education.
In high-immigrant occupations, 59 percent of the natives have no education beyond high school, compared to 31 percent of the rest of the labor force.
Natives tend to have high unemployment in high-immigrant occupations, averaging 14 percent during the 2009-2011 period, compared to 8 percent in the rest of the labor market. There were a total of 2.6 million unemployed native-born Americans in high-immigrant occupations.
Some may think that native-born workers in high-immigrant occupations are mostly older, with few young natives will-ing to do such work. But 34 percent of natives in these occupations are age 30 or younger, compared to 27 percent of natives in the rest of labor force.
It is worth remembering that not all high-immigrant occupations are lower skilled. For example, 36 percent of software engineers are immigrants, as are 27 percent of physicians.
A number of politically important groups tend to face very little job competition from immigrants (legal and illegal). For example, just 10 percent of reporters are immigrants, as are only 6 percent of lawyers and judges and 6 percent of farmers and ranchers.
We find that there are no occupations in the United States in which a majority of workers are illegal immigrants.
Illegal immigrants work mostly in construction, cleaning, maintenance, food service, garment manufacturing, and ag-ricultural occupations. However, the overwhelming majority of workers even in these areas are native-born or legal im-migrants.
Although illegal immigrants comprise a large share of workers in agriculture, farm workers are only a tiny share of the total labor force. Consistent with other research, just 5 percent of all illegal immigrants work in agriculture.
View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony and commentary here.
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
Is the Gang of Eight Plan "Amnesty"?
A study of other recent amnesties indicates that it is
The "Gang of Eight" senators argue that their bill (S.744) is not an amnesty because illegal immigrants would have to pay a fine and fulfill other requirements as a condition of legalization. Yet seven recent tax and parking-ticket amnesties imposed conditions and payments on those who violated the law, and in every case these programs were considered to be an amnesty by elected officials, the public, and the media. Like the Schumer-Rubio immigration bill, each of the amnesties discussed below set aside the normal penalty but still required payments.
Examples of recent amnesties:
In 2012 Rhode Island offered what the state government and media outlets explicitly called a "tax amnesty". The state even created the website www.TaxAmnesty.ri.gov to promote it. The amnesty allowed certain taxpayers to pay overdue taxes plus seventy-five percent of interest due by November 15. The remaining interest and civil and criminal penalties were waived.
The town of Huntington, N.Y., just completed a parking ticket program described as an amnesty by the town board, town supervisor, and local media. To qualify for the amnesty, past due tickets issued January 1, 2005, or later had to be paid by April 30, 2013. The person had to pay the ticket value plus any penalties, but could do so at a 40 percent discount.
In 2009 Louisiana ran what the state itself called a "tax amnesty", even setting up a "Tax Amnesty Website". The media also referred to it as an amnesty. The program covered past due taxes from 2001 or later. If taxes owed and 50 percent of interest were paid during the two-month amnesty period, the remainder of the interest plus civil penalties were waived.
More examples here
Members of the Senate's Gang of Eight have argued that S.744 is not an amnesty. On his website promoting S.744, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) states that, "No one gets amnesty". He argues that because the beneficiaries have to meet requirements and pay fines it is not an amnesty. He even states, "no undocumented immigrant is rewarded with anything". Similarly, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) argued in a National Review opinion article, "This bill ensures that no illegal immigrant will be given amnesty or rewarded for illegal behavior." When asked if the bill was amnesty in a recent interview Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) stated, "not at all." Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) also claimed in a recent interview that the bill is not amnesty.
Despite claims to the contrary, S.744 is similar to the tax and parking ticket amnesties discussed above. The normal penalty for being in the United States illegally is that the alien must leave the country. Under S.744 this penalty is set aside and illegal immigrants who arrived prior to January 1, 2012 are given legal status and can remain in the country. They must also pay a fee of $500 initially, and undergo a background check. Like all the amnesties discussed above, S.744 includes conditions and payments. If S.744 is not an amnesty, then none of the tax and parking ticket amnesties discussed above are amnesties, even though everyone involved with them considers the programs to be amnesties.
"The Schumer-Rubio immigration bill is an amnesty, and those who claim otherwise are not being honest with the American people," said Steven Camarota, Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies.
View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony and commentary here
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
There Are No Jobs Americans Won't Do
Native-born dominate virtually all occupations
Supporters of the Schumer-Rubio amnesty argue that the bill's large increase in future legal immigration will have little impact on the employment of natives because immigrants do only jobs American's don't want. But a detailed analysis of 472 separate occupations by the Center for Immigration Studies shows there are only a tiny number of majority-immigrant occupations (legal and illegal immigrants combined). Thus, there are really no jobs that Americans won't do. Further, the Center found no occupations in which a majority of workers are illegal immigrants.
Co-author Steven Camarota, the Center's Director of Research, notes, "When more educated and affluent Americans argue that immigrants only do jobs Americans don't want, what they often mean is immigrants do jobs that they personally don't want. They forget the millions of their fellow Americans who do precisely these same jobs."
The millions of native-born Americans and legal immigrants already in the United States who work at low-paying and difficult jobs unfortunately do not seem to be represented in the legislation, which calls for a massive increase in immigration. The Schumer-Rubio bill creates a new guestworker program for less-skilled immigrants, it increases family immigration for a number of years, a large share of which is less-skilled, and creates new categories to admit additional less-educated workers.
The complete report can be viewed here. Among the findings:
Of the 472 civilian occupations, only six are majority immigrant (legal and illegal). These six occupations account for 1 percent of the total U.S. workforce. Moreover, native-born Americans still comprise 46 percent of workers even in these occupations.
