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

****************************************************************************************



30 November, 2009

Immigration is not just about numbers

Will Britain’s population reach 70million soon? According to the Balanced Migration group, led by MPs Frank Field and Nicholas Soames, we’ll be hitting that figure some time around 2030, by which time we’ll all be so confined in our crowded little country that the Government could be done for cruelty.

The population increase is down – entirely – to immigration. On Question Time last month Jack Straw answered a question on this subject by pointing out that the Government could hardly control people’s fertility or stop them having children (oh, but I bet they wish they could). He was either being dishonest or stupid– Britain’s fertility rate is around 1.7 children per women, way, way below replacement rate, so that in a migration-free world the population would soon start to tumble once the first of the baby boomers started booking their one-way tickets to Switzerland.

On their website the Balanced Migration group refer to Britain facing a population increase equal to seven Birminghams, the city that is usually used as a unit of population increase these days (the equivalent to the “Wales”, which is a measurement of land space). However, no new Birminghams will be needed for the migrants themselves, of course, but for the natives of that city and other big urban areas who leave as they become increasingly foreign to them – indeed, Birmingham will become the second British city to have a non-white majority way before the UK hits 70 million.

Seven Birminghams also equals one London, a city once seen as a sink that sucked in people from around the country, but which now spits them out at a far greater rate. Over the last four years, on average 70,000 more people have left London for the rest of Britain than have entered, a vote of no confidence in the multi-cultural society if ever there was one. Because however much middle class parents and journalists like to dress this issue up simply as a matter of better schools, safety and space, every single problem ex-Londoners identify with living in the metropolis is heavily aggravated by immigration, and the problems with living in what sociologist Robert Putnam identified as low-trust, socially isolated, multi-ethnic areas.

It is not just about numbers, although south-east England’s high density is certainly one reason why our attempt to mimic America’s melting pot has failed. Were Britain’s population increase down entirely to a high birth rate, it would not have the same effect on people’s quality of life – in fact, it would arguably have less of a social cost than if 400,000 Brits left every year and 400,000 people entered, as the Balanced Migration group advocate. That policy of “one in, one out” will not solve the problems of segregation, inequality, alienation and unhappiness that results from too much diversity (I’m not against cultural diversity, just too much of it, like I’m against too much of anything). Indeed, the most likely flashpoints of the future are among the least crowded areas in England, the former industrial towns of Yorkshire, Lancashire and the Midlands. It is demography rather than density that threatens social stability.

Certainly the Balanced Migration group are right to point to the dangers of over-population, and runaway immigration, but it is not the full story, and we should be honest about it. This morning the pressure group Sense About Science were on Radio 4 arguing – rightly, in my opinion – that in Britain scientific study and debate is hampered by our strict libel laws, and that we should be free to search for the truth, whether we find it comfortable or not. The same could be said about sociology and demography, except it is an unwritten code of politeness, embarrassment and social stigma, rather than libel law, that stops us being honest about how we run our small island.

SOURCE



Switzerland should have imposed EU job limits: minister


The Swiss advertisement above is from some time back and depicts three white sheep kicking a black sheep out of Switzerland. The words translate as "For greater secuity". It is not only blacks and Muslims that many Swiss are dubious about, however. Lots of Germans have taken over top jobs in Switzerland in recent years and that causes some teeth-grinding. Fancy anybody not liking Germans! I quite like them myself but not many do. In Italy they tend to be regarded with horror and even French arrogance becomes rather brittle when the topic of the "Boche" arises

Switzerland made a "mistake" by not imposing temporary limits on European job seekers during the economic crisis, Swiss Economics Minister Doris Leuthard said in remarks published Sunday. The government will re-examine in the coming year whether it should activate the safeguard clause built into a deal with the European Union that allows Europeans to work in Switzerland, she added.

"The cantons and social partners were skeptical. They were undecided on the effect (of the safeguard clause) and did not want to spark a new conflict with the EU," said Leuthard in an interview with NZZ am Sonntag. "In hindsight, that was a mistake. With the safeguard clause, we could have kept thousands of people away from the Swiss job market," she said.

Under an accord between Switzerland and the EU, European workers can take up jobs in Switzerland without being subject to a work permit quota system. To protect the Swiss job market from over-saturation, the deal also includes a clause allowing Bern to impose temporary restrictions in specific circumstances. It can be activated if immigration grows by more than 10 percent in a year compared with the average rate in the previous three years.

Leuthard said the government will reopen the issue again in the coming year. "We will relook this in hindsight in 2010 and 2011, because the unemployment rate is expected to rise further. We must also look at whether there are other control mechanisms," she said.

Even though unemployment in Switzerland hit a four-year-high in October, reaching 4.0 percent, net inward migration is expected to reach 70,000 for 2009. In 2008, the country registered its biggest rise in permanent resident population in 40 years amid record immigration.

Leuthard said the government had expected more foreigners to head home amid the toughening job market in Switzerland, but she noted that "we were wrong." With unemployment rates in the eurozone higher than in Switzerland, Europeans have decided that it was better to remain here, she added.

Leuthard said that the government would look into the impact on the social security system. "We need to analyse the situation, to examine for instance, whether we need changes made to claims on unemployment benefits," she added.

SOURCE





29 November, 2009

Immigration, the race card, and 2010

Desperate men reach for desperate tactics, and staring in the face of near certain electoral losses in 2010 the Democrats have reached for a familiar strategy – race baiting. Yes, in an effort to blunt conservative momentum the Democratic leadership will attempt to use immigration as a wedge to divide the GOP and convince minority voters that all this opposition to Obama is really just thinly disguised racism.

Immigration was already shaping up to be a hot button issue in 2010. Health coverage for illegal immigrants has become a focal point of criticism in the health care debate. And Rep. Lamar Smith recently fired a salvo Obama’s way over the issue. But Republicans have to be careful around this topic or risk losing minority voters. That could be significant in the contested 2010 races here in Travis County. To wit:

* HD 48 is 12% Hispanic and 18.7% of voters speak a language other than English in the home

* HD 47 is 19.2% Hispanic and 17.8% say they speak a language other than English at home

* CD 10 is 18.7% Hispanic

Although Latinos do not make up a majority in any of those districts, the elections last time around were all close. The two state legislature races in particular were razor thin, and a difference of a few thousand or a few hundred votes in 2010 could potentially carry great significance. Conservative commentators have already begun pontificating how Republicans can best handle this issue and turn it around to their advantage. If they can do that, perhaps one of the oldest tricks in the liberal playbook will finally be put to rest.

SOURCE



New leader for the UK Independence Party

Lord Pearson of Rannoch has been elected leader of UKIP. It should be interesting: as I reported last month, the new man has said he will make the fight against radical Islam a major focus for the party.

Today The Times reported: "A UKIP source said that if Lord Pearson or Mr Batten were elected “You are going to see quite a lot stronger position from us. Nigel has always been afraid of the Islam thing backfiring. But the BNP are taking ownership of issues that have not been addressed by Labour, the Conservatives or the Lib Dems and they need addressing.”

So I imagine UKIP will now probably make immigration and radical Islam as much their thing as Europe, and move closer to the Dutch Freedom Party, whose leader Geert Wilders is an ally of Pearson. It might not make them the darlings of White City, but it will play well to the public, many of whom are horrified about the direction the country is taking, and who want to physically puke every time they see a Westminster MP on television, but who are not prepared for the mental leap of voting for the BNP.

SOURCE



Australia: Insane waste in treatment of illegals

You can bet there would be none of this if the bureaucrats were spending their own money

TONNES of bottled water, costing thousands of dollars, are being airlifted to Christmas Island for dehydrated asylum seekers as they step on to the arrivals wharf - despite a tap being just metres away. And the Federal Government will not splash out a couple of thousand dollars to bring a new tap closer for the thirsty arrivals, preferring to jet in the expensive bottles.

Problems arise when refugees first land on the island. Initial screening takes place at the wharf with the tap about 20m away. The asylum seekers are then moved to a construction camp – formerly used by workers who built the detention centre and now housing refugees – where the Department of Immigration and Citizenship said there were "limited options for tap water".

The latest shipment of water, about 2.5 tonnes, was flown to the island on Monday on a department charter flight. The department would not reveal how much it cost, but a four-tonne delivery earlier this year is understood to have cost $6 a kilogram – or $24,000.

One long-standing islander, who did not want to be named said: "It's bloody ridiculous. There's plenty of water to drink on the island, there are taps near the wharf, but the Government won't fix it up. "I could do it for a couple of thousand dollars. No worries."

Flying water to the island also angered local businesses but it is understood that when the Government invited them to tender for the supply their prices were higher than the cost of air-freighting.

A department spokesman said this week's delivery was part of a freight consignment on a charter flight. The spokeswoman said the department and its detention centre service provider Serco, had a duty of care to people in detention. "The provision of bottled water occurs when new arrivals to Christmas Island undertake their initial screening procedures and induction to immigration facilities," she said. "The initial processing is carried out on arrival at the wharf and subsequently at the construction camp. There are limited options for tap water to be provided at both these sites. "Those people are often dehydrated from an extended period at sea and sometimes nauseous.

"The department is aware that the water supply on Christmas Island is classed as potable and fit to drink and encourages all people to drink it as a matter of course." She said the department was "sensitive to the needs" of local traders and endeavoured to deal with them equitably. "However, on occasions it is necessary to freight large amounts independently to meet demands imposed by a sudden surge in the numbers of arrivals," she said.

Christmas Island Shire President Gordon Thomson said it was not the council's responsibility to put taps on property "whether government or privately owned".

The jetty and the construction camp are operated by the Commonwealth Government but a spokesman for the Attorney-General's Department, that has responsibility for the island, said: "There are taps with potable water in the picnic sites in the Flying Fish Cove area which are directly adjacent to the wharf. "As it is a working cargo wharf there is no intention to place a drinking water facility there. There is potable water available at the construction camp site, as there is with any other residential location on the island."

SOURCE





28 November, 2009

Maryland Study Reveals Staggering Increase of Illegal Immigration Costs and Voter Dissatisfaction

Simultaneous studies, released this week by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), document the true costs of illegal immigration in Maryland and demonstrate strong voter objections to the burdens placed on them by illegal immigration. The price tag associated with providing education, health care and incarceration of criminal illegal aliens is at least $1.3 billion a year, finds The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Marylanders. The impact is clearly recognized by Maryland voters. A new Pulse Opinion Research poll of 1,000 likely voters across the state found that, by a large margin, Marylanders believe that illegal immigration is harming their state.

The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Marylanders found that taxpayers spend:

* $ 1.1 billion a year to educate illegal immigrant children and the U.S. born children of illegal immigrants.

* $ 167 million a year on unreimbursed health care for illegal aliens.

* $ 29 million a year to incarcerate criminal illegal aliens.

* The total represents an annual cost to each of Maryland's native-born headed households of $ 625.

The cost study is based on an estimate that the illegal alien population in Maryland is now 250,000 persons. The illegal alien population of Maryland has grown exponentially during this decade, nearly quadrupling since 2000.

In a separate report, English Learners and Immigration: A Case Study in Prince George's County, Maryland, FAIR examines the impact of mass immigration in local schools in Prince George's County. Because of large-scale legal and illegal immigration, the county has seen its non-English proficient student population grow from 7,064 in 2004 to 13,825 today. Programs to teach immigrant students English cost the county more than $66 million a year.

The Pulse Opinion Research poll found that:

* 73% of Maryland voters say illegal immigration has a negative impact on the state. Only 20% believe it has a positive impact on Maryland.

* 77% of Maryland voters believe illegal aliens have a negative impact on the state budget, versus only 15% who believe their impact is positive.

* 65% of Maryland voters believe that illegal immigration harms the state's schools. Only 18% believe illegal immigration has had a beneficial effect on education.

* 55% believe illegal immigration should be reduced through better enforcement of immigration laws. Only 36% of Maryland voters favor amnesty or legalization for current illegal aliens.

"Voters in Maryland, like voters everywhere, want their elected officials in Washington and Annapolis to protect their interests, their jobs, and their tax dollars from the impact of mass illegal immigration," said Dan Stein, President of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). "The failure of government at all levels to institute and enforce sensible immigration policies is costing Marylanders jobs, billions in tax dollars, and their children the opportunity to get the quality education they need and deserve. At a time when state lawmakers are slashing budgets, spending on illegal immigrants in Maryland continues to rise over the strong objection of voters."

"The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Marylanders, English Learners and Immigration: A Case Study in Prince George's County, Maryland" and a summary of the Pulse Opinion Research results are available at www.fairus.org.

SOURCE



Immigrant exploitation of the British hospital system

Mapping out the strain on Britain's NHS: 243 sick babies treated in one London hospital ward.... and just 18 mothers come from Britain

Countless red dots scattered across the world map on the wall of a NHS hospital reveal the story of the changing face of Britain. Each dot denotes the background of a mother with a baby in the neonatal ward of London's Chelsea and Westminster hospital. The map was put up by hospital administrators to 'celebrate the ethnic diversity' of the sick children treated there, each at a cost of £1,400 a day. It shows dramatically how the NHS now treats patients from every corner of the globe.

The 243 mothers are from 72 different nations. They include Mongolia, the remotest regions of Russia, Japan, Africa, South America, swathes of Asia, Australasia and even Papua New Guinea. Only 18 mothers said they were from Britain.

The women were invited to put a dot on the map to 'represent' their home country. One, a London-born mother of a baby treated there earlier this summer, sent the Mail a photograph of the result. She said: 'Almost every cot and incubator at this wonderful unit was occupied by a baby with a foreign mother. Interpreters were on hand to make sure the mothers understood the doctors. 'Babies' lives are being saved and that is a good thing. Yet this seemed like a free-for-all.'

It is impossible to say how long each of the mothers has been in this country. But the fact is only a fraction of them declared themselves as having a British background. In theory, only a woman who has lived here legally for a year or has a student visa lasting more than six months is entitled to free NHS care when giving birth. Yet few hospitals are prepared to turn away a pregnant patient in the late stages of labour. Indeed, the Government recently issued an instruction telling them to admit such women without question.

Health Minister Ann Keen pronounced in July: 'We remain firmly committed to the requirement that immediately necessary or urgent treatment should never be denied or delayed from those that require it.'

Many nurses and doctors on the NHS frontline believe her words were dangerously naive, even an explicit invitation to heavily pregnant women to fly to Britain to have babies. Some have arrived at Chelsea and Westminster - and other London hospitals - straight from the airport with the ticket tags still on their suitcases.

Mothers-to-be target this country as 'health tourists' for a variety of reasons. Some do so because they face a difficult birth and want expert care unavailable in their home countries. Others have been told by doctors abroad that their baby will be born with a profound illness, needing a lifetime of treatment and medicines. They know the NHS will provide this with few questions asked even if the bill reaches millions of pounds.

The Chelsea and Westminster Hospital's neonatal ward treats 500 newborns each year from London and the south east. Many of the babies have been born prematurely or have inherited illnesses. They include those with ailments such as sickle cell anaemia (which is prevalent in African and Mediterranean communities, while almost unknown among those of northern European heritage), the HIV virus passed on from the mother, as well as deafness, blindness and devastating neurological problems common among ethnic communities in which marriages between cousins are the norm.

Today nearly 25 percent of babies in Britain have mothers who were born abroad. In London the figure is 50 percent. The boroughs of Newham and Brent have the highest percentage, 75 percent and 73 percent respectively. Even in Chelsea (an area less associated with immigration) the figure is 67 percent, according to a recent Government report.

Britain's population is expected to grow from 61 million to 74 million over the next 20 years, the Office for National Statistics said last week. The estimate is based on both the continuing high birthrate of migrant mothers and levels of immigration as well as the longer life expectancy of the entire population.