Many jobs often thought to be overwhelmingly immigrant (legal and illegal) are in fact majority native-born:
- Maids and housekeepers: 51 percent native-born
- Taxi drivers and chauffeurs: 58 percent native-born
- Butchers and meat processors: 63 percent native-born
- Grounds maintenance workers: 64 percent native-born
- Construction laborers: 66 percent native-born
- Porters, bellhops, and concierges: 72 percent native-born
- Janitors: 73 percent native-born
There are 67 occupations in which 25 percent or more of workers are immigrants (legal and illegal). In these high-immigrant occupations, there are still 16.5 million natives - accounting for one out of eight natives in the labor force.
High-immigrant occupations (25 percent or more immigrant) are primarily, but not exclusively, lower-wage jobs that require relatively little formal education.
In high-immigrant occupations, 59 percent of the natives have no education beyond high school, compared to 31 percent of the rest of the labor force.
Natives tend to have high unemployment in high-immigrant occupations, averaging 14 percent during the 2009-2011 period, compared to 8 percent in the rest of the labor market. There were a total of 2.6 million unemployed native-born Americans in high-immigrant occupations.
Some may think that native-born workers in high-immigrant occupations are mostly older, with few young natives will-ing to do such work. But 34 percent of natives in these occupations are age 30 or younger, compared to 27 percent of natives in the rest of labor force.
It is worth remembering that not all high-immigrant occupations are lower skilled. For example, 36 percent of software engineers are immigrants, as are 27 percent of physicians.
A number of politically important groups tend to face very little job competition from immigrants (legal and illegal). For example, just 10 percent of reporters are immigrants, as are only 6 percent of lawyers and judges and 6 percent of farmers and ranchers.
We find that there are no occupations in the United States in which a majority of workers are illegal immigrants.
Illegal immigrants work mostly in construction, cleaning, maintenance, food service, garment manufacturing, and ag-ricultural occupations. However, the overwhelming majority of workers even in these areas are native-born or legal im-migrants.
Although illegal immigrants comprise a large share of workers in agriculture, farm workers are only a tiny share of the total labor force. Consistent with other research, just 5 percent of all illegal immigrants work in agriculture.
View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony and commentary here.
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
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Judge Sides With ICE Agents: Says Obama Admin. Can’t Refuse to Deport Illegal Aliens
In a stunning order, a federal judge Wednesday said that the Obama administration is likely violating the law by telling immigration agents and officers not to arrest illegal aliens they deem “low priority”, in a lawsuit brought by ICE agents that could derail Obama’s plan to undermine immigration enforcement nationwide.
Federal Judge Reed O’Connor said in a court order Tuesday that Congress, not the president, sets priority for arresting illegal immigrants, and said the law requires them to be put in deportation proceedings.
“The court finds that DHS does not have discretion to refuse to initiate removal proceedings,” Judge O’Connor wrote in a stunning order few had expected.
Though not a final order, the judge shut the door on the Obama Administration’s effort to throw out this lawsuit, and guarantees a major battle ahead which could overturn Obama’s “virtual amnesty” for millions of illegals.
As we have reported, for the last several years the administration has conducted an arrogant, multi-pronged attack on the rule of law – first via the 2011 memorandums from the ICE Director and DHS Secretary, to an amnesty decree from Obama last year – in total outrageously shielding between 3 million and 5 million illegal aliens from arrest or deportation.
The Homeland Security department claimed it was using “prosecutorial discretion, and ordered agents to comply and refuse to enforce the immigration laws.
ICE immigration agents and officers sued (you can donate at this link), saying federal law requires them to make the arrests, but the Obama administration would discipline them if they complied with the law.
The judge said if Homeland Security officials want to set priorities for who they deport, they can do that later — but they cannot control who agents arrest.
The order is not a final ruling. Judge O’Connor said he still needs more information from both the administration and the immigration agents about whether the agents had another avenue to protest the policy rather than to go to court. He asked both sides to submit more information by May 6.
Still, Tuesday’s order makes clear that the judge rejects the central part of Mr. Obama’s claim that he can use discretion to decide not to arrest some illegal immigrants.
The case was brought by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Council, the labor union that represents ICE agents and officers.
SOURCE
Memo To Senate: Mandate The Border Fence Be Built Or Kill The Bill
The effort to secure the borders and reform immigration law is about to enter a crucial month at the end of which the fate of the bill will almost certainly be known.
The bill as it emerged from the Gang of 8 can probably not pass the Senate and certainly wouldn’t pass the House, nor should it.
But the Gang of 8 draft was only, as Senator Marco Rubio has said repeatedly said, “a starting point.”
A policy and political disaster awaits if a bill emerges from the Senate that cannot generate enough momentum to get even an amended version through the House and into a conference committee. The House will not be able to salvage a badly disfigured bill coming out of the Senate, so key amendments must be made in the Senate or Republicans in the Senate should say no to the effort and do so quickly.
The three key areas for amendment are (1) the border fence; (2) E-Verify; and (3) provisions to study and implement biometric screening and recording of people entering or leaving the United States.
The first fix is the easiest. As Charles Krauthammer told me on my radio show Friday (transcript here), we need “a fence from left to right, from east to west, except obviously the mountainous areas.”
Almost everyone from the center-right knows the truth of what Krauthammer says, and given that he is probably the single most influential commentator on the center-right, it is pure stubbornness for the Senate GOP to refuse to listen to him and scores of others saying the same thing: Build the fence.
Don’t “study” where it should go. Mandate where it should be built, and how it should be built, and when it should be built if any temporary residence permits are to be issued.
If the Senate’s bill does not mandate the construction of a thousand miles or more of double-fencing with an access road –with specified construction design and schedule, with appropriated money and with “notwithstanding any other law” authority to override the various laws like the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, NEPA etc.—it isn’t serious.
SOURCE
Judge Sides With ICE Agents: Says Obama Admin. Can’t Refuse to Deport Illegal Aliens
In a stunning order, a federal judge Wednesday said that the Obama administration is likely violating the law by telling immigration agents and officers not to arrest illegal aliens they deem “low priority”, in a lawsuit brought by ICE agents that could derail Obama’s plan to undermine immigration enforcement nationwide.
Federal Judge Reed O’Connor said in a court order Tuesday that Congress, not the president, sets priority for arresting illegal immigrants, and said the law requires them to be put in deportation proceedings.
“The court finds that DHS does not have discretion to refuse to initiate removal proceedings,” Judge O’Connor wrote in a stunning order few had expected.
Though not a final order, the judge shut the door on the Obama Administration’s effort to throw out this lawsuit, and guarantees a major battle ahead which could overturn Obama’s “virtual amnesty” for millions of illegals.
As we have reported, for the last several years the administration has conducted an arrogant, multi-pronged attack on the rule of law – first via the 2011 memorandums from the ICE Director and DHS Secretary, to an amnesty decree from Obama last year – in total outrageously shielding between 3 million and 5 million illegal aliens from arrest or deportation.
The Homeland Security department claimed it was using “prosecutorial discretion, and ordered agents to comply and refuse to enforce the immigration laws.
ICE immigration agents and officers sued (you can donate at this link), saying federal law requires them to make the arrests, but the Obama administration would discipline them if they complied with the law.
The judge said if Homeland Security officials want to set priorities for who they deport, they can do that later — but they cannot control who agents arrest.
The order is not a final ruling. Judge O’Connor said he still needs more information from both the administration and the immigration agents about whether the agents had another avenue to protest the policy rather than to go to court. He asked both sides to submit more information by May 6.
Still, Tuesday’s order makes clear that the judge rejects the central part of Mr. Obama’s claim that he can use discretion to decide not to arrest some illegal immigrants.
The case was brought by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Council, the labor union that represents ICE agents and officers.
SOURCE
Memo To Senate: Mandate The Border Fence Be Built Or Kill The Bill
The effort to secure the borders and reform immigration law is about to enter a crucial month at the end of which the fate of the bill will almost certainly be known.
The bill as it emerged from the Gang of 8 can probably not pass the Senate and certainly wouldn’t pass the House, nor should it.
But the Gang of 8 draft was only, as Senator Marco Rubio has said repeatedly said, “a starting point.”
A policy and political disaster awaits if a bill emerges from the Senate that cannot generate enough momentum to get even an amended version through the House and into a conference committee. The House will not be able to salvage a badly disfigured bill coming out of the Senate, so key amendments must be made in the Senate or Republicans in the Senate should say no to the effort and do so quickly.
The three key areas for amendment are (1) the border fence; (2) E-Verify; and (3) provisions to study and implement biometric screening and recording of people entering or leaving the United States.
The first fix is the easiest. As Charles Krauthammer told me on my radio show Friday (transcript here), we need “a fence from left to right, from east to west, except obviously the mountainous areas.”
Almost everyone from the center-right knows the truth of what Krauthammer says, and given that he is probably the single most influential commentator on the center-right, it is pure stubbornness for the Senate GOP to refuse to listen to him and scores of others saying the same thing: Build the fence.
Don’t “study” where it should go. Mandate where it should be built, and how it should be built, and when it should be built if any temporary residence permits are to be issued.
If the Senate’s bill does not mandate the construction of a thousand miles or more of double-fencing with an access road –with specified construction design and schedule, with appropriated money and with “notwithstanding any other law” authority to override the various laws like the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, NEPA etc.—it isn’t serious.
SOURCE
Friday, May 3, 2013
Schumer-Rubio Bill Amnesties Illegal Aliens and Their Employers
The "Gang of Eight" claims that its immigration bill does not provide amnesty for illegal immigrants. But an analysis of the legalization portion of the 844-page Senate proposal uncovers at least 11 amnesties for illegal aliens and their employers.
The report, by Ronald Mortensen, a Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, shows that the token penalties, when they do exist, are not commensurate with the employment-related felonies committed by the majority of illegal aliens, nor are they commensurate with the benefits received by illegal aliens. Just as unfortunate is the fact that millions of victims of these crimes are ignored while the amnestied illegals are rewarded and even benefit from the so-called penalties, as the monies actually go into a fund that provides services to the very people who paid the "penalties".
"Illegal aliens will be rewarded for breaking laws for which American citizens are routinely punished," said Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies. "For example, an American citizen would face a maximum penalty of ten years in prison and fines of up to $250,000 for using a fraudulent Social Security card, but under this bill the illegal alien would face a $1,000 penalty covering all his many offenses, a penalty which in many cases will be waived. Then, they would be issued a new Social Security number without any past bad credit or arrest records."
View the full report here
Dr. Mortensen discovered the following amnesties for illegal aliens and their employers:
Amnesties for Illegal Aliens:
Amnesty for the estimated 75 percent of illegal aliens committing Social Security fraud.
Amnesty from returning to home countries for 10 years before adjusting status.
Amnesty for illegal aliens committing Identity theft.
Amnesty for illegal aliens by officially authorizing them to continue committing identity theft by using fraudulently obtained Social Security numbers belonging to American citizens.
Amnesty for illegal aliens who have committed perjury on I-9 forms.
De-Facto amnesty from the token $1,000 penalty, since it effectively pre-pays services provided to illegal aliens.
Amnesty from existing exclusion, deportation, and removal orders.
While illegal aliens would be granted amnesty for crimes they have committed, government employees who discover Social Security fraud, identity theft, or perjury on I-9 forms while reviewing applications for provisional status would be prohibited from notifying victims, law enforcement, etc. with a threat of a $10,000 penalty. This is 10 times more than the $1,000 penalty paid by an illegal alien who has committed felony identity theft.
Amnesties for the Employers of Illegal Aliens
Amnesty for employers found to have employed illegal aliens or who are currently employing illegal aliens. Moreover, employers may continue to employ illegal aliens, accept fraudulent Social Security numbers, and renew falsified I-9 forms for those who apply for provisional status.