Meanwhile, at least three million foreigners have settled here legally since 1997 - a rate of 700 a day. Nearly a million more are living here illegally, the Home Office has admitted.

Bliss, a campaigning charity supporting families with premature and sick babies, recently said that the NHS needs 2,700 more neonatal nurses to cope with growing numbers of baby births. They now total 791,000 a year, up 33,000 from 2007.

Back at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, the colourful world baby map, proudly displayed on the wall for three months, was recently removed during construction work. Last night, a spokesperson for Chelsea and Westminster said that the hospital cared for patients from many different backgrounds, reflecting London's population. The map was intended to illustrate the diversity of the families of babies on the ward.

The hospital also issued the following statement: 'Chelsea and Westminster Hospital is a specialist referral centre and cares for patients of many different backgrounds, reflecting London’s very diverse population. 'Of the 550 babies admitted to our Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) every year, a very small number of these are overseas patients. In 2009, there have been just two overseas admissions.

'The map was placed in the NICU nearly four years ago to provide the families of the babies we care for, as well as staff, with an opportunity to indicate their background if they wished. It is not an indication of country of residence or citizenship. 'It was intended to illustrate the diversity of staff working on the unit and the families of the babies we care for, to encourage everyone to reflect on different cultures, in a fun and informal way.

'Chelsea and Westminster Hospital’s NICU provides intensive care, high dependency and special care facilities for babies and is a specialist referral centre for neonatal surgery.'

SOURCE





27 November, 2009

Two thirds of voters say Immigration is bad for Britain

A poll released last night shows the two in three UK voters feel that immigration is bad for Britain. The survey, which looked at a range of policies regarding border control, revealed that 67 percent of voters feel that there was a negative effect on the UK from immigration. The majority of pollsters expressed concerns that immigration was resulting in foreign workers and illegal migrants taking jobs from British nationals, with calls for deportation high on the feedback.

Research company Angus Reid Public Opinion carried out the poll which once again shows that immigration will be a key issue in next year’s general election. The poll also revealed widespread scepticism over all of the main political parties’ immigration policies.

Labour was backed by just 12 percent of voters as the best political party to control British borders as opposed to the Tories which gathered 30 percent of the voting support. The Liberal Democrats were supported by just 8 percent.

The poll data comes just two weeks after Prime Minister Gordon Brown made his first major speech about the topic of immigration policy. In that speech Brown said the issue of immigration was not one for fringe parties and nor was it a taboo subject.

A spokesman for Angus Reid said the survey clearly shows how important the issue of immigration is right now within the UK, with numerous recent rule changes and open debates keeping the topic firmly in the limelight.

Over 2,000 people were quizzed in the survey, with 57 percent saying that deportation should be mandatory for all illegal newcomers. A further 56 percent were convinced that British workers were suffering from job losses to illegal immigrants. Only 23 percent of Britons said that illegal immigrants should be allowed temporary work in the UK and just 13 percent were in favour of them eventually having the opportunity to become citizens.

SOURCE



Record numbers leaving UK but half a million migrants still arriving each year

Many of those who left will have been Britons of high economic productivity seeking a better life -- and many who arrived will be unskilled. Only a Labour Party government would think that is a good deal. With less overcrowding and other migration-related problems in Britain, many of the Britons who went might well have stayed

A record number of people left the UK last year amid the recession - but the arrival of almost 700 foreign migrants a day meant the population still increased, according to new figures.

Eastern European workers returning home was behind the sharp rise in emigration but hundreds of thousands of new migrants continued to flock to the country. It meant, on balance, more people still arrived than left during 2008 and critics said the population remained on course to pass 70 million within two decades. Foreign migrants now account for a third of the population of London, the Office for National Statistics revealed.

The figures show that while the recession is having an impact the UK continues to be a major attraction for foreign workers and migrants, pushing the population up yet further. It will pile further pressure on local authorities and communities already facing a heavy strain on resources by large and sudden influxes of people.

And it came as a poll showed three quarters of the public are concerned about the impact immigration is having on Britain and a similar proportion do not believe the Government is open and honest about the scale.

A record 427,000 people left the country during 2008, around two thirds of whom had not been born in the UK, which was a 25 per cent increase on the 341,000 who left the previous year. However, at the same time, some 590,000 came to live in the UK in 2008, a rise of 16,000 on the previous year and just short of the record 596,000 arrivals in 2006. It meant a net immigration to the UK of 163,000, which was down by almost half on the previous year but still well above the 50,000 figure needed if the population is not to reach 70 million by 2029. Once Britons are removed from the figures, there was a net inflow of non-UK born migrants of 251,000 during the year – the equivalent of 688 foreign arrivals adding to the population every day.

Damian Green, the shadow immigration minister, said: "Ministers should apologise for the years in which they have given us a chaotic immigration system with numbers coming in at levels which put unacceptable pressure on public services. “To make the Points Based System effective in cutting immigration to sensible levels, we need to have an annual limit on the numbers coming here, as well as much more effective measures against those who abuse the loopholes in, for example, the student visa system.”

The rise in emigration was mainly driven by Eastern Europeans, 69,000 of who left last year compared to just 25,000 in 2007 but the former Eastern Bloc citizens, such as Poles and Slovaks, continue to arrive as well and there was a net inflow of 20,000 over the year. As for those leaving the UK, Poland was the most popular country of residence for foreign departees while Australia was top for British emigrants.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the think-tank Migrationwatch, said the fact it was EU citizens, who have free movement, who were the main drivers in the departures made a mockery of the Government's claims of controlling immigration. A YouGov poll for his organisation found 72 per cent of people want net migration cut to 50,000 a year. Sir Andrew said: "Today's immigration figures confirm that unless we change direction, immigration will add another seven million to our population in the next 25 years – that's equivalent to seven cities the size of Birmingham."

MPs Frank Field and Nicholas Soames, who chair the cross party balanced migration group in Parliament said Government policies were having "little or no effect" on immigration. They said the 30% fall in net immigration was "almost entirely" due to Eastern European migrants. "These migrants are not affected by government immigration policies which appear to have had little or no effect on the overall scale of immigration," they said. "The time has come for all parties to stop ducking the issue and develop serious measures to reduce immigration to acceptable levels, not dish out yet more spoonfuls of spin."

Phil Woolas, the immigration minister, said: "Our new flexible, points-based system gives us greater control over those coming to work or study from outside Europe, ensuring that only those that Britain need can come."

Separate Home Office statistics showed the number of people removed from the UK between July and September this year fell six per cent to 17,055.

SOURCE





26 November, 2009

'Growing' in Office, Before You Take Office

By Mark Krikorian

Rich tells a great story about the brief period years ago when he toyed with the idea of running for mayor:

Shortly after the mayoral speculation began, a woman stopped me in my apartment building to ask if I were going to run. It turned out that she was that rarity, a right-wing Manhattanite. But soon enough she was asking me what I thought of rent control. I tried to dodge, saying I needed to study the issue further. She pressed me, then said she'd never vote for me if I wanted to end rent control since she lived in a rent-controlled apartment. Watching perhaps my only vote in Manhattan disappear, I immediately told her that any solution would have to grandfather in current residents of rent-controlled apartments. So there I was, about 48 hours into my mayoral flirtation, already selling out. The temptation to tell people what they want to hear is just extremely powerful, especially if you want their support.

Apropos of that, the Wall Street Journal reports today on Lou Dobbs's nascent campaign for Senate (or president):

In a little-noticed interview Friday, Mr. Dobbs told Spanish-language network Telemundo he now supports a plan to legalize millions of undocumented workers, a stance he long lambasted as an unfair "amnesty." . . .

Mr. Dobbs twice mentioned a possible legalization plan for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., saying at one point that "we need the ability to legalize illegal immigrants under certain conditions."

Mr. Dobbs couldn't be reached Tuesday. Spokesman Bob Dilenschneider said Mr. Dobbs draws a distinction between illegal immigrants who have committed crimes since arriving in the U.S. and those who are "living upright, positive and constructive lives" who should be "integrated" into society. He said Mr. Dobbs recognizes the political importance of Latinos and is "smoothing the water and clearing the air."

Now, this isn't quite as surprising as it may seem. Dobbs has always been a supporter of mass immigration, it's just illegal immigration that he used to complain about — that was better than anyone else in the MSM, for sure, but if you keep following the string you'll end up supporting either mass immigration, regardless of status, or low immigration, likewise regardless of status. Dobbs's (and many others') approach to immigration of "legal, good/illegal, bad" is logically untenable.

The amusing thing is that his "growth" isn't going to help him in any case — the open-borders crowd won't believe him and immigration hawks will dismiss him as just another McCain-style phony maverick.

SOURCE



Germany wants 'integration contract' for immigrants

The German government wants immigrants to sign an 'integration contract' binding newcomers to German 'values,' the country's commissioner for immigration, refugees and integration said on Monday. "Anyone who wants to live here for a long time and who wants to work has to say "yes" to our country," Maria Boehmer told the Stuttgarter Nachrichten local daily. "This includes learning the German language as well as the readiness to participate in society," she said. In exchange, immigrants "can expect help and support."

She said that common values that immigrants would have to pledge to uphold included freedom of speech and equality of the sexes.

Boehmer added that there were parts of large German cities with "parallel societies" where there are "significant deficits" when it comes to speaking German and school performance.

But she added that success stories among Germany's 15.1-million strong population of immigrants and their descendants had to be better publicised, such as those who create firms or become engineers, doctors or lawyers.

Last year, in common with some other European countries, Germany introduced a test on key facts about the country for people wanting to gain German citizenship.

SOURCE





25 November, 2009

Sri Lankan government cracks down on people smugglers

I am guessing that this is in part driven by a hope that most of those caught will be Tamils. Sri Lankan Sinhalese have a hatred of Tamils created by many years of ferocious Tamil terrorism -- and a desire for some degree of payback is very understandable

As a further 52 asylum seekers were brought ashore on Christmas Island [Australia] yesterday, a fleet of fishing boats carrying 142 Sri Lankans bound for Australia was intercepted. Sri Lanka's navy last night said it seized the four fishing trawlers off the island nation's southern coast and handed them over to local police.

"The passengers had paid large sums of money to people smugglers to take them abroad," navy spokesman Athula Senarath said. In recent months there has been an increase in the number of Sri Lankans trying to enter Australia, many claiming political asylum - most famously the 72 who ended up aboard Australian Customs vessel Oceanic Viking.

At Christmas Island yesterday, however, the 52 new arrivals - brought to land under the watchful eye of an Australian Federal Police contingent - were Afghans.

They were transferred from an Australian Customs vessel standing off the island and conveyed by barge to the public wharf in Flying Fish Cove, where interpreters were waiting with buses to take them to the island's detention centres. Sources said the latest group comprised 39 adult males, one adult female and 10 minors, plus two crew.

Extra security precautions have been in place since Saturday night's violent riot at the island's principal immigration detention centre - where the men will be housed while their identity and security checks are carried out.

The women will be put in temporary accommodation of prefabricated huts behind barbed wire in the grounds of the recreation centre and at an adjacent construction camp. The male arrivals will put further stress on the already overcrowded camp, which was built to hold 400, expanded to cope with 800 and has recently held more than 1000. On Monday, nearly 70 people who were processed on Christmas Island were informed they were to be granted permanent visas and taken to Australia. [A reward for forcing the gates!]

SOURCE



Spain Helping Mauritania Slow Illegal Immigration

Spain is helping Mauritania fight the illegal immigration of Africans trying to reach Europe. The number of those trying the dangerous ocean crossing are down, but many young Africans remain determined to make the trip. The northern city of Nouadhibou is Mauritania's commercial capital. But its proximity to the Spanish-controlled Canary Islands also makes it a center for illegal immigration in West Africa.

Bamba Zoumana traveled overland from his home in Mali to join other West Africans trying to make the nearly 1,000 kilometers to the Canary Islands on a small wooden boat. They were turned back to Nouadhibou. But Zoumana says he will try again. Zoumana says in his own country no one respects you because you have no money. So he made the final decision to leave for his family. It is a choice between reaching Europe and dying in the ocean. If you die, your family loses. But if you reach Europe, Zoumana says, your family wins. Some of the people who do not make it to Europe then decided to stay at home. But not Zoumana. He says he should be there. But if he does not succeed, he says he is obliged to do his best for his son to reach Europe.

The Spanish and Mauritanian governments have stepped up patrols along the coast to stop that illegal immigration. Madrid is helping Nouakchott with an annual budget of nearly $750 million and a small plane to keep watch on immigration routes.

Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation Miguel Angel Moratinos was the first European foreign minister to visit Mauritanian President Mohammed Ould Abdel Aziz after his election earlier this year. Moratinos announced plans to strengthen development assistance for fishing, agriculture, and health as well as strategic cooperation on fighting illegal migration, terrorism, and smuggling.

Ahmed Ould Khayer runs a non-governmental organization in Nouadhibou that helps illegal immigrants who are waiting to be returned to their home countries. Because most of the people trying to emigrate illegally from Nouadhibou are not Mauritanians, Khayer says they live in the country in secret, making their cases difficult to follow. Khayer says his group's research shows the number of people trying to get to Europe illegally has fallen by nearly 80 percent as a result of renewed efforts to secure the coastline.

Malian Diara Oumaro knows it is a dangerous trip. But he is in Nouadhibou getting ready to go. Oumaro says illegal immigrants are paying boatmen between $700 and $1,000 for passage to the Canary Islands. Many of his friends and neighbors died at sea in 2006 and 2007. But he is determined to try. Everyone loves Europe, Oumaro says. In Africa now, if you have a job you are saving money to try to get to Europe. If you don't have money, you take small jobs in construction, and as soon as you have enough money, you try to reach Europe because in Europe, Oumaro says, you can make a lot of money and come back home.

Yahya Cisse, who heads a group of young Malians in Nouadhibou, says illegal immigration is a problem for everyone - for the home countries of migrants, for Mauritania, and for Spain. Cisse says people in Mali know nothing about the ocean. If they knew how dangerous it was, he says, maybe they would not take the risk. In Mauritania, he says Malians must be better informed about the dangers and better prevented from trying the ocean crossing. As for Spain, he says there are some Spanish nationals who are accomplices in illegal immigration who play down the risks of the trip to get money from people desperate for what they hope will be a better life in Europe.

SOURCE





24 November, 2009

New from the Center for Immigration Studies

1. Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue

Excerpt: This study examines academic and government research on the question of immigrant crime. New government data indicate that immigrants have high rates of criminality, while older academic research found low rates. The overall picture of immigrants and crime remains confused due to a lack of good data and contrary information. However, the newer government data indicate that there are legitimate public safety reasons for local law enforcement to work with federal immigration authorities.

********

2. Immigration-Related Theses and Dissertations, 2008

Excerpt: It is the mission of the Center for Immigration Studies to examine, inform, and critique American immigration policy. In the pursuit of this goal, the Center seeks to provide the latest immigration news and research for all involved in the debate over this complex issue. In addition to its e-mail news services, reports, and books, the Center disseminates an annual list of doctoral dissertations and theses which relate to immigration in order to keep those involved abreast of the most recent developments in emerging scholarship. This compilation contains dissertations completed in 2008.

********

3. Immigration’s Impact on U.S. Workers

Excerpt: There is some disagreement among economist about the size of the impact on American workers. However, almost all economists agree that less-educated workers have done very poorly in the labor market over the last four decades as immigration has increased. This testimony examines trends in wages and employment and finds no evidence of a shortage of less-educated workers. Moreover, there is significant research showing that immigration has reduced employment and wages for less-educated natives.