Amnesty for employers who did not withhold and/or submit payroll taxes for individuals illegally in the United States.
Amnesty for employers who violated labor laws by paying unfair wages, who failed to pay wages, etc.
Amnesty for employers who facilitated Social Security fraud and identity theft by providing or accepting false Social Security numbers.
While employers would be held harmless, government employees who find that employers violated the law while reviewing applications for temporary status would be prohibited from notifying the appropriate law enforcement authorities. If government employees do report tax or labor violations, they could face a fine of $10,000.
View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony, and commentary here.
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
Immigration Bill Does Not Require Payment of Back Taxes
For months now, the "Gang of Eight" senators, President Obama, and the lobbyists who helped craft the Schumer-Rubio bill have been justifying amnesty by assuring skeptics that illegal immigrants applying for legal status would be required to pay back taxes on money earned during the years they lived illegally in the United States.
Except the actual bill does not require the payment of back taxes.
Instead, the bill provides that amnesty applicants must have satisfied any applicable federal tax that has previously been assessed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
A tax is assessed only when the IRS officially records that it is owed which occurs after a tax return has been submitted or after the IRS has conducted an audit.
Since illegal immigrants working off the books do not submit tax returns and are generally not the subjects of IRS audits, it is unlikely that this provision will have any impact on the majority of amnesty applicants.
The bill also does not address employers' federal payroll tax liability (e.g. Social Security and Medicare (FICA) taxes), nor does the bill address liability for state and local taxes.
The absence of a back taxes provision is yet another example of how this bill gives a pass to lawlessness on the part of both illegal immigrants and their employers. The Gang of Eight
should be embarrassed for attempting to mislead the American people, said Jon Feere, Legal Policy Analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies.
The lack of specific language on back taxes requirement should not come as a surprise. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) worked to prohibit the IRS from requiring illegal immigrants pay back taxes in the 1986 amnesty. Similarly, the amnesty bill of 2007 originally included a requirement that illegal immigrants pay back taxes until the Bush administration persuaded Congress to remove the provision.
The National Taxpayers Union estimated the change would mean a loss of tens of billions of dollars, and argued that most law-abiding Americans would find the change totally distasteful.
If this bill becomes law, it will be clear that only citizens are responsible for paying taxes, and that illegalimmigrants are above the law, said Mr. Feere.
View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony and commentary here
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
May 2, 2013
One in three babies in England now has a parent who was born abroad
Almost a third of all children born in England and Wales now has at least one foreign-born parent, figures reveal.
In 2011, 224,943 babies had either one or both parents born outside the UK – 31 per cent of the total.
This is a substantial rise on the figure in 2000, when just 21.2 per cent of babies had at least one non-British-born father or mother.
The statistics, obtained by Tory MP Nicholas Soames, show that some 131,288 children had two foreign-born parents – 18.1 per cent of the total number of births in 2011.
A further 12.9 per cent – a total of 93,655 – had one parent who was born outside the UK.
At the end of the year, immigration restrictions will be lifted on Romanians and Bulgarians – prompting concerns that the numbers will rise yet further.
Andrew Green, of MigrationWatch, said the figures were ‘astonishing’. He added: ‘This is the clear result of Labour’s mass immigration policy which is changing the nature of our society at a speed which is unacceptable to the public who of course were never consulted.’
The figures – obtained after a parliamentary question – show that 64.9 per cent of babies born in London in 2011 had either one or two parents born outside the UK.
There were 27,403 births where one parent was foreign-born (20.6 per cent of the total), and 58,905 where both were born abroad (44.3 per cent).
David Green, from the centre-right think-tank Civitas, said: ‘The irresponsible actions of the last government have played havoc with public services, leading to serious harm especially in the NHS, and serious harm in the schools system.
‘Maternity units are in crisis, there are huge pressures on school places, and housing is under even more pressure that it otherwise would have been.’
A spokesman for the Office for National Statistics said that in 2000, the proportion of babies in England and Wales born to at least one foreign-born parent was 21.2 per cent.
It is the first time the figures have been released on both parents. The ONS usually only releases information on what proportion of mothers are foreign-born.
Last October, it was revealed that in 2011, there were 808,000 births, comprised of 612,000 births to UK-born women and 196,000 births to non-UK born women.
This meant that 24 per cent of births in 2011 were to non-UK born women – an increase of two percentage points since 2007.
The top five non-UK born mothers’ countries by number of births were Poland, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Nigeria.
Not all births are necessarily to parents who live in Britain permanently, as some could be people who travel to the UK to take advantage of its free NHS.
Last month, a leading surgeon, Professor Meirion Thomas, said the UK was becoming the ‘world’s maternity wing’ as people travel here simply to give birth.
Years of high immigration levels have put intolerable pressure on maternity units because the number of births has been far higher than officials had predicted. There is currently a shortage of more than 3,000 midwives in the NHS.
SOURCE
Why An Immigration Deal Won't Solve The Farmworker Shortage
The Salinas Valley in Northern California grows about 80 percent of the country's lettuce, and it takes a lot of people to pick and pack it. In a field owned by Duda Farm Fresh Foods, a dozen lechugueros, or lettuce pickers, are bent at the waist, cutting heads of iceberg lettuce. They work frantically to stay in front of a line of 12 more packers, who seal them with tape and toss them onto a conveyor belt.
"There's a lot more going on here than meets the eye," says Sammy Duda, the company's vice president. "The way the lettuce is trimmed is much more difficult to do if you don't trim it properly."
Duda hires 1,000 or more field workers every harvest, paying them about $12 an hour. Many don't have papers, but Duda says he has no other choice. Hardly any Americans apply for these jobs, he says, and most who do, don't stay.
"This has always been an immigrant job, whether it's, like I say, back from the Dust Bowl group," Duda says. "This is not a new phenomenon."
Labor shortages aren't a new phenomenon, either, in this valley made famous by John Steinbeck. But things have gotten worse lately.
A lot of the migrant workers who came from rural Mexico are getting too old for this back-breaking work, and their kids don't want to do it at all.
"It's hard, because I've been working in the fields for like 12 years now," says 29-year-old Marco Lara.
He says many of his extended family and friends back in his native Mexican state of Michoacan don't want to cross the border right now. Hiring a "coyote" costs a lot more than it once did, and the border is a lot more dangerous.
"There's people that just don't want to risk coming here," Lara says. "I [lost] two friends on the border three years ago."
Duda says the proposed immigration overhaul bill might solve some of these problems. For one, it would give thousands of workers a path to legal residency and make it easier for others to enter the U.S. But he says those things are probably just stopgap fixes.
"It'll help us in the short term. The long term? Remains to be seen," Duda says.
Since the late 1990s, there has been a slow but steady decline in the number of rural Mexicans migrating north. Agriculture economist Ed Taylor at the University of California, Davis, says that decline has little to do with U.S. immigration policy.
Taylor's research suggests that declining birth rates in rural Mexico, where the economy has also improved in recent years, is the reason why fewer migrants are coming to the U.S. And since farms in Mexico have also expanded to meet the year-round produce demands north of the border, why risk going north?
"Many [American] farmers also have this sense that, if Washington can just get its house in order and pass immigration reform, their problems will be over, and that isn't what our research is showing," Taylor says.
Farms here are going to have to learn how to do more with less immigrant labor, Taylor says. That means switching to less labor-intensive crops, or mechanization.
SOURCE
Schumer-Rubio Bill Amnesties Illegal Aliens and Their Employers
The "Gang of Eight" claims that its immigration bill does not provide amnesty for illegal immigrants. But an analysis of the legalization portion of the 844-page Senate proposal uncovers at least 11 amnesties for illegal aliens and their employers.
The report, by Ronald Mortensen, a Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, shows that the token penalties, when they do exist, are not commensurate with the employment-related felonies committed by the majority of illegal aliens, nor are they commensurate with the benefits received by illegal aliens. Just as unfortunate is the fact that millions of victims of these crimes are ignored while the amnestied illegals are rewarded and even benefit from the so-called penalties, as the monies actually go into a fund that provides services to the very people who paid the "penalties".
"Illegal aliens will be rewarded for breaking laws for which American citizens are routinely punished," said Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies. "For example, an American citizen would face a maximum penalty of ten years in prison and fines of up to $250,000 for using a fraudulent Social Security card, but under this bill the illegal alien would face a $1,000 penalty covering all his many offenses, a penalty which in many cases will be waived. Then, they would be issued a new Social Security number without any past bad credit or arrest records."
View the full report here
Dr. Mortensen discovered the following amnesties for illegal aliens and their employers:
Amnesties for Illegal Aliens:
Amnesty for the estimated 75 percent of illegal aliens committing Social Security fraud.
Amnesty from returning to home countries for 10 years before adjusting status.
Amnesty for illegal aliens committing Identity theft.
Amnesty for illegal aliens by officially authorizing them to continue committing identity theft by using fraudulently obtained Social Security numbers belonging to American citizens.
Amnesty for illegal aliens who have committed perjury on I-9 forms.
De-Facto amnesty from the token $1,000 penalty, since it effectively pre-pays services provided to illegal aliens.
Amnesty from existing exclusion, deportation, and removal orders.
While illegal aliens would be granted amnesty for crimes they have committed, government employees who discover Social Security fraud, identity theft, or perjury on I-9 forms while reviewing applications for provisional status would be prohibited from notifying victims, law enforcement, etc. with a threat of a $10,000 penalty. This is 10 times more than the $1,000 penalty paid by an illegal alien who has committed felony identity theft.
Amnesties for the Employers of Illegal Aliens
Amnesty for employers found to have employed illegal aliens or who are currently employing illegal aliens. Moreover, employers may continue to employ illegal aliens, accept fraudulent Social Security numbers, and renew falsified I-9 forms for those who apply for provisional status.
Amnesty for employers who did not withhold and/or submit payroll taxes for individuals illegally in the United States.
Amnesty for employers who violated labor laws by paying unfair wages, who failed to pay wages, etc.
Amnesty for employers who facilitated Social Security fraud and identity theft by providing or accepting false Social Security numbers.
While employers would be held harmless, government employees who find that employers violated the law while reviewing applications for temporary status would be prohibited from notifying the appropriate law enforcement authorities. If government employees do report tax or labor violations, they could face a fine of $10,000.
View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony, and commentary here.
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
Immigration Bill Does Not Require Payment of Back Taxes
For months now, the "Gang of Eight" senators, President Obama, and the lobbyists who helped craft the Schumer-Rubio bill have been justifying amnesty by assuring skeptics that illegal immigrants applying for legal status would be required to pay back taxes on money earned during the years they lived illegally in the United States.
Except the actual bill does not require the payment of back taxes.
Instead, the bill provides that amnesty applicants must have satisfied any applicable federal tax that has previously been assessed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
A tax is assessed only when the IRS officially records that it is owed which occurs after a tax return has been submitted or after the IRS has conducted an audit.
Since illegal immigrants working off the books do not submit tax returns and are generally not the subjects of IRS audits, it is unlikely that this provision will have any impact on the majority of amnesty applicants.
The bill also does not address employers' federal payroll tax liability (e.g. Social Security and Medicare (FICA) taxes), nor does the bill address liability for state and local taxes.
The absence of a back taxes provision is yet another example of how this bill gives a pass to lawlessness on the part of both illegal immigrants and their employers. The Gang of Eight
should be embarrassed for attempting to mislead the American people, said Jon Feere, Legal Policy Analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies.