********

4. Labor Market Effects of Immigration Enforcement at Meatpacking Plants in Seven States

Excerpt: Thank you, ranking member Smith and Republican members, for the invitation to testify about two reports on how local labor markets were affected by immigration enforcement at seven meat packing plants in seven states.

********

5. Hate Groups, Nativists, and Vigilantes

Excerpt: But if I might put myself in their heads for a moment, this kind of caution is irrelevant to the organizers of the hate campaign against amnesty opponents. And it’s not because La Raza and the rest are cynically trying to taint pro-enforcement voices. On the contrary, they sincerely believe that support for any kind of immigration enforcement or limit on immigration is, by definition, hateful and an incitement to violence. Despite occasional pious acknowledgments that a nation has a right to control its borders, open-borders groups (on both the left and right) oppose all existing immigration-control measures and any prospective ones. This is because they reject the moral legitimacy of immigration controls, borders, sovereignty, and nationhood itself. Thus, unyielding opposition to amnesty and illegal immigration — however measured the tone, however sober the argument — is necessarily the equivalent of an act of violence in their eyes. And so they perceive their vilification campaign simply as a matter of self-defense, a response to our provocation.

********

6. Latest Senate Health Bill's Immigration Smoke and Mirrors

Excerpt: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's 'Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act' gives the appearance of going further to bar illegal aliens from taxpayer-funded health benefits than the House-passed legislation or other Senate bills. But a closer read exposes loopholes, flaws, and the very tools for quickly undoing whatever merits the Reid measure contains.

********

7. Misguided Energies: An Analysis of the Immigration-Related Theses

Excerpt: CIS does all of us a service by its annual listing of Immigration-Related Theses and Dissertations, such as Matt Graham's most recent edition published earlier this month.

Each of the approximately 360 papers listed for 2008 represents from one to two year's full-time work, sometimes more, and its completion is usually the last step on the way to the writer's securing a Ph.D. In these studies could contain a treasure-chest of highly useful information and insights that could help the nation as it struggles to define its immigration policy.

Unfortunately, this is not the case.

********

8. Audit or Arrest?

Excerpt: The audit strategy is a reprise of a Clinton-era effort tried one time at Nebraska's meatpacking plants and then discontinued. The employers and politicians were so crazed at the sucess of the initiative that they got Janet Reno to fire the INS official who came up with the idea. It shows how much things have changed that this strategy, so controversial ten years ago, is now touted by the open-borders crowd as their answer to the evil Bush-era policy (at least at the very end of the Bush term) of actually arresting illegal aliens and sanctioning employers. And the only reason the debate has shifted so much is that the political class didn't get its amnesty and was forced to get progessively more serious about enforcement. If we keep denying them amnesty, maybe they'll eventually start enforcing the law in earnest.

********

9. Napolitano Calls E-Verify 'Centerpiece of Immigration Reform'

Excerpt: Cooking up Thanksgiving-style metaphors, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano stated yesterday that 'E-Verify is at the centerpiece of our efforts to maintain a legal workforce both for large and small businesses.' She quickly added that 'employers need to be held accountable for maintaining a legal workforce” and “our commitment to this approach is growing.' It seems that E-Verify has made its way onto the menu for immigration fixings, so much so it holds a prominent position in the center of the immigration reform table.

********

10. Money That Encourages International Migration -- a Typology

Excerpt: Although one would not know it by reading immigration policy debates, money paid to middlemen, mostly Americans, plays a major role in the whole process.

If one seeks to manage, or at least nudge, events in immigration it is useful to visualize the financial transactions involving the non-migratory actors in the field, the people and institutions that shape migration but do not migrate themselves.

********

11. Federal Employment Verification Requirements: Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Excerpt: So, how did ABM Industries end up with huge numbers of illegal aliens on its payroll? Well, probably by fully complying with the letter of a law that is the employer's equivalent of the military's don't ask, don't tell policy.

********

12. Bizarre Consistency: Obama, Immigrants, and Sexually Transmitted Diseases

Excerpt: Two recent decisions by the Obama Administration suggest a bizarre consistency -- no matter what the pressures are from Left or Right, the government will not do anything to or for immigrants that would discourage sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs).

It is not that there is a giant, well-funded lobby for sexually-transmitted diseases, but there might as well be one.

********

13. Imagine That -- Fact-Checking on TV

Excerpt: The unfortunate reality is that anyone can do a study and that few news organizations question what is in them. Not so with Lou Dobbs.

********

14. The Big Lie Behind H-1B Visas

Excerpt: A Big Lie that has been prominent in the immigration debate has been the existence of a shortage of tech workers. The repeated claims a tech worker shortage has been the rallying cry for industry calls for more cheap foreign labor, generally on H-1B visas.

********

15. Immigration and Nepotism Revisited

Excerpt: You wouldn't know it from much of the news coverage, but the 'comprehensive' immigration reforms favored by many immigration advocates would do far more than provide legal status to the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States.

Two other giant programs would offer a path to citizenship to many more newcomers who, like most of the illegal immigrant population, tend to be unskilled and poorly educated. This means that the demographic effect of 'comprehensive' reforms would be an enormous increase in the population of the working poor.

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.



Rednecks! The new racist term for ordinary Australians who are critical of illegal immigration

As a moderator of comments for news.com.au I see a lot of intolerance expressed in the debate over asylum seeker boats, especially from a vocal minority prepared to get very nasty. The Oceanic Viking has stirred the asylum debate. The comments from this quarter typically employ broad-brush terms of abuse to stereotype on the basis of nationality.

The targets of these hateful attacks are Australians. The most popular terms of abuse are “redneck” and “racist”. Those commenting along these lines normally express a boundless compassion for asylum seekers. Strangely however, they seem completely devoid of any interest in sympathetically understanding the views of their fellow citizens, without name calling.

The overwhelming sentiment I’ve seen online mirrors what opinion polls say, most want a hard line on boat people. Undoubtedly sometimes this does reflect racism or xenophobia and a desire to keep Australia “white”. I occasionally see these type of comments.

What is more interesting, I think, are the other reasons repeatedly given by those advocating a hard line. The general sentiment is that the boat people are queue jumpers. Often the strongest outrage is from people who have recently migrated or know others trying to. Australia is not an easy country to move into, the process can be long and expensive. So for people to sail in and simply claim residency upsets many, whatever the boat people’s circumstances. For all our supposed larrikinism, Australians, I’d say, value law and order. They like those who “do the right thing” and “go through the proper channels”.

The legalistic argument that asylum seekers are not jumping the queue because “there is no queue to jump” generally doesn’t wash. There is a UN process for refugee settlement readily available offshore and it certainly puts you in a long bureaucratic queue, one that may take years. When some asylum seekers are seen to get a special deal, as appears to have happened for those who occupied the Oceanic Viking, it looks even more unfair.

Another sentiment often expressed by those opposing asylum boats is that those onboard will become welfare bludgers and we have lots of other things to spend money on. Australia resettles migrants with extensive welfare and social community support, teaches them English and provides training to those who can enter the workforce. That’s all well and good because jobs are the key to upward social mobility for migrant groups. Without plentiful jobs you are likely to perpetuate welfare slums, crime and often alienation extending into a second generation.

All the high wage and highly economically regulated countries in Europe that have relatively high and entrenched levels of unemployment have struggled with immigration. Many make it difficult for outsiders to become full citizens. Some, like Denmark, are even paying migrants to go back. Many have trouble with ethnic populations, who sometimes war in tribes against the police, as in France. Some nations have seen the rise of anti-immigration parties.

Britain with low minimum wages has had high migration but it isn’t escaping the other problems, especially during an economic downturn.

The world’s most successful immigrant society is America, at least by scale. America has resettled the “huddled masses”, including large refugee communities and millions of illegal migrants. This has been done by basically saying people should look after themselves, with minimum welfare offered and not even universal healthcare but usually free education. What America traditionally provided was plenty of low wage jobs that require no skills and limited or no English.

In Australia we do not believe in low wage jobs. So except in times of real economic boom unskilled migrants without English will have few employment prospects.

Sometimes it seems widely forgotten, even by Australian Workers Union boss Peter Howes when he talked about “Labor hero stuff” in leading the debate for a more welcoming approach, that Labor heroes of yore were leaders in keeping people out. The unions and Labor were strong advocates of the White Australia immigration policy. The traditional aim was to preserve Australian wages and conditions against the hordes of cheap Asian workers.

I would suggest that most people who call their fellow Australians rednecks or racists often also value award-set high wages, extensive economic regulation with universal and generous welfare. Probably many of these same people have environmental concerns and support policies that will result in higher costs of resources and lower economic growth. None of this is really compatible with increased humanitarian immmigration on a major scale, or perhaps greatly increased immigration of any sort.

Tightly controlled borders are the precondition of much of the Australia we know, the barrier behind which “the Lucky Country” (said with or without irony) was built. Having our borders opened in a major way would threaten to undermine this. We would likely see a less orderly Australia, a less equal one and perhaps a less safe one.

On the other hand it would be more interesting, more dynamic and more exciting. Personally I’d pick the more exciting version. I acknowledge though that I am pretty well economically protected from the real costs and pressures of increased immigration, whether that is competing for unskilled jobs or living in a potentially high crime suburb. I suspect many of those who want the boats welcomed are in a similarly fortunate situation. I’d also guess many are just as committed to preserving the insular “Australian way of life” as the people they call “rednecks”.

SOURCE





23 November, 2009

British Citizenship language scam exposed

Immigrants who don’t understand English have been able to buy language certificates that give them the right to settle in Britain.

An investigation by The Sunday Times has found that staff at English language colleges in London and Birmingham have been offering migrants who speak little or no English Home Office-regulated English and Citizenship certificates for £250 each. Tests are rigged to allow almost anyone to pass.

Staff hand out crib sheets with questions and answers in English. Others let candidates write the sound of English words on the sheets in their own tongue, so the answers appear right, but they don’t know what they are saying.

At the UK Learning Academy in Birmingham, a staff assessor told an undercover reporter that candidates did not have to take any courses or speak any English to pass the tests. The assessor simply asked if the candidate knew their own name, date of birth and address. When told that they did, the assessor replied: “That’s all right then. That’s a guaranteed pass.”

Yesterday the Academy said it had sacked the assessor for “gross misconduct”. Directors at a second college under investigation said they had suspended its English course, while a third college removed the website advertising its course.

Chris Grayling, shadow home secretary, said: “These revelations are particularly alarming and reveal another major abuse of our system for immigration.” He called for the certificates to be suspended.

SOURCE



Irish government to pay immigrants to go home

Recession-crippled Republic offers cash to non-EU nationals who agree to leave country

Ireland is offering money to immigrants to leave the recession-crippled Republic. The Irish Department of Justice has confirmed that it is opening an EU-funded project to persuade foreign workers and asylum seekers to return to their country of origin.

A spokeswoman told the Observer this weekend that the scheme will only apply to non-EU nationals living in the Republic and would involve the department spending almost €600,000 this year to pay for immigrants and their families to return to nations outside the European Union. "The grants will not be given to individuals but rather the scheme will operate through projects and organisations," she added. "They [immigrants] can apply for the fund only through organisations and community groups. It is the first time we have introduced the scheme."

The department has made it clear it had no projected figure in mind as to the number of immigrants the government hopes will take up the repatriation grants. Advertisements promoting the scheme were published in Irish national newspapers on Friday. Application forms will also be available for non-EU nationals in the main immigration centre on Burgh Quay, Dublin.

The voluntary repatriation programme comes at a time of rising fears about the cost of immigration into Ireland. Last week the mayor of Limerick caused a political storm when he called for the deportation of EU nationals who were out of work for more than three months and were claiming social welfare benefits. Kevin Kiely said: "We are borrowing €400 million per week to maintain our own residents and we can't afford it. "During the good times it was grand, but we can't afford the current situation unless the EU is willing to step in and pay for non-nationals."

However the mayor was forced to withdraw his remarks after a storm of protests. His own party, Fine Gael, distanced itself from his comments. In a subsequent statement, Kiely said: "I still am of the opinion and so are others, who have approached me in recent days, that there is abuse of the Irish social welfare system. "But in seeking to highlight this I inadvertently caused offence to others, which I very much regret."

During the latter years of the Celtic Tiger boom Ireland underwent a demographic revolution in terms of its ethnic make-up. Up until the early 1990s Ireland was 95% white and Catholic. However, according to the Republic's central statistics office, about 18% of Ireland's inhabitants are now non-nationals. Most of them are from eastern Europe, China, Brazil and west Africa or are British citizens who have settled on the island.

Some academics, such as Dr Bryan Fanning of University College Dublin, estimate that the real figure is more than 20%, meaning Ireland's "foreign" citizens make up over one fifth of the Republic's entire population.

The majority of the immigrants who arrived during the boom years were enticed to Ireland to fill vacancies in the construction, retail and tourist sectors – the main parts of the Irish economy to be severely hit by the current recession.

SOURCE





22 November, 2009

Quebec roiled about immigration

Parti Quebecois Leader Pauline Marois says the separatist provincial party will be tabling a bill next week that will seek to better define the values of Quebecers. Marois says the bill will seek to affirm that Quebec is a secular society where French is the primary language and where people believe in equality between men and women.

Marois made the remarks today while addressing some 500 party members at the opening of a two-day national council meeting in Montreal. The PQ is discussing its positions on issues related to language, immigration and identity.

She says it's up to the PQ to defend the Quebec values and the French language because the governing Liberals have failed to do so. The issue of so-called reasonable accommodation of minorities into Quebec society is also being debated at the meeting, which wraps up Sunday.

SOURCE



Prominent Australian Greenie dubious about immigration

The former Australian of the Year, environmentalist Tim Flannery, is worried what effects a growing population will have on the environment.

South-east Queensland is a region where population pressures are at their greatest, with 2,000 people moving into the area each week. Some are from interstate, others from overseas. Queensland's population is set to double within 50 years.

Professor Flannery says no-one has any real idea of the environmental effects of population growth and it is time for an independent inquiry to look at the issue. "I'm pretty aware that we live in a fragile country with limited water availability, with a significant biodiversity crisis, a limited capacity to feed ourselves because our agriculture is under increasing stress from climate change," he said. "And what I see is a government-set program for immigration, which really seeks to increase our population very quickly but without any proper analysis of the environmental impacts or indeed the social impacts of that program."

Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner has weighed into the population debate, saying it is laughable to argue Australia has too many people at this early stage. He says Bangladesh is roughly twice the size of Tasmania but has seven times the population of Australia.

Professor Flannery says that is a meaningless comparison. "Antarctica is bigger than Australia and it hasn't got any people at all, size isn't everything," he said. "Lindsay Tanner may well be right but we need the figures. We need the analysis to understand what we can do in terms of a sustainable population living at this standard of living. "It's all very well to wave your hands in the air and say everything's going to be okay, but show me the data, that's what we actually need. "At the moment ... all of our population-related policies, such as immigration and rebates for children, all that sort of stuff are just happening in a vacuum and that's not good enough."

Premier Anna Bligh says Queensland can handle the projected population growth. "I think this growth is manageable but it does have to be managed, we can't let it happen unchecked and we can't let it happen without a plan," she said. "What's interesting living in a federation and governing at a state level is that some of the levers on population are often beyond your control but the consequences all fall into your basket. "Some of the levers, such as immigration policy, things like the baby bonus, have consequences and state governments end up having to manage some of those consequences. "It does require serious and careful thinking and serious and careful planning and some very serious infrastructure that does I think need partnership from all levels of government."

Ms Bligh says she agrees with the current immigration levels but says there is scope for better planning between state and federal governments about where the new Australian population should be concentrated. And she says more debate is needed on the issue of sustainability, environment and resources. "Over the last five years, as we've put together our south-east Queensland plan which is a statutory plan to manage growth, there has been a wide consensus about the need to restrict growth and not let it go in to big urban sprawls," she said.

"But as the rubber hits the road on making decisions about higher density in people's neighbourhoods, the community I think is becoming less settled about that. "They're very alarmed by the prospect that they'll see a lot of high rises and concerned about the character of their neighbourhoods and their communities changing and changing too rapidly."

Professor Flannery concedes population growth is needed to grow the economy but he says it's vital to get the balance right. "The economy will always need more people, business will always need more customers, government will always need more taxpayers," he said. "That's not a valid argument for eternal growth. We all know there are limits to growth and we need to work out how to grow our population, if that's what's required, at the appropriate level over the appropriate time scale.

"To do that you've just got to really look at proper triple-bottom-line accounting and the Government's always getting onto businesses about doing triple-bottom-line accounting, well it's time the Government did it itself. "Our environment, social and economic outcomes all have to be fed into these very important policies that will change our country in the long term, change it forever. You can't really wind back population once you've built it in."

SOURCE





21 November, 2009

The Key Numbers in My Testimony Added Up To Demand For Immediate Immigration Reductions

By Roy Beck of NumbersUSA

I finally got my chance to get a formal hearing before Members of Congress on Thursday for NumbersUSA's year-long argument that U.S. unemployment requires deep, immediate cuts in immigration.

I let the key numbers do the talking. Do you know them? Take a look at the top three below.

First Number -- at least 7 million

The Pew Hispanic Center estimated last spring that 8 million illegal foreign workers held U.S. jobs at that time. Pew said only 4% of them were in agriculture. Since that report, many illegal aliens’ jobs have been eliminated. But it is likely that at least 7 million construction, service, manufacturing and transportation jobs are still currently held by illegal foreign workers. Those are 7 million jobs being sought by more than 7 million less-educated Americans who are currently unemployed and actively seeking a job.

Members of Congress and this Administration need to look at those numbers and come to understand that immigration enforcement is about creating jobs for unemployed Americans. In general, when a government action results in an illegal foreign worker leaving a job, an unemployed American gets to go back to work. Congressman Smith, the 920,000 members of NumbersUSA in every congressional district of our country wholeheartedly support your efforts to promote far more immigration enforcement as one of the most effective JOBS programs the government can have.

Second Number -- 75,000

It appears that American workers’ own federal government in October issued permanent work permits to about 75,000 working-age immigrants[2] -- 75,000 new LEGAL immigrant workers in just one month.

Third Number -- 190,000

In October, 190,000 U.S. jobs were eliminated.[3] Our government added 75,000 more permanent workers to compete with 16 million unemployed Americans[4] for 190,000 FEWER U.S. jobs. Since Jan. 1 of this year, it appears that our government already has issued nearly three-quarters of a million new permanent work permits to immigrants.[5]

More HERE



Not enough high school dropouts in U.S.?

CATO Institute's Dan Griswold suggests that the U.S. faces a crisis in filling lower skilled jobs because we aren't producing as many high school dropouts as in the past: " . . . the cohort of U.S. workers who have traditionally filled those jobs, namely high school dropouts, continues to shrink. In the past decade, the number of adults 25 and older without a high school diploma fell by 3.2 million, and their ranks will fall by another 2 million to 3 million in the next decade."

This is the kind of open-border libertarianism that gives the willies to thoughtful libertarians who believe in national communities.

He was writing this in the Washington Times -- which is read heavily by the Republican staffers and Members of Congress. He was warning that the Democratic proposals for "comprehensive immigration reform" are not likely to bring enough low-educated, low-skilled foreign workers into our country, even after giving an amnesty to approximately 8 million low-educated, low-skilled illegal alien workers already here.

Griswold said the amnesty needs to greatly increase temporary worker programs for low-educated, low-skilled foreign workers: " . . .recognize the reality that the U.S. economy benefits from low-skilled immigration. As the United States shakes off a deep recession, it is only a matter of time before job growth resumes, including lower-end jobs in retail, landscaping, food preparation and service, and home and commercial cleaning that attract low-skilled immigrants. . . .Yet our current immigration system offers no legal pathway for anywhere near a sufficient number of foreign-born workers to fill that growing, structural gap in our labor market."

OK, how about a little reality check? First, American schools and dysfunctional families are doing a much better job than Griswold gives them credit for producing high school drop-outs.

* We have around 15 million native-born Americans between 18 and 65 who are high school dropouts.

* Less than 7 million of them have jobs.

The official U-3 unemployment rate for the high school dropouts of our own is more than DOUBLE that of the rest of the nation's citizens, who are doing pretty awful themselves.

Wages and poverty rates for those who DO have jobs have been deteriorating for years.

Nothing in any government statistics suggests to me that our high school dropouts are in short supply and highly valued for their essential work.

Frankly, I am guessing that the Griswold idea is that people who do retail, landscaping, food preparation and service, and home and commercial cleaning deserve really low wages, and we might someday have to pay them a livable wage if we don't import enough foreign peasants to be our semi-slaves.

SOURCE





20 November, 2009

Work site arrests of illegals fall dramatically under Obama

Surprise, surprise!

Arrests of illegal immigrant workers have dropped precipitously under President Obama, according to figures released Wednesday. Criminal arrests, administrative arrests, indictments and convictions of illegal immigrants at work sites all fell by more than 50 percent from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2009.

The figures show that Mr. Obama has made good on his pledge to shift enforcement away from going after illegal immigrant workers themselves - but at the expense of Americans' jobs, said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the Republican who compiled the numbers from the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE).

Mr. Smith, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said a period of economic turmoil is the wrong time to be cutting enforcement and letting illegal immigrants take jobs that Americans otherwise would hold. "Those stolen jobs should be returned to out-of-work citizens and legal immigrants," he said. "The Obama administration should put citizens and legal immigrants first, especially when it comes to jobs."

One area where the Obama administration has made progress was in audits of businesses' I-9 forms, which jumped 300 percent. Those audits could produce fines in the future, but Republicans said that most businesses consider them a cost of doing business, not a deterrent.

The numbers were released just days after Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the administration has made such advances on border security that Congress should now work on legalizing illegal immigrants. "These statistics reflect a myopic, outdated and distorted view of effective enforcement," said Homeland Security spokesman Matt Chandler. "Just a week ago, we highlighted the more than 11,000 murderers, rapists and kidnappers identified in our jails by the Secure Communities program in the last year, nearly 2,000 of which have already been deported. ICE has prioritized its enforcement efforts by focusing on hardened criminals and employers who knowingly hire illegal workers and break the law."

Frank Sharry, founder of America's Voice, an immigrant rights advocacy group, said Mr. Smith shouldn't be surprised - this is what Mr. Obama promised to change from the George W. Bush administration, which focused heavily on illegal immigrant workers rather than employers. He said it marks a major change from former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to Ms. Napolitano, and that it will pay dividends as employers take heed.

More HERE



Government Data Imply High Immigrant Crime Rates

New study findings Contradict Older Research Showing Low Rates

Center for Immigration Studies has published a detailed report on immigration and crime based on a variety of recently released data, including some obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests. The newer government data implies that immigrants have relatively high rates of crime. This contradicts older academic research that generally found low rates of crime. The overall picture of immigrants and crime remains confused due to conflicting information and a lack of good data.

The report, 'Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue,' is authored by Steven Camarota and Jessica Vaughan. Among the findings:

* The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimates that immigrants (legal and illegal) comprise 20 percent of inmates in prisons and jails. The foreign-born are 15.4 percent of the nation’s adult population. However, DHS has not provided a detailed explanation of how the estimates were generated.

* Under contract to DHS in 2004, Fentress, Inc. reviewed 8.1 million inmate records from state prison systems and 45 large county jails. They found that 22 percent of inmates were foreign-born. But the report did not cover all of the nation’s jails.

* The 287(g) program and related efforts have found high rates of illegal-alien incarceration in some communities. But it is unclear if the communities are representative of the country:

o Maricopa County, Ariz.: 22 percent of felons are illegal aliens;
o Lake County, Ill.: 19 percent of jail inmates are illegal aliens;
o Collier County, Fla.: 20 to 22 percent of jail inmates and arrestees are illegal aliens;
o Weld County, Colo.: 12.8 to 15.2 percent of those jailed are illegal aliens.

* DHS states that it has identified 221,000 non-citizens in the nation’s jails. This equals 11 to 15 percent of the jail population. Non-citizens are 8.6 percent of the nation’s total adult population.

* The Federal Bureau of Prisons reports that 26.4 percent of inmates in federal prisons are non-citizens. However, federal prisons are not representative of prisons generally or local jails.

* Recent reports by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) and Immigration Policy Center (IPC) showing low rates of immigrant incarceration highlight the data problems in many studies. The 2000 Census data they used are not reliable.

* An analysis of the data used in the PPIC and IPC studies by the National Research Council found that 53 percent of the time the Census Bureau had to make an educated guess whether a prisoner was an immigrant. The studies are essentially measuring these guesses, not actual immigrant incarceration.

* The poor quality of data used in the PPIC and IPC studies is illustrated by wild and implausible swings. It shows a 28 percent decline in incarcerated immigrants 1990 to 2000 – yet the overall immigrant population grew 59 percent. Newer Census data from 2007 show a 146 percent increase in immigrant incarceration 2000 to 2007 – yet, the overall immigrant population grew only 22 percent.

* The 'Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities' shows that 8.1 percent of prisoners in state prisons are immigrants (legal and illegal). However, the survey excludes jails and relies on inmate self-identification, which is likely to understate the number of immigrants.

* In 2009, 57 percent of the 76 fugitive murderers most wanted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) were foreign-born. It is likely however that because immigrants can more readily flee to other countries, they comprise a disproportionate share of fugitives.

* Most studies comparing crime rates and immigration levels across cities show no clear correlation between the immigrant share of a city’s population and its level of crime. This is one of the strongest arguments that immigrants do not have high crime rates. However, such studies generally measure only overall crime, not crimes specifically committed by immigrants. Also, a 2009 analysis by DHS’ Office of Immigration Statistics found that crime rates were higher in metropolitan areas that received large numbers of legal immigrants.

* From 1998 to 2007, 816,000 criminal aliens were removed from the United States because of a criminal charge or conviction. This is equal to about one-fifth of the nation’s total jail and prison population. These figures do not include those removed for the lesser offense of living or working in the country illegally. The removal and deportation of large numbers of criminal aliens may reduce immigrant incarceration rates because many will not return and re-offend, as is the case with many native-born criminals.

* Some have argued that the fall in overall national crime rates since the early 1990s is evidence that immigration actually reduces crime. However, overall crime rates are affected by many factors. Moreover, the 1970s and 1980s saw crime rates rise along with immigration levels.

* Overall incarceration rates are also a poor means of examining the link between immigration and crime. Since the 1970s, the share of the U.S. population that is incarcerated has grown almost exactly in proportion to the share of the population that is immigrant. But unless inmates can be identified as immigrant or native-born this information sheds little light on the issue of immigrant criminality.

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: Steven Camarota, (202) 466-8185, sac@cis.org





19 November, 2009

Nigerian man married his OWN daughter so she would be allowed to stay in Britain - and the British government knew about it

A Nigerian Home Office worker 'married' his own daughter to get her a British visa, the Daily Mail can reveal. The extraordinary scam was apparently executed by Jelili Adesanya while ministers turned a blind eye. Mr Adesanya, 54, has lived here for more than 30 years and holds a British passport, but wanted his daughter, her husband and their four sons to join him from Nigeria.

He faked a wedding ceremony complete with a photograph of the happy 'couple' which helped fool immigration officials that his daughter, Karimotu Adenike, was really his wife. Miss Adenike, who is in her mid-30s, was duly granted permission to live in the UK. The pair are waiting for her to be granted a permanent right to remain before they undergo a quiet divorce and attempt to bring the rest of her family here. It is expected she would try to remarry her real husband to get them all visas.

But despite being tipped off two years ago, the Home Office seems to have done nothing to stop the scam by one of their own workers. Until recently, Mr Adesanya was employed as an occupational health nurse for the Home Office, working with immigration officials at Gatwick airport.

A whistleblower sent letters to the High Commission in Lagos and the UK Border Agency including specific details such as names, addresses, passport numbers and even a copy of the wedding photograph. When there was no response, he sent emails to then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith and ministers Vernon Coaker and Phil Woolas on February 1 this year. He heard nothing.

Mr Adesanya, who came to Britain in 1976, flew back to Nigeria on May 29, 2007, and held the bogus wedding ceremony a few days later at a register office in Ikorodu, Lagos. A source said: 'They paid people to attend the wedding so that the British High Commission in Lagos would believe it was genuine. The commission then gave Karimotu Adenike a two-year settlement visa in October 2007. 'On her settlement visa application form, of course, she did not mention that she already had a husband and four children. 'The date of birth on her Nigerian passport is not her real date of birth.' Miss Adenike is believed to have aged herself by ten years on her wedding certificate to disguise the age gap with her father.

Although her settlement visa expired last month, she is hoping to be given the right to remain.

David Burrowes, the Conservative MP for Enfield Southgate and Shadow Justice Minister, was also tipped off by the whistleblower and wrote to the Home Office. This time there was a reply, but it said that although the matter was 'under investigation', no further information would be provided because it could 'breach of our obligations under the Data Protection Act'. Mr Burrowes told the Mail: 'I am very surprised and concerned that no action appears to have been taken, because the allegations are extremely serious.'

Mr Adesanya, who lives with his daughter in Dagenham, Essex, vehemently denied the plot and said he had never been questioned about the allegations. He said: 'Married my own daughter? I have never heard anything like this in my life. I deny it. She is my wife, not my daughter.' However, asked to confirm his 'wife's' date of birth, he said he did not know without checking her passport, and refused to allow her to speak for herself.

Unbeknown to him, his daughter had confirmed the arrangement when she told a friend she would shortly apply for her own British passport and 'divorce daddy'.

Last night Jonathan Sedgwick, from the UK Border Agency, said: 'These individuals are already under investigation, and I want to make it clear that abuse of our immigration laws will not be tolerated. 'If we identify marriages which we believe are not genuine, we will challenge them and prosecute where appropriate. 'We are determined to send home any foreign nationals convicted of these types of crimes once they have served their sentences.' [But only if a newspaper draws attention to it]

SOURCE



Immigration deceptions by Australia's Leftist government

There is an emerging credibility gap in the Rudd government's navigation of contentious policy issues, a compulsion that denies the obvious and rests on the apparent assumption that Australians are mugs.

There are many examples but the issue of asylum-seekers offers compelling evidence. Kevin Rudd invested much time in parliament on Monday insisting that the 22 asylum-seekers who first left the Oceanic Viking were receiving no preferential arrangement. Asked by 3AW's Neil Mitchell last week if there was special treatment, the Prime Minister replied: "Absolutely not." Yet the terms set out by the Minister-Counsellor Immigration in the Jakarta embassy, Jim O'Callaghan, to the asylum-seekers suggests a set of detailed special arrangements. They were authorised by the Rudd government's border protection committee of cabinet chaired by Immigration Minister Chris Evans.

The Australian's Jakarta correspondent Stephen Fitzpatrick reported yesterday that the Oceanic Viking people were quarantined from others because of resentment at their preferential conditions courtesy of the Rudd government.

There are three key provisions in O'Callaghan's document: if the UNHCR has found a person to be a refugee they will be resettled within four to six weeks of disembarkation; if an individual has already registered with the UNHCR they will be resettled within 12 weeks of disembarkation; and if people are not yet registered and are found to be refugees, they will also be resettled within 12 weeks. These provisions are highly generous. It is no surprise they are exceptional within UNHCR Indonesian operations. There are many refugees in Indonesia and none is given resettlement in four to six weeks.