The lack of specific language on back taxes requirement should not come as a surprise. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) worked to prohibit the IRS from requiring illegal immigrants pay back taxes in the 1986 amnesty. Similarly, the amnesty bill of 2007 originally included a requirement that illegal immigrants pay back taxes until the Bush administration persuaded Congress to remove the provision.
The National Taxpayers Union estimated the change would mean a loss of tens of billions of dollars, and argued that most law-abiding Americans would find the change totally distasteful.
If this bill becomes law, it will be clear that only citizens are responsible for paying taxes, and that illegalimmigrants are above the law, said Mr. Feere.
View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony and commentary here
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
May 2, 2013
One in three babies in England now has a parent who was born abroad
Almost a third of all children born in England and Wales now has at least one foreign-born parent, figures reveal.
In 2011, 224,943 babies had either one or both parents born outside the UK – 31 per cent of the total.
This is a substantial rise on the figure in 2000, when just 21.2 per cent of babies had at least one non-British-born father or mother.
The statistics, obtained by Tory MP Nicholas Soames, show that some 131,288 children had two foreign-born parents – 18.1 per cent of the total number of births in 2011.
A further 12.9 per cent – a total of 93,655 – had one parent who was born outside the UK.
At the end of the year, immigration restrictions will be lifted on Romanians and Bulgarians – prompting concerns that the numbers will rise yet further.
Andrew Green, of MigrationWatch, said the figures were ‘astonishing’. He added: ‘This is the clear result of Labour’s mass immigration policy which is changing the nature of our society at a speed which is unacceptable to the public who of course were never consulted.’
The figures – obtained after a parliamentary question – show that 64.9 per cent of babies born in London in 2011 had either one or two parents born outside the UK.
There were 27,403 births where one parent was foreign-born (20.6 per cent of the total), and 58,905 where both were born abroad (44.3 per cent).
David Green, from the centre-right think-tank Civitas, said: ‘The irresponsible actions of the last government have played havoc with public services, leading to serious harm especially in the NHS, and serious harm in the schools system.
‘Maternity units are in crisis, there are huge pressures on school places, and housing is under even more pressure that it otherwise would have been.’
A spokesman for the Office for National Statistics said that in 2000, the proportion of babies in England and Wales born to at least one foreign-born parent was 21.2 per cent.
It is the first time the figures have been released on both parents. The ONS usually only releases information on what proportion of mothers are foreign-born.
Last October, it was revealed that in 2011, there were 808,000 births, comprised of 612,000 births to UK-born women and 196,000 births to non-UK born women.
This meant that 24 per cent of births in 2011 were to non-UK born women – an increase of two percentage points since 2007.
The top five non-UK born mothers’ countries by number of births were Poland, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Nigeria.
Not all births are necessarily to parents who live in Britain permanently, as some could be people who travel to the UK to take advantage of its free NHS.
Last month, a leading surgeon, Professor Meirion Thomas, said the UK was becoming the ‘world’s maternity wing’ as people travel here simply to give birth.
Years of high immigration levels have put intolerable pressure on maternity units because the number of births has been far higher than officials had predicted. There is currently a shortage of more than 3,000 midwives in the NHS.
SOURCE
Why An Immigration Deal Won't Solve The Farmworker Shortage
The Salinas Valley in Northern California grows about 80 percent of the country's lettuce, and it takes a lot of people to pick and pack it. In a field owned by Duda Farm Fresh Foods, a dozen lechugueros, or lettuce pickers, are bent at the waist, cutting heads of iceberg lettuce. They work frantically to stay in front of a line of 12 more packers, who seal them with tape and toss them onto a conveyor belt.
"There's a lot more going on here than meets the eye," says Sammy Duda, the company's vice president. "The way the lettuce is trimmed is much more difficult to do if you don't trim it properly."
Duda hires 1,000 or more field workers every harvest, paying them about $12 an hour. Many don't have papers, but Duda says he has no other choice. Hardly any Americans apply for these jobs, he says, and most who do, don't stay.
"This has always been an immigrant job, whether it's, like I say, back from the Dust Bowl group," Duda says. "This is not a new phenomenon."
Labor shortages aren't a new phenomenon, either, in this valley made famous by John Steinbeck. But things have gotten worse lately.
A lot of the migrant workers who came from rural Mexico are getting too old for this back-breaking work, and their kids don't want to do it at all.
"It's hard, because I've been working in the fields for like 12 years now," says 29-year-old Marco Lara.
He says many of his extended family and friends back in his native Mexican state of Michoacan don't want to cross the border right now. Hiring a "coyote" costs a lot more than it once did, and the border is a lot more dangerous.
"There's people that just don't want to risk coming here," Lara says. "I [lost] two friends on the border three years ago."
Duda says the proposed immigration overhaul bill might solve some of these problems. For one, it would give thousands of workers a path to legal residency and make it easier for others to enter the U.S. But he says those things are probably just stopgap fixes.
"It'll help us in the short term. The long term? Remains to be seen," Duda says.
Since the late 1990s, there has been a slow but steady decline in the number of rural Mexicans migrating north. Agriculture economist Ed Taylor at the University of California, Davis, says that decline has little to do with U.S. immigration policy.
Taylor's research suggests that declining birth rates in rural Mexico, where the economy has also improved in recent years, is the reason why fewer migrants are coming to the U.S. And since farms in Mexico have also expanded to meet the year-round produce demands north of the border, why risk going north?
"Many [American] farmers also have this sense that, if Washington can just get its house in order and pass immigration reform, their problems will be over, and that isn't what our research is showing," Taylor says.
Farms here are going to have to learn how to do more with less immigrant labor, Taylor says. That means switching to less labor-intensive crops, or mechanization.