The Australian offer included English language and orientation classes while cases are being processed. A "highly professional" team of Australian officials will work "every day" to assist refugee applications. The Red Cross will assist in tracing family members. The Sri Lankans were told many services will be provided in the resettlement country and these may include "assistance with housing, medical care and counselling, income support, English language tuition and help to find a job".

Rudd has been desperate to persuade the Sri Lankans to disembark in Indonesia. He had rightly drawn a line in the sand; he would not allow the boat to come to Christmas Island and he had a victory yesterday with reports that all Sri Lankans would disembark after the past month's protracted agony.

To grasp the nature of the special arrangement, consider the following: at October 1 there were 1760 registered asylum-seekers in Indonesia and 573 people recognised as refugees by the UNHCR in Jakarta; the typical delay time for processing and resettlement far exceeds 12 weeks and usually runs beyond 12 months. Australia, in short, is fast-tracking the Oceanic Viking people.

Evans said last week that Australia was "more likely to get the larger proportion" as the final destination. The exceptions to this, mentioned by Evans, was "if, for instance, they've got a first cousin living in Canada". Decoded the message is most are headed for Australia. However, this is far from the normal arrangement.

About 1300 people have been resettled from Indonesia to third nations in recent years and Australia has taken about one-third, with the rest going to Canada, the US, New Zealand, Sweden and France. Having rejected force to remove people, Australia had only one option left: it had to persuade them. Nobody should be surprised at the inducements offered. It was the price Rudd had to pay to keep the boat out of our territory. The price is justified. After the shambles of the past month it is a relief that Australia did not have to offer more. The criticism of Rudd is not that he paid such a price; it is that he pretends he paid no price whatsoever. He seems to think almost any line can be spun and will be believed, even when it is nonsense.

On Monday Rudd tabled a letter in parliament from Immigration Department Secretary Andrew Metcalfe to Evans, dated the same day. It was a classic example of recruiting under duress a senior public servant to buttress the government's line. The letter is a study in fact and political evasion. On tabling Metcalfe's letter, Rudd claimed it showed from the perspective of the departmental secretary "that these are not preferential arrangements". The letter shows nothing of the kind. Indeed, it is significant that Metcalfe avoids any such formulation.

He merely says that the group is being treated in a manner "consistent with that afforded to any other asylum-seeker or refugee in Indonesia". He does, however, say that Australia and Indonesia have agreed on "timeframes for the processing", which may imply a special arrangement. Requesting such a letter achieved nothing and the request should not have been made. Yet Rudd persisted in using Metcalfe as a shield and, responding to criticism from Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull, he claimed that Turnbull was disputing advice from "the independent Public Service of Australia". On the contrary, it shows the government stooping to use the public service to buttress a bad case.

It is noteworthy that Rudd was not involved in authorising the offer to the Sri Lankans. He told parliament on Monday that he was unaware of the offer's terms and did not authorise it. Turnbull seemed to find this unbelievable. But Rudd's denial was unequivocal. It stands despite his subsequent clarification that the cabinet committee that did approve the offer contained Rudd's staff.

The real point is that the Rudd government authorised a necessary special deal and, embarrassed about its domestic ramifications, tried to deny the obvious.

SOURCE





18 November, 2009

New from the Center for Immigration Studies

1. Roadblocks to Amnesty: State Sovereignty, Double Jeopardy, and Legalization

Excerpt: In an October 2009 speech on the West Lawn of the U.S. Capitol, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) outlined a plan for a so-called “comprehensive immigration reform” bill. The centerpiece of this bill is a legalization program for aliens now living here illegally. Similarly, President Obama has expressed support for creating a “path to citizenship” for illegal aliens. Pro-legalization activists are pressing for Congress to take up a bill early in 2010.

********

2. Immigration-Related Theses and Dissertations, 2008

Excerpt: It is the mission of the Center for Immigration Studies to examine, inform, and critique American immigration policy. In the pursuit of this goal, the Center seeks to provide the latest immigration news and research for all involved in the debate over this complex issue. In addition to its e-mail news services, reports, and books, the Center disseminates an annual list of doctoral dissertations and theses which relate to immigration in order to keep those involved abreast of the most recent developments in emerging scholarship. This compilation contains dissertations completed in 2008.

********

3. J-No Declares Victory at Border, Declares Time for Amnesty

Excerpt: Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has declared that the southern border is sufficiently secured and that it's time for Congress to start working on 'comprehensive immigration reform.' Of course, 'comprehensive immigration reform' is code for mass amnesty and massive increases in foreign workers. I guess the administration hasn't really grasped that 10 percent unemployment might not be the greatest time to try to convince the American people that illegitimate employers really need to import more cheap foreign workers.

********

4. Real Meaning of Napolitano Speech: No Amnesty Anytime Soon

Excerpt: Despite gloating from the open-border groups about DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano's immigration address at a liberal advocacy group Friday morning, her message was clear: 'When Congress is ready to act, we will be ready to support them.' In other words, the White House will not advance an amnesty until Congress makes the first move. The underlying message directed at amnesty advocates: Go bug the legislators and leave us alone.

********

5. Whose Side Are Chambers of Commerce On?

Excerpt: The writer of a letter to the editor recently asked: Whose side is the Chamber [of Commerce] on – American citizens or illegal immigrants?

That's actually a very good question.

********

6. Leon Trotsky's Ghost, The Russian Immigration Service, and Me

Excerpt: This is a story about the Russian immigration service, the ghost of Leon Trotsky, and me.

There are three bits of background to bear in mind before I tell the story.

********

7. Fort Hood: One Heck of a Man-Caused Disaster

Excerpt: Today’s top news is that the 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is finally getting a trial, not by a military commission, but in a courtroom in New York City. Four others that were also key to assuring logistics and finances for the plot will likely be indicted and tried with KSM, according to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder during a press conference this morning. Despite Republican statements claiming that KSM may walk due to a procedural or evidentiary issues related to torture, Holder stated that his personal review of the files indicates there is sufficient evidence to convict these men and seek the death penalty even without presenting questionable evidence. If Holder is right, then the decision to move the 9/11 conspirators to New York to be indicted and put on trial is in keeping with prior successful and noteworthy terrorism convictions such as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; a subsequent plot to blow up key Big Apple landmarks; and the East African bombings of 1998. Defendants awaiting trial for their part in the USS Cole bombing of 2000 will be rightly tried by a military commission. There should be no issue here. The administration is doing the right thing to move these cases to justice after such a long, arduous, and highly argued waiting period.

********

8. Denise Dresser on Education in Mexico

Excerpt: Those who are concerned about economic development in Mexico and the country's ability to provide job opportunities to keep its people at home will find a sobering analysis by Mexican political scientist Denise Dresser in the current edition of the Mexican magazine Proceso.

********

9. Blue Helmets on the Border?

Excerpt: CIS author Glynn Custred wrote an important piece last month on the options for U.S. intervention, should the U.S. be 'forced to in its own interests.'

********

10. Whining from Goliaths

Excerpt: The immigration lawyers' association (among many others) claims credit for its presumed role in ushering Lou Dobbs off CNN. (I write about the broader campaign to silence amnesty critics over at National Review Online.) But what I found interesting about this particular posting (besides its comparison of Dobbs to Father Coughlin) was this:

********

11. Watch Out for 'Streamlining' in Immigration Policy Debates

Excerpt: It sounds harmless but the word 'streamline' spells trouble in immigration policy debates.

Open Borders proponents are always wanting to 'streamline' this or that immigration management procedure, all in the name of governmental efficiency.

********

12. There They Go Again

Excerpt: Having lost the political battle over the 287(g) program, with DHS declining to end the program or restrict its use to jails and prisons, and with continuing strong interest from local law enforcement agencies, frustrated open-borders advocates have settled on a new strategy -- sue the bastards! Certainly everyone involved should be on the lookout for possible problems with racial profiling or abuse of authority. But the latest lawsuit, filed today against Frederick County, Md., Sheriff Chuck Jenkins and a host of other defendants, looks more like a public relations stunt and last-ditch attempt to avoid deportation than a serious legal challenge.

********

13. Heisting HIAS: The Deracination of a Communal Organization

Excerpt: In a recent article in the Jewish weekly newspaper Forward, 'HIAS Still Aids immigrants, but Most Don't Resemble Sergey Brin,' Gal Beckerman describes the metamorphosis in the historical mission of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society: 'HIAS has moved beyond its narrow focus on Jewish refugees alone and refashioned itself into a defender of immigration rights.' (Sergey Brin is the Russian-Jewish immigrant billionaire who co-founded Google and recently contributed a million dollars to HIAS.) With the notable omission of any reference to the intellectual sleight of hand that marks HIAS's 'transition' or the writer's unwillingness or inability to deconstruct the political presuppositions upon which the piece rests, that sentence isn't a bad summary, considering it doubles as a thesis statement and an advertisement by a booster.

********

14. Looking at Other Nation's Migration Policies - Canada's Point System

Excerpt: As I mentioned in an earlier blog, most of the other English-speaking nations in the world have adopted a points system as part of their immigrant-screening process.

Such a system allows the government to make more nuanced decisions on whom to admit to the country – as opposed to our all-or-nothing system. For example, if you are a skilled would-be migrant and you want to come to the U.S., (and can not do so as a refugee or a family member) you will need an employer and a government-approved labor certification. If you are certified you can come – unless you are a known criminal. If you do not have the certification, you are totally out of luck.

********

15. The Fraudulent Ecclesiastical Mandate of Sen. Schumer's Religious Allies

Excerpt: In a blatant display of the partisan card stacking which routinely debases the intellectual and ethical currency of Congressional hearings on 'immigration reform,' Sen. Charles Schumer (D, NY) last month chaired a session of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security titled 'Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Faith-Based Perspectives.' Even a fig leaf of balance was missing; the minority wasn't allowed its fractional quotient of witnesses. Only supporters of 'comprehensive immigration reform' were invited to testify. The hearing violated the spirit of open, oppositional discourse essential to the functioning and preservation of democratic institutions. The farce was also a sham. In an unseemly spectacle, leaders of religious denominations, hedging their testimony with equivocation, sought to convey the impression they speak in the name of their flocks, traducing their religious bona fides in a futile effort to lend an aura of credibility to misrepresentation.

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.





17 November, 2009

Environmental laws put gaps in Mexico border security

In the battle on the U.S.-Mexico border, the fight against illegal immigration often loses out to environmental laws that have blocked construction of parts of the "virtual fence" and that threaten to create places where agents can't easily track illegal immigrants.

Documents obtained by Rep. Rob Bishop and shared with The Washington Times show National Park Service staffers have tried to stop the U.S. Border Patrol from placing some towers associated with the virtual fence, known as the Secure Border Initiative or SBInet, on wilderness lands in parks along the border.

In a remarkably candid letter to members of Congress, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said her department could have to delay pursuits of illegal immigrants while waiting for horses to be brought in so agents don't trample protected lands, and warns that illegal immigrants will increasingly make use of remote, protected areas to avoid being caught.

The documents also show the Interior Department has charged the Homeland Security Department $10 million over the past two years as a "mitigation" penalty to pay for damage to public lands that agencies say has been caused by Border Patrol agents chasing illegal immigrants. "I want this resolved so border security has the precedence down there. If wilderness designation gets in the way of a secure southern border, I want the designation changed," said Mr. Bishop, Utah Republican, who requested the documents. "If it means you lose a couple of acres of wilderness, I don't think God will blame us at the judgment bar for doing that."

The conflict between the environment and border security has raged for the past decade as better enforcement in urban areas has pushed the flow of illegal immigrants into Arizona and straight into some of the nation's most remote and fragile desert.

A major problem is wilderness - lands deemed so pristine that they should be maintained in that condition, free of man-made structures. Wilderness is governed under a 1964 law that imposed strict rules that tie Border Patrol agents' hands, and there is a lot of that land along the border. According to the Congressional Research Service, California has 1.8 million acres of wilderness within 100 miles of the border, and Arizona has 2.5 million acres. New Mexico and Texas have smaller plots.

According to e-mails obtained by Mr. Bishop, Park Service officials at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and at the Denver office that oversees the park said they will not allow the Border Patrol to place electronic surveillance towers on parts of the park that are designated wilderness. In one 2008 e-mail, officials tell the Homeland Security Department to "pursue alternative tower locations." In another 2008 memo, the superintendent of Organ Pipe says Park Service officials could reject towers even beyond wilderness areas if they deem the effects would spill over into wilderness.

More HERE



Fury as immigrant baby killer is paid £4,500 'bribe' to quit Britain

An immigrant convicted of the horrific killing of a 17-month-old baby has been given £4,500 by the Government as a 'bribe' to leave the country. Malaysian Agnes Wong, 29, was jailed for five years in 2008 for the brutal manslaughter of a toddler she was supposed to be child-minding. She was let out of prison in July this year, and two weeks ago was put on a plane at Heathrow and sent to Malaysia with a 'voucher' worth £4,500 to spend when she got there.

Wong was jailed after a court heard how she had swung the boy, Hugo Wang, by his ankles and smashed his head. He died of brain injuries.

Wong's payment has sparked disbelief and outrage, coming just days after the Prime Minister said he understood the public's mounting concerns over immigration.

Tory immigration spokesman Damian Green said: 'Only last week, Gordon Brown said he "gets it" on immigration but this is proof he doesn't get it. For an immigrant who killed a child to get taxpayers' money to help with her future life is nothing short of appalling.' Mr Green demanded to know why Wong had not been automatically deported without a penny of public money. 'Even while Labour repeatedly boasted about introducing automatic deportation for people like this, it now appears they have been using public money to help people get round that very system,' he said.

The horrific story of Hugo's last hours caused national revulsion when Wong's sadistic behaviour was exposed in court. The unregistered childminder, who came to the UK in 2003, was paid £120 a week to look after Hugo in her home in Salford, Greater Manchester, while the boy's parents worked 16 to 20 hours a day to make ends meet. She was accused of waging a 'regime of terror' against him, torturing him with a hairdryer and hitting him so hard with a ruler that it snapped. Hugo died in January 2007, a day after he was taken, unconscious, to hospital where he underwent emergency surgery. He had been struck with such force that his brain had shifted in his skull and caused internal bleeding. Doctors also found bite and burn marks on his body.

Wong, who denied murder, was found guilty of manslaughter but was sentenced in May 2008 to just five years in prison. The Mail on Sunday has now learned that Wong served only the minimum jail term of two-and-half years, including her time in custody before and during the trial.

Just two weeks ago, she was deported to Malaysia under a controversial 'Facilitated Returns Scheme' under which foreign prisoners are paid up to £5,000 if they agree to leave the UK as early as possible without fighting their deportation using human-rights laws or by claiming asylum. So far, around 1,000 have left the UK and been given the money.

It is not known for certain whether Wong - who used the anglicised name Agnes, although her Malaysian name is Siew Teng - entered Britain legally or illegally. However, any immigrant who commits a serious crime can forfeit their right to remain in Britain and can be deported.

David Wood, the UK Border Agency's director of criminality and detention, defended the scheme, saying: 'We don't want foreign criminals in the UK. Every day that we can get these individuals out of the country early removes the risk they present to UK citizens and saves our taxpayers more than £100 a night in detention costs as well as administrative and court costs.'

As Wong boarded a plane at Heathrow on November 2 bound for Kuala Lumpur, immigration officials handed her a letter confirming that she was entitled to a 'reintegration fund' payout of up to £4,500. The letter informed her that the money, provided by UK taxpayers but administered by an international migration organisation, could be 'invested' in training for a new job, housing, education, medical treatment or to help set up a small business. The letter - seen by The Mail on Sunday - also advised Wong, who was kept in an immigration detention centre between her release from jail in July and her deportation earlier this month, how to claim the money.

Hugo's parents, who were immigrants from China, both worked at the China City restaurant in Southport, where Liverpool football star Steven Gerrard is a regular. Friends have now spoken of how Hugo's father, Jian Lin Situ, never got over the death of his son and how he had taken the baby's ashes back to China. They also voiced their anger that the boy's killer would get thousands of pounds of public money to build a new life. One said: 'It is an absolute disgrace that she has got this money. That sort of money will go a long way in Malaysia.'

The friend recalled how Hugo's father had been distraught to learn that some of his son's body parts were initially retained by the coroner in case Wong appealed against her conviction. 'When Hugo died it was big in all the newspapers in China. We followed the proceedings and were all horrified by what happened to that poor boy,' said the friend. 'Jian and Hugo's mother Zhen split up soon after. I think they both blamed each other for their son's death.

'I think Zhen went back to China. Jian never got over Hugo's death. He was absolutely devastated. He took Hugo's ashes back to China, to the Canton district, the family's ancestral home. After that, Jian moved on to a restaurant in Liverpool. From there he went to another restaurant in Blackburn and we lost touch.'

The friend added that Mr Situ would be 'horrified' to learn that Wong had already been returned home, especially as he protested that she should originally have been given a 15-year jail sentence. 'Jian thought five years was too lenient. This is just an insult to Hugo's memory. What are they playing at, letting her out so early? They should have thrown away the key.'

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think-tank, said: 'It is absolutely wrong in principle that criminals who thoroughly deserve to be deported should be paid for going. This should not happen at all.'

A Home Office official confirmed there were two other voluntary schemes offering illegal immigrants incentives to return: one for individuals in the asylum system paying up to £4,000; and one for immigrants who have no right to be here but have not claimed asylum, paying out a maximum of £1,000.

SOURCE





16 November, 2009

The British Labour party’s heartland won’t be fooled on immigration again

There is something a little pitiful watching Gordon Brown tell the country how worried he is about immigration, and how it must not be a taboo issue. Like watching a paralytic drunk explaining in slurred tones how he will never touch another drop, and all the while you can smell the paint-stripper on his breath.

There is no issue — with the possible exception of Iraq — on which Labour has been more deceitful to the public at large, or has more egregiously betrayed its core working-class support. The only reason Brown is addressing the issue now is that we are six months away from an election and he fears that the troglodyte BNP thickoes will chew away great big gobfuls of angry working-class voters across a diagonal swathe of supposedly Labour country, from the white-flight satellite towns of Essex to the old mill towns of east Lancashire.

It is little more than lip service from the prime minister and, worse, unaccompanied by even the vaguest admission that his government has let its people down.

We know from the Labour backbencher Chris Mullin’s diaries that ministers would not address the issue of immigration because they were terrified of being called racist: so they did nothing. More recently, the former home office adviser Andrew Neather suggested that the Labour government threw open the doors to vast numbers of immigrants precisely in order to create a truly multicultural Britain, whether or not the British public wanted such a thing (every opinion poll suggests that they did not).

Labour ministers insist that the previous Conservative government was lax on immigration, too — but that is a specious argument. In 2006 nearly 600,000 immigrants entered Britain, more than 10 times the number who arrived in the last year of John Major’s government; the scale of difference has been beyond reasonable comparison. We should be clear: immigration is primarily Labour’s mess, and it was a deliberate policy.

Even now the argument will be queered by the usual platitudinous drivel; that while addressing this important issue we must all nonetheless embrace the vibrancy of multicultural diversity. The people who always preface their answers with this sort of statement tend not to have lost their jobs to cut-price plumbers, electricians, fruit pickers and so on.

You cannot have it both ways: Brown wishes to capture the votes of the white working class by talking about immigration but not actually doing anything about it. They in turn resent, rightly or wrongly, the fact that their communities have been changed beyond recognition; that street crime figures are up exponentially; that it’s harder to acquire social housing; and that they are priced out of jobs. This is unpalatable to many, but it is how a lot of people feel.

It would be far more honest of the government if it said: tough luck, Labour voters — we want a cheaper unskilled and semi-skilled workforce and we have no moral or intellectual objection to your towns and cities being transformed by huge numbers of people who may not share your cultural values. That, after all, has been the policy of the government for the past 12 years, even if it is one it has not dared to articulate but has instead pursued by a sort of cack-handed stealth.

Nor, aside from the carefully nuanced rhetoric, is there very much in the prime minister’s speech which offers a solution to the problem. For example, he wishes councils to look more kindly on social housing applications from long-term local residents — but of course the councils are statutorily required to offer housing first to the homeless and an awful lot of immigrants are, de facto, homeless when they arrive.

None of this is the fault of the recent immigrants themselves, of course, who are behaving much as we would all behave in similar circumstances; and in the main, I don’t believe those working-class voters blame the immigrants either. They know who to blame — and crocodile tears shed a few months before polling day tend to confirm, rather than dissipate, that blame.

SOURCE



Australia sends some Sri Lankans illegals home

How come these guys did not get the normal big welcome? As far as I can tell, they forgot to say the magic word "asylum" when first interviewed

THE Rudd government chartered a 100-seat jet to Sri Lanka at the weekend to forcibly remove six asylum-seekers who staged a dramatic eight-hour protest inside the Christmas Islands immigration detention centre last month.

The six Sinhalese fishermen became the first asylum-seekers to be isolated inside the centre's controversial "red block", built by the Howard government, with small metal cells to detain violent or unstable detainees.

They were among 50 Sri Lankans who had been trying to reach New Zealand when their boat hit a reef in Torres Strait on March 28. So far, only 12 have been found to be refugees and granted visas.

Another 29 have gone home voluntarily on commercial flights from Perth, one is in detention in Perth in preparation for returning voluntarily on a commercial flight and the remaining two are in detention on Christmas Island while their claims are resolved.

On October 30, the protesting six, who had been assessed and rejected, refused to board a charter plane from Christmas Island to Perth, where they were expected to join a commercial flight to Colombo as voluntary removals. Instead, one of the men stunned onlookers by swiftly climbing a pole thought to be more than 12m. He stayed there poised to jump for the most of the day while the five others refused to co-operate with people sent to the scene, including a psychologist.

The operation to return the six to Sri Lanka began on Friday when the Department of Immigration and Citizenship chartered a Fokker 100 from the mainland. It brought in guards specially trained in involuntary removals. At 6.30am on Saturday, the Sri Lankans were brought to Christmas Island's airport in two minibuses with guards. In total, 17 guards and immigration workers accompanied the men to Colombo on the airliner. The minders returned to Christmas Island alone yesterday morning.

Yesterday there were 1114 asylum-seekers on Christmas Island and 14 crew. Authorities were preparing for the delivery early this week of the 40th boatload of asylum-seekers intercepted this year. The group of 47 and three crew were spotted on Friday near Ashmore Reef.

SOURCE





15 November, 2009

'Declaring success' !!!!

Having millions of illegals still in the country is "success"??? I guess it is from a Leftist viewpoint

Declaring success in border security and immigration enforcement, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Friday that the federal government has done its work and now it's time for Congress to pass a broad bill to legalize illegal immigrants. Her speech signals President Obama will make good on his promise to push Congress to pass an immigration bill next year - adding yet another hot-button issue to an already long and contentious list.

Ms. Napolitano said members of Congress and voters who balked at an immigration bill two years ago, fearing a repeat of the 1986 amnesty that only made the problem worse, can be assured this time is different. She said in those two years, the flow of illegal immigrants across the border has dropped dramatically and the government is doing more to catch fugitive aliens inside the U.S. "The security of the southwest border has been transformed from where it was in 2007," she said in a speech to the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. "The federal government has dedicated unprecedented resources to the Mexican border in terms of manpower, technology and infrastructure - and it's made a real difference."

But Republicans said her declaration of victory on border security was premature. "How can they claim that enforcement is 'done' when there are more than 400 open miles of border with Mexico, hundreds of thousands of criminal and fugitive aliens and millions of illegal immigrants taking American jobs?" said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.

The number of illegal immigrants being caught on the border has fallen - a measure Border Patrol officials say means fewer are trying to cross - and Ms. Napolitano said the government has hundreds of miles of fencing on the border, has boosted the number of Border Patrol agents to 20,000 and has begun to deport illegal-alien criminals being kept in U.S. prisons and jails. The number of illegal immigrants apprehended by immigration authorities is down from 1.8 million in 2000 to 556,041 in fiscal 2009, which ended Sept. 30, and demography experts say the number of illegal immigrants remaining in the U.S. has actually begun to fall.

Ms. Napolitano said both a slowing economy and better enforcement account for the changes, which she said creates a window for Congress to act.

Rep. Steve King of Iowa, ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee's immigration subcommittee, said Ms. Napolitano "contradicted herself by claiming the downturn in our economy has reduced illegal immigration but then advocated for an amnesty policy that allows millions of illegal aliens to take American jobs." "This is exactly the wrong time to be giving a pro-amnesty speech since we just received news that the national unemployment rate hit 10.2 percent," Mr. King said.

Immigrant rights groups say they've changed the debate in Congress, and Ms. Napolitano said the attitude among Americans has changed as well.

But when it comes to actual votes in Congress, there hasn't been a good test for some years, and earlier this year White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the "votes aren't there right now" to pass a broad legalization bill.

Immigrant rights advocates said they'll be watching to see how much muscle Mr. Obama puts behind the effort. Some have said Mr. Obama betrayed them by embracing E-Verify, the voluntary employee verification system, and revamping but not ending local police enforcement of immigration laws. On Friday, though, groups said they saw a "real commitment" from Ms. Napolitano and the administration to try to pass a broad bill, which they argue would take care of many of the key problems that have led to stepped-up enforcement.

In 2007, President George W. Bush teamed with Senate Democrats and some Republicans to try to pass a bill that legalized most illegal immigrants, rewrote the rules for legal immigration and provided money for some border security. The bill lost on an unusual majority filibuster that saw 15 Democrats and one independent join 37 Republicans in blocking the measure.

A year earlier, the Senate had passed a bill that had legalized some illegal immigrants, while the House passed an enforcement-only measure. Both bills died because they could not be reconciled with one another.

SOURCE



Australia gives illegals plush treatment while assessing them

They get an island holiday with all expenses paid by the Australian taxpayer

DETAINEES on Christmas Island have access to both fast-speed internet services and mobile phones, raising fears they have may have been encouraging the stand-off on the Oceanic Viking. The Department of Immigration confirmed the internet and phone access but declined to answer questions relating to detainees having made contact with either those on the Oceanic Viking, people smugglers or other family members encouraging them to make the illegal boat trip to Australia.

The department says the use of the 30 computers is "supervised''. However, according to eyewitness accounts given to The Sunday Telegraph, such supervision is minimal if it exists at all. Eyewitnesses say guards on the island told them the computers were filtered for the "usual sites like porn'', but that was all. One person who observed detainees using the two computer rooms on the island said: "It's clear they were able to have contact with the outside world. Therefore it's conceivable they might have been in contact with the Oceanic Viking.

"All they have to tell other refugees is that if you get to Christmas Island you'll spend three months max and then 90 per cent are waved through. You'll do less than three months in good surrounds.''

The department refuses to say whether it has any record of who detainees have been in contact with but "restricted internet access'' has been available since early 2007. "Any monitoring of phone calls or internet use would be under-taken by law enforcement or security agencies in accordance with relevant legislation,'' a spokeswoman said, but she did not say whether any such monitoring actually took place.

According to those who have recently been on the island, detainees are also provided with free yoga, fitness and art classes. All health costs are also paid by the Commonwealth - including free dental care. The spokeswoman would not comment on claims one group of detainees destroyed their footwear to get new shoes after one asylum-seeker, who had no shoes, received a new pair on arrival. Fresh food and vegetables are airlifted into the detention centre.

The department refused to confirm this included freshly baked bread costing $10 a loaf - despite there being a bakery on the island. But it did confirm a vegetarian option was made available on the daily menu. Snacks and cigarettes are also available under a "purchase allowance'' points scheme.

The spokeswoman said the total cost for running the island in the less than three months between July 1 this year and September 9 was just over $11 million. A breakdown of the cost included: $6.68 million for overall services, $2 million for interpreters, $1.3 million for health costs, $330,000 for aircraft charter and $800,000 in wages. Those who have been to the island recently say locals have noted the department spares no expense airfreighting the detainees' requirements, while food and supplies for locals come by boat.

The spokeswoman confirmed all health costs were met by the Commonwealth. One recent visitor observed that many ordinary Australians in the bush could not receive access to free dental care.

The spokeswoman said food supplies were ordered from the mainland. She added: "We have a duty of care to ensure the health and well-being of people in immigration detention, including ensuring access to appropriate physical and recreational activities, such as a grassed area for soccer.''

Meanwhile the stand-off on the Oceanic Viking, moored off Indonesia for more than four weeks, showed signs of thawing when 22 of the 78 Sri Lankans on board left the vessel after the Australian Government guaranteed them a special 12-week turnaround of their claim for refugee status.

SOURCE





14 November, 2009

Is It A ‘Civil Right’ For Illegal Aliens To Be Represented in government?

This is the ultimate logic of illegal immigration, the government is fighting hard to make sure illegal aliens are being represented, no seriously…

A federal judge imposed an unusual election system on a suburban village Friday, nearly two years after finding that the existing system was unfair to Hispanics.

The village, Port Chester, is run by a mayor and six trustees. Under the new system, called cumulative voting, residents will be allowed to cast as many as six votes for one trustee candidate.

No Hispanic had ever been elected trustee or mayor in the village 25 miles northeast of New York City, although the population of 28,000 is about half Hispanic. The ruling is likely to mean that the village will have trustee elections next year for the first time since 2006.

Being a super genius I had to wonder: was Port Chester known for having illegal aliens?

Ahem…

“I would like to nominate Port Chester, NY as a sanctuary city here in the State of New York. To be quite honest I don’t know of any regulations and haven’t looked into it to be fair to the Village of Port Chester. But I do know just from living here for the last three years. The downtown village is full everyday with the day workers whom are all illegal. Even during the day they are all hanging out in front of all the churches. The schools have gone to crap and our only hospital here United Hospital closed up several years ago which serviced (the Harrison, Rye, Rye Brook areas) due to the influx of the illegals.”

Ahem…

Connecticut’s Greenwich Hospital recently treated an illegal Guatemalan with severe drug-resistant TB, after his local hospital in Port Chester, New York, had gone bust from uninsured immigrants

Ahem…

Valerie Nanni, Leicester Street, spoke about quality of life issues and said that she was not against legal immigration but there is a serious problem with illegal immigration.

Ahem…

Port Chester (pop. 28,000) is a good example of what is happening around the country. During the last decade or so, this small township in Westchester County, New York, has witnessed a 73-percent growth of its Hispanic population, making the Hispanic population a majority of the town’s residents. But because no Hispanic has ever been elected to the town’s board of trustees — all of whom run at-large — the Department of Justice sued to force Port Chester to ditch its 138-year-old at-large system of governance and instead, create six, single-member trustee districts. Of course, the DOJ wants half of those districts gerrymandered in a manner to allow a Hispanic to win — or, in the more formal language of the law, Hispanics must be able to “elect a candidate of their choice.”

One does not have to sympathize with the Minutemen to conclude this is not fair, but the injustice to Port Chester is further compounded when one looks at the details of DOJ’s proposed districts, which are based on the voting-age population overall, rather than the voting population of citizens. For example, one of the districts DOJ proposed will have a 77 percent Hispanic voting-age population, but only a 56 percent citizen Hispanic voting-age population. Another district has a slight majority of Hispanics, but only a 28 percent Hispanic citizen population. In other words, the federal government wants some of the new voting districts to have citizen-underpopulated Hispanic districts and citizen-overpopulated non-Hispanic ones.