SOURCE
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Boston Bomber's Background Check Highlights Amnesty Flaw
While amnesty advocates are exploiting the horrific Boston Marathon attack as justification for quickly passing an amnesty, the Center for Immigration Studies finds that the failed FBI
background checks of terrorism suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev indicate that the government does not have the capacity to adequately vet the backgrounds of 11 million illegal aliens, and that an amnesty might actually facilitate terrorism.
The FBI reportedly spent part of 2011 and an unknown amount of
resources investigating Tsarnaev's ties to terrorism after an apparent alert from Russian intelligence officials. The FBI said it "did not find any terrorism activity, domestic or foreign" _ after interviewing Tsarnaev, his family, his neighbors, and checking his travel records and Internet activity.
More details here
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and his allies are arguing that because terrorists may be living in the United States illegally, passage of the Schumer-Rubio amnesty would benefit national security.But the background checks in the Schumer-Rubio bill will be much less vigorous than the background check conducted by the FBI on Tsarnaev. The bill's background check provision does not
require face-to-face interviews with immigration officials. No provision requires an applicant's neighbors or family members to be interviewed, and an applicant's internet activity certainly will not be analyzed.
Even with face-to-face interviews, the 1986 amnesty still resulted in massive amounts of fraud. The fraudulently amnestied aliens included 1993 World Trade Center bomber Mahmud Abouhalima who used his new status to travel freely to and from the Middle East to pick up terrorist training. Had immigration law been enforced, he would have never received travel documents and instead would have
been removed from the country as an illegal alien visa-overstayer, potentially preventing the attack.
Within six months of passage of the Schumer-Rubio bill, illegal aliens would be entitled to driver's licenses, travel documents,Social Security accounts, and a significant number of state-level benefits.View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony, and commentary here
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
Why are the French so much better than the British at deporting terrorist suspects?
Abu Qatada: in France, he would have been on a plane to Amman as an act of judicially endorsed political will. The European convention would not have come into it
One of the great mysteries of the Abu Qatada saga is why this country finds it so difficult to deport suspected foreign terrorists while France has no such problem. Here are two nations, both Western liberal democracies, both in the EU, both signatories to the European human rights convention and subject to the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Both face threats from Islamist extremists; and yet their approach to dealing with them is dramatically different. Between 2001 and 2010, the UK deported nine alleged jihadis who were deemed to pose a threat to national security. Over the same period, France removed 129.
Why the contrast? Many of those packed off by France were sent to countries such as Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt, whose judicial systems are not widely thought to be paragons of compassion. Many of the deportees from France were Islamists whose only offence was to make disparaging remarks about the country rather than fanatics bent on fomenting violence.
Yet we are apparently unable to remove Abu Qatada, who arrived here under false pretences and was identified by MI5 as the most significant Islamic fundamentalist in Britain and an “inspiration” for terrorists both in this country and abroad. He chose his destination well when he came to Europe in 1993. Had he settled in Paris, he would certainly not still be there making a mockery of the French judicial system.
This disparity is the subject of a timely new book written by the counter-terrorism expert Frank Foley. He, too, had long been baffled by the varied approaches. And one thing that has become clear from his research is that the reason has little to do with the European court and much more to do with the different recent histories of the two countries and how their institutions have developed.
In the Commons last week, Theresa May became the fifth home secretary in succession forced to jump through a series of legal hoops to try to get rid of Abu Qatada. She announced that the UK had signed a treaty with Jordan aimed at persuading the Strasbourg court that if the imam were returned for trial the evidence against him would not have been extracted under torture. How that could be proven is anyone’s guess; but why do we have to go to such lengths at all? Is it to convince European judges or our own?
As Foley points out, in France “individuals only have limited means of preventing their deportation because of the relevant legal regulations and because of the swift expulsion practices of the French authorities”. Furthermore, an appeal does not suspend expulsion: the individual can still be deported to his home country and the appeal takes place in his absence. It is possible to petition the domestic courts to suspend a deportation but, says Foley, “the French authorities have pre-empted such legal moves by putting the individual on a plane home within just a few days of the order being issued”.
In Britain, by contrast, an appeal automatically halts a deportation; but that has nothing to do with Strasbourg and everything to do with the way we do things here. Since 1999, in the case of Algeria – whence most extremists come for historical reasons – “the French courts have not overturned any of the government’s deportation decisions on the basis that radical Islamists face a risk of torture or mistreatment if they are returned”.
However, in Abu Qatada’s case, neither have our courts. In fact, twice since 2001, British courts have upheld Home Office efforts to deport him. In 2007, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission said assurances from Jordan about his treatment were enough to override human rights obstacles. This was upheld in 2009 by the Law Lords, who also ruled that whether or not evidence against him might have been extracted under torture was irrelevant. It was not for the British courts “to regulate the conduct of trials in foreign countries”, and the use of such material would not amount to a “flagrant denial of justice’’.
If this country’s supreme court said he could be deported, why on earth is he still here? As soon as Qatada’s lawyers lodged an appeal, his removal was stayed; but in France, he would have been on a plane to Amman as an act of judicially endorsed political will: the European convention would not have come into it.
Here, the case went to Strasbourg, which found against the British government – and our courts have since gone along with that decision despite previously taking a completely different view.
The UK was slow to react to the jihadist threat in the Nineties (or, rather, we turned a blind eye to it). But there are aspects of the French approach to terrorism that we would not wish to adopt here (or at least I wouldn’t), such as the police making mass arrests or rounding up the usual suspects.
The judiciary in France are also much more tightly locked into the process through their investigating magistrates, who take over the case from the outset. Our tradition of free speech and civil liberties acts as a constraint on the more authoritarian instincts of the state. When it comes to removing from their territory suspected foreign jihadis who might do them harm, however, everyone in France sings from the same hymn sheet. We can’t even agree on the tune.
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.