So, this gerrymandering will result in a non-Hispanic district being drawn with 5,000 persons of voting age, 95 percent of whom are citizens, to be represented by one Port Chester trustee. A Hispanic district, meanwhile, might also have 5,000 persons, but only 50 percent of whom are citizens. This kind of district scheme will result in one town trustee representing 4,750 citizens, while another trustee represents only 2,500 citizens.

Is it fair that in one district 2,500 citizens get one representative, while in a neighboring district, it takes 4,750 people to get one? No, it’s not.

So your government has taken it upon themselves to A.) fill this country with illegal aliens, and having done so they are now making sure that those people who have broken in, stolen jobs, brought previously defeated diseases and crimes back to this country are well represented in this nation where they have no business in the first place.

SOURCE. (See the original for links)



Only uneducated "asylum-seeker" scum now welcome in Britain

Highly qualified people like doctors are to be kept out. ALL the "asylum seekers" who reach Britain have gone through other countries first so were already safe from whatever persecution they claim. They are country shoppers, not asylum seekers. So the Labour government's new policy in fact steps up the national suicide that it is doing its best to bring about. If they had Britain's interests at heart they would say that Britain has now done its bit for refugees and is no longer a nation of refuge for asylum seekers

PROFESSIONAL workers from Australia and other countries outside the European Union wanting to find a job in Britain will face even tougher restrictions from 2010. Prime Minister Gordon Brown has outlined a series of proposed reforms to Britain's points-based immigration system, which is based on the one developed in Australia. Under the latest crackdown, Mr Brown wants professionals - including doctors, engineers and hospital consultants, skilled chefs and care workers - to be removed from the list of workers eligible to apply for jobs.

Rules for foreign students applying for visas to study in the UK will also be tightened.

Mr Brown said that while immigrants had brought immeasurable benefits to Britain, changes to the system were needed in order to protect jobs for local workers. The changes come after the government earlier this year dumped 30,000 occupations from its list of jobs eligible skilled migrants could apply for in Britain. "Over the coming months we will remove more occupations and thousands more posts from the list of those eligible for entry under the points-based system," Mr Brown said in a speech in London. "As (economic) growth returns I want to see rising levels of skills, wages and employment among those resident here rather than employers having to recruiting from abroad."

Mr Brown said foreign students would also be subject to the latest crackdown. He announced a review of foreign student visas by government agencies to determine whether there was a case for "raising the minimum level of (a study) course for which they can obtain a visa". Mandatory English language tests for foreign students signing up for courses other than English ones are also to be considered along with new rules for those with part-time jobs.

Mr Brown said he was concerned about foreign students on lower-qualification courses working part-time in jobs that ``would be better filled by young, British workers''.

The planned changes to student visas were attacked by the Immigration Advisory Service's head Keith Best. He said many British universities and colleges relied on half their income from fees paid by foreign students and could be "in very serious trouble'' if that income stream was cut off. He told the BBC that Britain already faced stiff competition from universities in countries such as Australia, which were actively recruiting foreign students.

The changes announced by the prime minister come amid growing debate in Britain over its immigration levels while the country remains mired in recession. In an interview with the Daily Mail newspaper before he gave his speech, Mr Brown said he understood people's concerns about the impact of a rising population on employment, wages and housing costs. "I know people worry about whether immigration undermines their wages and the job prospects of their children and they also worry about whether they will get a decent home for their families," he said. "They want to be assured that the system is tough and fair. "They want to be assured that newcomers to the country will accept their responsibilities ... obey all the laws, speaking English is important, making a contribution."

SOURCE





13 November, 2009

Houston sheriffs round up thousands of illegals

While Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Phoenix gets all the media attention for his crackdown on illegal immigrants, eight deputies in an unremarkable office at the Harris County Jail are posting similar numbers for deportation -- and doing so without controversy. Working two per shift, the deputies refer roughly 1,000 suspected illegal immigrants to federal Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) authorities every month, helping to make the Southern District of Texas by far the busiest in the nation for illegal-immigration prosecutions.

Since joining a federal program in August 2008 that trains local law authorities to enforce immigration law, the sheriff's office has turned up high-level gang members, a suspect wanted for murder in Mexico, and illegal immigrants from countries around the world, Lt. Michael Lindsay said.

Harris County frequently refers more cases in a given month than any other local police agency in the program, he said. But what makes the Harris County program stand apart is a routine that insulates it from the accusations of profiling that have drawn prominent criticism to programs like that run by Sheriff Arpaio in Maricopa County, Arizona. Unlike in Maricopa County, Harris County authorities do not run street sweeps in search of illegal immigrants. But they do question everybody booked into the jail about their immigration status.

The Southern District of Texas is by far the busiest in the nation for illegal-immigration prosecutions referring roughly 1,000 suspected illegal immigrants to federal Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) authorities every month. "We ask everybody, right off the bat, 'Are you legally in the country?' " said Lt. Lindsay, who oversees the team that conducts the questioning. "It doesn't matter what country you're from. It doesn't matter your religion. It doesn't matter the color of your skin. We make everybody go through it."

Fingerprints from all inmates accused of felonies or serious misdemeanors are forwarded automatically to ICE's data center, which can identify matches to prints from immigrants who have had prior dealings with law enforcement. Jail officers specially trained to determine immigration status can question and check the fingerprints of anyone suspected of a lesser crime. Those who are still suspected of illegal immigration are referred to ICE agents working on site who can ask the county to turn over inmates to the agency upon their release from jail.

More HERE



Australian Labor Party MP wants to stop New Zealand migration to Australia

There is virtually NO objection in Australia to "Pakeha" (white) immigrants from New Zealand but Australioa also gets a large number of Maori -- who have high rates of criminality, child abuse and welfare dependency. All unspoken below, of course



New Zealand migration to Australia would be slashed under a federal Labor MP's plan to curb our population growth. Outspoken Melbourne MP Kelvin Thomson believes the open-door policy for Kiwis made it impossible for Australia to control its numbers and maintain quality of life. "The trans-Tasman travel arrangement with New Zealand would need to be renegotiated to do away with the open door," he said yesterday.

Australia's migrant intake is at record levels, with almost a quarter of the influx due to New Zealanders who have an automatic right to live here, the Herald Sun reports.

Mr Thomson said there should be a cap on Kiwi arrivals that was linked to the number of permanent departures from Australia each year. "This would give Australia control over our net migration number, which we presently don't have," he said.

In a challenge to his leader, PM Kevin Rudd, Mr Thomson last night spelled out the details of his plan to deal with the population explosion. "Population is now a runaway train," he said in a speech to a community group in North Melbourne. Mr Thomson called for annual net immigration to be slashed from more than 200,000 now to just 70,000. This would stabilise the population at 26 million by 2050, instead of the 35 million predicted by the Government.

Under the Thomson plan:

* SKILLED migrant numbers would be cut from 114,000 to 25,000 a year and refugees would rise by 6000 to 20,000.

* THE baby bonus would be abolished and family payments cut to lower the fertility rate.

Mr Thomson, who heads the Parliament's joint standing committee on treaties, said his measures would stop Australia wrecking the environment and force governments to focus on education and training. "They would address the declining quality of life in our cities, the traffic congestion and the disappearing back yards and open spaces," he said.

Monash University population expert Dr Bob Birrell said Mr Thomson's proposals were refreshing and realistic. "Population policy is not made in heaven, it's determined by government policy and, currently, Labor policy is to run record high migration," he said.

Despite concern about urban congestion and water shortages, Mr Rudd recently said he was a "big Australia" man. "I make no apology for that. I actually think it's good news that our population is growing. I think it's good ... for our national security long term, it's good in terms of what we can sustain as a nation," he said.

SOURCE





12 November, 2009

Over 1,200 janitors fired in MN immigration audit

Just minor harassment for the illegals concerned. They probably returned to their jobs as direct hires

Roughly 1,250 Twin Cities janitors with suspect employment documents were fired from their jobs in October as their company carried out an audit prompted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an immigration attorney said Monday. The janitors worked for ABM Industries Inc., a New-York based company that provides janitorial services nationwide.

John Keller, executive director of the nonprofit Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota, said the firings happened in phases over the month of October. He said he first learned of the audit in early June, when his office received a call from the workers' union. ABM had sent employees letters that said ICE was requiring workers to show additional documents proving they had legal status to work in the U.S., Keller said. "Federal law prescribes specific procedures by which employers conduct employment verification activities. Our policy is full compliance with the law," Tony Mitchell, ABM Industries Vice President of Corporate Communications, said in a statement.

A copy of ABM's letter to employees was posted Monday on the Web site of Minnesota Public Radio News, which first reported the firings. The letter said, "ICE has informed ABM that the documentation you previously provided to confirm your employment authorization in the United States does not satisfy the I-9 Form employment eligibility verification requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act." The letter directed employees to bring in additional documents. The deadline was extended multiple times to give workers more time to provide the proper paperwork — with the final deadline in October.

"We don't really know what initiated the investigation," Keller said. "It sounds like it began under the previous administration in 2007." The Obama administration has conducted similar audits on businesses. Immigration officials sent notices to more than 600 businesses in July of plans to audit their I-9 forms, which document employment eligibility. The businesses weren't identified.

In the Twin Cities audit, Keller said, the vast majority of the 1,250 fired workers turned out to be undocumented. Keller said to his knowledge, no one was arrested or deported. Tim Counts, an ICE spokesman in Minnesota, said the agency doesn't discuss ongoing enforcement activity. Keller said he hadn't seen an audit of this scope before. "It's usually a very limited review of a much, much smaller number of people," he said.

SOURCE



Britain's chief hypocrite admits ‘mistakes’ on immigration after BNP TV furore

He promised "British jobs for British workers" but it hasn't happened

Gordon Brown will concede today that Labour has made mistakes on immigration as he defends the benefits of workers coming from overseas. The Prime Minister is expected to echo remarks by Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, who said last week that some parts of Britain are disproportionately affected by an influx of foreigners.

Mr Brown will insist that Labour now has the right strategy for managing immigrants seeking work, even at a time of rising unemployment. He will acknowledge that mistakes have been made in the past. The speech will be seen as a response to the furore over the appearance on the BBC’s Question Time of Nick Griffin, the BNP leader. His fellow panellists were criticised for failing to defend the principle of migration.

There are suggestions that the party could come third in today’s by-election in Glasgow North East. Mr Brown’s remarks come days after the Tories accused the Government of trying to deceive voters over a plan to relax immigration rules.

Last month the Office for National Statistics suggested that the UK population would rise from 61 million today to 71 million in 2033. The Prime Minister is expected to promise better skills training for Britons at further education colleges in order to make them better able to beat competition from migrants.

He will highlight sectors, such as as the care industry, where he will acknowledge that more can be done to ensure jobs do not go to people from overseas. However, the approach risks reviving memories of the “British jobs for British workers” slogan in his speech to the 2007 Labour Party conference, which some colleagues suggested was inflammatory. European law prevents vacancies being reserved for Britons. Downing Street defended the speech later by insisting that he was referring to greater skills training rather than a dramatic new policy initiative.

The Prime Minister will point out that employers can recruit a migrant to a job that is not on the official list of shortage occupations only if they first go through the “resident labour market test”, showing that no qualified settled worker can fill the post.

From next year all jobs must be advertised to UK workers in job centres for four weeks rather than the current two before people from outside the EU can be hired.

Mr Johnson set out four key principles for debate last week, including that all immigrants should learn English. Distancing himself from his predecessors, he said ministers had ignored for “far too long” problems in the immigration system that led to huge backlogs of asylum seekers and foreign national prisoners.

Immigration will be the main cause of population growth over the next quarter of a century. Net migration is expected to add 180,000 to the population every year. When immigrants’ children are added, it is expected that immigration will account for 68 per cent of population growth in the United Kingdom.

SOURCE



Australia's Leftist government capitulates to illegals

They obviously want to set a precedent to say that anyone can come to Australia if they really want to

FORMER immigration minister Philip Ruddock has warned the Rudd government's offer of a special deal to get the Oceanic Viking 78 off the boat will create a "diabolical" precedent that will encourage more boats and more standoffs. And Nationals Senate leader Barnaby Joyce has accused the government of “capitulation” in its offer to fast-track refugees' claims simply to get the asylum-seekers off the boat before Parliament returns next week.

Immigration Minister Chris Evans confirmed the offer of a special deal for the protesters today, saying he was “hopeful” of a breakthrough and conceding it was not humane for them to stay on the boat indefinitely. The deal could deliver the Oceanic Viking asylum-seekers resettlement in Australia faster than if they had been taken to processing on Christmas Island, which aims to process claims within three months.

Mr Ruddock told The Australian Online that the government's concessions and offer to fast-track processing and resettlement of the group after they refused to get off in Indonesia will feed perceptions that if you put the government “under duress you will get the outcome you are looking for”. “It's a diabolical situation of the government's own making. It's going to feed expectations that if you put the government under duress you will get the outcome you were looking for,” Mr Ruddock told The Australian Online. “It becomes a clear incentive and it is a clear indication that if you put the government under duress you will get what you want.

“You can't look at this issue in isolation. Of course people want to get them off the boat, I understand that. But we have always been faced with push factors in the past. What we have now is a series of pull factors that the government refuses to acknowledge exists. “What the Indonesians have been saying is code for, `what are you doing to encourage people to get on these boats?”'

Confirmation of the special deal for the asylum-seekers, who had warned they would rather die than get off the boat in Indonesia, comes just days after the Prime Minister would not negotiate with protesters threatening self harm. “When it comes to Australia's border protection policy, let me be absolutely clear that that policy of ours, in the Australian national interest, will not be changed in response to any protests, any threats, any threats of harm, any threats of self harm,” Mr Rudd said on Monday.

Mr Ruddock said using force or calling in the Australian Army was clearly a difficult option when you were under the jurisdiction of foreign government. Mr Ruddock said while it would not be appropriate to turn the boat back to Sri Lanka without offering the refugees a safe harbour, he had an open mind to such a tactic if asylum-seekers refused to disembark in a safe port, as the Oceanic Viking 78 had refused to do so. “But if you have given people the opportunity to disembark somewhere they are safe and they have chosen not to that's a different set of circumstances,” he said.

Senator Joyce said Mr Rudd had surrendered the sovereignty of Australia's immigration policy. “It is in summary capitulation. He has lost the fight and they are on their way to Australia. Bonza, beauty, but pathetic,” he told The Australian Online.. “The tactic is simple. Mr Rudd wants them off the boat before parliament sits next week. Our immigration policy has become determined by Parliamentary sittings. “You can't have people use an element of duress to determine your policy.”

SOURCE

Update:

THE 78 Sri Lankans aboard the Oceanic Viking have been offered resettlement in Australia in as little as a month, as well as homes, jobs and social security payments once in the country, in an unsuccessful effort to end the boatpeople standoff.

But the Sri Lankan Tamils rejected the offer because it would have required them to wait in an Indonesian detention centre, The Australian reports.

The written offer, made by Australian Government negotiators to the Sri Lankans on Sunday and Monday, included "lessons in the Australian way of life", help in tracking down family members and "assistance in . . . accommodation, medical help and advice, income benefits, English lessons and help with seeking employment".





11 November, 2009

Ban Tamil Tigers, Sri Lanka urges

OFFICIALS in Sri Lanka are urging Australia to ban the militant group the Tamil Tigers and strike a clear distinction between genuine refugees and economic opportunists. As Foreign Minister Stephen Smith flew to Singapore following talks with Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa and his Foreign Minister, Rohitha Bogollagama, aimed at stopping the flow of boats, officials in Colombo told The Australian Sri Lankan people fleeing their country did not need protection.