Boston Bomber's Background Check Highlights Amnesty Flaw
While amnesty advocates are exploiting the horrific Boston Marathon attack as justification for quickly passing an amnesty, the Center for Immigration Studies finds that the failed FBI
background checks of terrorism suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev indicate that the government does not have the capacity to adequately vet the backgrounds of 11 million illegal aliens, and that an amnesty might actually facilitate terrorism.
The FBI reportedly spent part of 2011 and an unknown amount of
resources investigating Tsarnaev's ties to terrorism after an apparent alert from Russian intelligence officials. The FBI said it "did not find any terrorism activity, domestic or foreign" _ after interviewing Tsarnaev, his family, his neighbors, and checking his travel records and Internet activity.
More details here
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and his allies are arguing that because terrorists may be living in the United States illegally, passage of the Schumer-Rubio amnesty would benefit national security.But the background checks in the Schumer-Rubio bill will be much less vigorous than the background check conducted by the FBI on Tsarnaev. The bill's background check provision does not
require face-to-face interviews with immigration officials. No provision requires an applicant's neighbors or family members to be interviewed, and an applicant's internet activity certainly will not be analyzed.
Even with face-to-face interviews, the 1986 amnesty still resulted in massive amounts of fraud. The fraudulently amnestied aliens included 1993 World Trade Center bomber Mahmud Abouhalima who used his new status to travel freely to and from the Middle East to pick up terrorist training. Had immigration law been enforced, he would have never received travel documents and instead would have
been removed from the country as an illegal alien visa-overstayer, potentially preventing the attack.
Within six months of passage of the Schumer-Rubio bill, illegal aliens would be entitled to driver's licenses, travel documents,Social Security accounts, and a significant number of state-level benefits.View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony, and commentary here
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
Why are the French so much better than the British at deporting terrorist suspects?
Abu Qatada: in France, he would have been on a plane to Amman as an act of judicially endorsed political will. The European convention would not have come into it
One of the great mysteries of the Abu Qatada saga is why this country finds it so difficult to deport suspected foreign terrorists while France has no such problem. Here are two nations, both Western liberal democracies, both in the EU, both signatories to the European human rights convention and subject to the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Both face threats from Islamist extremists; and yet their approach to dealing with them is dramatically different. Between 2001 and 2010, the UK deported nine alleged jihadis who were deemed to pose a threat to national security. Over the same period, France removed 129.
Why the contrast? Many of those packed off by France were sent to countries such as Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt, whose judicial systems are not widely thought to be paragons of compassion. Many of the deportees from France were Islamists whose only offence was to make disparaging remarks about the country rather than fanatics bent on fomenting violence.
Yet we are apparently unable to remove Abu Qatada, who arrived here under false pretences and was identified by MI5 as the most significant Islamic fundamentalist in Britain and an “inspiration” for terrorists both in this country and abroad. He chose his destination well when he came to Europe in 1993. Had he settled in Paris, he would certainly not still be there making a mockery of the French judicial system.
This disparity is the subject of a timely new book written by the counter-terrorism expert Frank Foley. He, too, had long been baffled by the varied approaches. And one thing that has become clear from his research is that the reason has little to do with the European court and much more to do with the different recent histories of the two countries and how their institutions have developed.
In the Commons last week, Theresa May became the fifth home secretary in succession forced to jump through a series of legal hoops to try to get rid of Abu Qatada. She announced that the UK had signed a treaty with Jordan aimed at persuading the Strasbourg court that if the imam were returned for trial the evidence against him would not have been extracted under torture. How that could be proven is anyone’s guess; but why do we have to go to such lengths at all? Is it to convince European judges or our own?
As Foley points out, in France “individuals only have limited means of preventing their deportation because of the relevant legal regulations and because of the swift expulsion practices of the French authorities”. Furthermore, an appeal does not suspend expulsion: the individual can still be deported to his home country and the appeal takes place in his absence. It is possible to petition the domestic courts to suspend a deportation but, says Foley, “the French authorities have pre-empted such legal moves by putting the individual on a plane home within just a few days of the order being issued”.
In Britain, by contrast, an appeal automatically halts a deportation; but that has nothing to do with Strasbourg and everything to do with the way we do things here. Since 1999, in the case of Algeria – whence most extremists come for historical reasons – “the French courts have not overturned any of the government’s deportation decisions on the basis that radical Islamists face a risk of torture or mistreatment if they are returned”.
However, in Abu Qatada’s case, neither have our courts. In fact, twice since 2001, British courts have upheld Home Office efforts to deport him. In 2007, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission said assurances from Jordan about his treatment were enough to override human rights obstacles. This was upheld in 2009 by the Law Lords, who also ruled that whether or not evidence against him might have been extracted under torture was irrelevant. It was not for the British courts “to regulate the conduct of trials in foreign countries”, and the use of such material would not amount to a “flagrant denial of justice’’.
If this country’s supreme court said he could be deported, why on earth is he still here? As soon as Qatada’s lawyers lodged an appeal, his removal was stayed; but in France, he would have been on a plane to Amman as an act of judicially endorsed political will: the European convention would not have come into it.
Here, the case went to Strasbourg, which found against the British government – and our courts have since gone along with that decision despite previously taking a completely different view.
The UK was slow to react to the jihadist threat in the Nineties (or, rather, we turned a blind eye to it). But there are aspects of the French approach to terrorism that we would not wish to adopt here (or at least I wouldn’t), such as the police making mass arrests or rounding up the usual suspects.
The judiciary in France are also much more tightly locked into the process through their investigating magistrates, who take over the case from the outset. Our tradition of free speech and civil liberties acts as a constraint on the more authoritarian instincts of the state. When it comes to removing from their territory suspected foreign jihadis who might do them harm, however, everyone in France sings from the same hymn sheet. We can’t even agree on the tune.
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.