Yesterday, Mr Smith announced Australia would provide $11 million in funding to Sri Lanka. Most of the money, $6m, will fund de-mining and rehabilitation in the nation's north after decades of violent conflict, while the rest will go towards housing, food and resettlement services. The two countries also signed a memorandum of understanding aimed at increasing joint anti-people-smuggling efforts and intelligence-sharing.

The talks follow a surge this year in the number of asylum-seeker boats leaving Sri Lanka for Australia. Senior Australian envoy Brian McCarthy and people-smuggling ambassador Peter Woolcott will stay on in Colombo for a series of meetings aimed at hammering out the details of the agreements.

Yesterday, Sri Lankan Foreign Ministry secretary Romesh Jayasinghe said there was a need for a clear distinction between genuine refugees and those not in need of protection. "The fact is that the (1951 Refugee Convention) provides for refuge in instances when there is a well-founded fear," Mr Jayasinghe said. "I would submit to you that there is no such situation in Sri Lanka."

Mr Jayasinghe said the legal status of the separatist Tamil Tigers, or LTTE - whose defeat in May by the Sri Lankan government triggered the massive internal displacement Labor says is behind the surge in boats - was also a significant issue for Colombo. "The LTTE in the form it was known is no more," Mr Jayasinghe said. "But there are sinister elements that are endeavouring to try to re-stoke the cinders of secessionism. It is necessary to be vigilant and prevent such attempts. "That's the position that was presented quite clearly by our side to our Australian guests."

At a press conference on Monday, Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama explicitly linked the Tamil Tigers with people-smuggling: "Sri Lanka's stand has always remained, that people-smuggling has been part of terrorist activities - it has previously been associated with LTTE activities."

The Tamil Tigers are a banned terrorist organisation in the US and Europe but have never been proscribed in Australia.

Yesterday, the 78 Sri Lankans on board the Customs ship Oceanic Viking managed to communicate by hand signals that they remained unwilling to come ashore to a detention centre at Tanjung Pinang, on Indonesia's Bintan island. As another delegation of Australian officials boarded the vessel in a bid to break the deadlock, some of the Sri Lankans made crossed forearm gestures to demonstrate there was still no deal. The major sticking point remains the issue of where the asylum-seekers would be held if they agreed to go ashore, with many having already spent several years in Indonesian detention centres.

Australian claims that the Indonesian side is considering a request to house the Sri Lankans in community facilities has been met with bewilderment by senior officials, on and off the record.

SOURCE



New from the Center for Immigration Studies?

1. Dallas Would-Be Bomber Hosam Smadi: The Case for 287(g) and Exit Tracking

Excerpt: The case of 19-year-old Jordanian would-be terrorist Hosam Smadi points to the value of a viable, robust exit-tracking program that would verify that a foreign national has departed the United States. This was the message of a front-page New York Times story entitled, accurately enough, “U.S. Can’t Trace Foreign Visitors on Expired Visas.”1

However, the Smadi case also dramatically highlights why empowering local law enforcement with immigration data and enforcement powers through the Delegation of Immigration Authority under 287(g) can stop a terrorist when the system has no other derogatory information.

********

2. The Elections and Immigration Policy

Excerpt: When you look at the November election returns as they impact immigration policy, the results are not just apples and oranges, they are: one apple, two oranges – and in the distant Western Pacific, a split coconut.

In the four contests of interest only one produced an official who can actually vote on immigration matters – that's the apple and he‘s Bill Owens, the new Democratic House member from the 23rd district in far up-state New York. He's likely to follow the Obama line on immigration policy.

********

3. Nancy Pelosi Owes Joe Wilson an Apology

Excerpt: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is apparently the one being dishonest now, and she owes Congressman Joe Wilson an apology. The health reform bill she’s bringing to the House floor Saturday, H.R. 3962, rewards illegal aliens with taxpayer-funded health benefits.

********

4. More on Other Nations' Migration Policies

Excerpt: As I suggested in an earlier blog, there is much to be learned from other nations' attempt to rationalize their immigration policies, and one of the good places to find out about such matters is the Australian scholarly publication People and Place.

Sometimes you can read about how other nations have sought to solve problems common to all nations of immigration, and sometimes you can read about problems that they are having that may well descend on the U.S. in the near future.

********

5. Health Care Reform – The Fraudulent-Document Dealers Full Employment Act

Excerpt: Contrary to assurances by the President and key Democrat Congressional leaders that illegal aliens will not be covered by health care reform, we now learn that House and Senate Democrats have been busy building gaping loopholes into their bills so illegal aliens can still obtain coverage.

Rather than requiring a robust check on eligibility, such as the U.S Department of Homeland Security's Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system that is used to determine eligibility for Medicaid, Food Stamps, and energy programs, both the House and the Senate have put in watered-down verification procedures that virtually all illegal aliens will be able to beat without even raising a sweat.

********

6. A Major Open-Borders Leader Loses a Minor Contest on Election Day

Excerpt: You had to be watching carefully on election night, but deep in the wilds of Brooklyn there was a noticeable defeat for one of the Roman Catholic Church's leading spokesmen for open borders.

And the pro-open-borders New York Times helped bring about the defeat.

********

7. Election Night Blues

Excerpt: Once upon a time long ago in America, when I was young and predisposed to assume the essential integrity of our most basic political practices – voting first and foremost – going to the polls was an exhilarating experience. Even dissatisfaction with the choices between or among candidates didn't lessen the emotion. It was a solemn, moving occasion. I was an American engaged in a unifying civic ritual that derived its sacredness not only from its unchallenged position as the most exalted as well as indispensable ceremony in the civic life of the nation but because I believed it was – I can scarcely bring myself to say it now – pure, above reproach. Like anyone else familiar with U.S. history of course I knew of notorious exceptions, whether the machinations used to deny African Americans the vote in the pre-Voting Rights Act southern states, the widespread election chicanery that kept the big city political machines in power, or the role played by Mayor Richard Daley in ensuring John Kennedy's victory over Richard Nixon in the wee hours of 1960. But these exceptions proved the rule. We could lament past abuses, and shower them with contempt in self-congratulation because they were past abuses. We had washed away these excrescences, and our new reality was squeaky clean.

********

8. Can States Mandate Use of E-Verify? Putting the Obama Administration on Record

Excerpt: The Supreme Court seems increasingly interested in taking on immigration-related cases. In its last term, the Court took on four cases involving illegal aliens, and in three of them, the illegal alien won. Now the Court is asking the President Obama's appointee for Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, to produce a brief in the Ninth Circuit case that challenged the legality of Arizona's mandatory E-Verify law for businesses. The Ninth Circuit agreed with Arizona: federal immigration law does not preempt Arizona mandating use of E-Verify for businesses because there is no express legal requirement that E-Verify be wholly voluntary, as was argued by E-Verify challengers.

********

9. A Look at Other Nations' Migration Policies – In This Case the U.K.

Excerpt: People interested in immigration to the U.S., and the immigration policies of this nation, might find it useful, from time to time, to look at what other democracies do with their immigration policies.

With that in mind I would like to mention People and Place, an academic, peer-reviewed quarterly dealing with immigration and related issues, and published by Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.

********

10. On Wings of Eagles

Excerpt: The Wall Street Journal reported on a secret U.S. mission that recently extracted most of the remaining Jews from Yemen, where they're coming under increasing pressure from the local Arabs. This completes the work of Operation Magic Carpet, which brought the bulk of Yemenite Jews to Israel in 1949 and 1950.

********

11. Trust, but Verify? Not There Yet on Health Care

Excerpt: House Democratic leaders have unveiled their health reform bill. The new bill, H.R. 3962, represents the latest iteration, and combines three separate House committees' bills. The combo mega-bill comes in at nearly 2,000 pages. And the legislation includes one eligibility verification provision — proving Joe Wilson was right.

********

12. 2007 Revisited in Run-up to 2010

Excerpt: A spokeswoman for the National Council of La Raza says supporters of 'comprehensive' immigration reform will need to apply the same kinds of pressure on Congress that reform opponents used in 2007 to defeat the bill in the Senate.

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.





10 November, 2009

British immigration boss forced to deny immigration cover-up

The Government tried to "deliberately deceive" the British people over a plan to relax immigration rules, the Tories have claimed. Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling told the Commons that ministers broke the law to cover up "a change of policy designed to encourage much higher levels of immigration" in order to clear a backlog.

Mr Grayling asked Immigration Minister Phil Woolas: "Will you confirm that in 2002 Ministers relaxed the rules for clearing immigration applicants so that those who had been waiting for more than 12 months would be granted clearance to stay without any further investigation into their cases?"

He claimed that the head of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate had told then minister Beverley Hughes that the policy meant "some risks would have to be taken". And he said the Home Office had tried to cover up the scandal by withholding documents from the Information Commissioner, saying: "I have copies of those documents and they are clearly marked 'withhold' at the top."

Mr Woolas said Beverley Hughes, the minister involved in the policy change who resigned in 2004, had "acted entirely honourably". He added the issues over policy were dealt with "thoroughly and comprehensively" by a 2004 inquiry led by Ken Sutton.

He told Mr Grayling: "The allegation has been made, very seriously, that we broke the law, that was the phrase you used. In fact, the ruling from the Information Commissioner was issued on March 5, 2009 and on April 9 we disclosed, in line with that ruling, the information."

Mr Woolas called on the Speaker, John Bercow, to rule on whether Mr Grayling was out of order in accusing ministers of "deliberately deceiving" the public. Mr Bercow said the comment was in order because "no personal charge against an individual minister had been levelled".

The Speaker granted Mr Grayling's request for an urgent question to force Mr Woolas to come to the House and make a statement on the claims.

SOURCE

Illegals from New Guinea flooding into Australia's Northern islands

PAPUA New Guineans are pouring into islands in the Torres Strait, flouting immigration laws, running drugs, terrorising people and overwhelming local health and basic services. Community leaders, including the chairman of the federal government's Torres Strait Regional Authority, John Kris, have accused the Department of Immigration of turning a blind eye to the worsening problem north of Cape York, with the political debate instead focusing attention on boat arrivals in the Indian Ocean.

"They are not policing the border . . . . it is difficult to know how many people are coming across," Mr Kris told The Australian. "There has been too much focus put on the boat arrivals and not enough attention on the Torres Strait, where more people are moving into these waters."

Some communities have recently taken matters into their own hands by "closing the borders" to visitors - some of whom they claim roam islands armed with machetes and who are either not eligible for or have overstayed free movement provisions extended to some villages in the Western Province of PNG. The Torres Strait Treaty, signed 30 years ago, allows traditional activities to continue between specified villages on both sides of the border.

But documents obtained by The Australian early last year showed that the government was already aware that thousands of PNG citizens were illegally crossing the border. The Torres Strait Island Regional Council, which represents 14 islands, says little has been done, with some communities having "in excess of 500 PNG nationals turn up" without warning, draining the local water supply. "Immigration turns a blind eye to the fact that 'overstayers' are on the island; their inaction in dealing with the problem makes a mockery of the treaty," Mayor Fred Gela told a Senate inquiry. "Immigration must start to do their job."

Mr Gela told the Senate that PNG nationals were stealing, running drugs and sly-grogging, and had even been suspected of abducting local women. The Senate inquiry has also heard warnings of biodiversity and health risks to Australia, with some figures suggesting one in five PNG villagers who cross the Torres Strait have tuberculosis.

There were 59,000 recorded movements between the two countries last financial year.

Queensland Liberal senator Sue Boyce, who sits on the inquiry committee, last week wrote to Kevin Rudd, saying the federal and state governments were ignoring the problem. "Ignoring these Australians and leaving them to their fate is not an option and, in fact, it would be an international disgrace if no action was taken to secure their safety and protection," she wrote.

In its submission, the federal Department of Health said it was providing services to visitors on humanitarian grounds despite travel not being permitted for health purposes under the treaty.

SOURCE





9 November, 2009

Funds reveal how Maricopa, other counties differ on law

In 2007, lawmakers passed the Legal Arizona Workers Act in an attempt to stem the tide of illegal immigration by going after employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers. The law provided millions of dollars to county attorneys in Arizona to prosecute such cases.

Two years later, amid a deepening financial crisis, at least $1.44 million is sitting idle, according to interviews and records examined by The Arizona Republic. Prosecutors from nine of the state's 15 counties say money has accumulated and remains unspent because there have been so few complaints about employers violating the law.

But in Maricopa County, where County Attorney Andrew Thomas has teamed with Sheriff Joe Arpaio to crack down on illegal immigration, nearly all of the $2.86 million provided under the law has been spent.

Thomas has used more than half of the money to pay for 10 staff members, including seven attorneys, to prosecute identity theft and a handful of other crimes related to illegal immigration. He gave the rest to the Sheriff's Office to investigate alleged violations of the employer-sanctions law, and those funds were used to pay the salaries of six deputies and a sergeant and for leased vehicles for them to drive back and forth to work.

After two years and nearly $5 million in taxpayer money allocated statewide, how the money has been used and the results seem to be a matter of diverse interpretation. The legislation directed county attorneys to use the money to enforce the employer-sanctions law and "any immigration related matters." Thomas' interpretation embraced the "immigration related," as he used the funds to also prosecute human smuggling, kidnapping and weapons violations involving illegal immigration.

Other county attorneys around the state saw the focus as employer sanctions and have spent very little as they have received few complaints or cases to prosecute involving employers. Since the law went into effect Jan. 1, 2008, it has produced:

• Zero lawsuits filed against employers in Arizona.

• More than 300 arrests in Maricopa County, most for identity theft and forgery.

• Arrests of 105 individuals from Maricopa County who were later turned over to the federal government to be deported.

Critics say the law has created an anti-business climate in Arizona, and they question what the state is getting out of the nearly $5 million allocated for enforcement. The U.S. Supreme Court has indicated it is interested in hearing an appeal from business groups that have been trying to have the controversial law thrown out. On Monday, the high court asked the Obama administration to weigh in on the issue before the justices decide whether to take the case. "When a state is facing a $2 billion deficit, should we be spending money on an issue that's the federal government's responsibility? Absolutely not," said Glenn Hamer, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry's chief executive. "There are a lot better places the money could be spent in Arizona, including education and health care."

Thomas said state funding gives him the resources to fight illegal immigration. "There has been more than a 30 percent reduction in the illegal-immigration population in Arizona over the last two years," said Thomas, citing a Center for Immigration Studies report. "I don't think it's coincidental the reduction has occurred right after the employer-sanctions law went into effect."

The funding, however, could end because of the state's financial problems. The state has not released the $2.43 million allocation for this year, and a spokesman for the Department of Administration said the funds could be used to help lower the deficit. If no additional money is released, Maricopa County likely would be out of dedicated funds to enforce the employer-sanctions law by mid-January, forcing Thomas and Arpaio to make budget cuts.

More HERE



Majority of Australians think government doing a 'bad job' of managing illegals

KEVIN Rudd is doing a "bad job" on managing asylum-seekers, according to a majority of voters, while almost half think he is "too soft" on the issue. A Newspoll, conducted exclusively for The Australian reveals 53 per cent think the Government is doing a bad job of handling the large influx of asylum-seeker boats this year, while only 31 per cent of voters are happy with the Prime Minister's performance on the issue.

Labor voters are increasingly concerned about Mr Rudd's stance, with the number of supporters who believe he is doing a good job on asylum-seekers falling from 53 per cent in April to 44 per cent.

Foreign Minister Stephen Smith is due to arrive in Colombo today for emergency talks on the large number of Sri Lankans seeking asylum in Australia. The Sri Lankan Government said yesterday Australia was considering a special "joint mechanism" to boost maritime and border control security, aimed at stopping boatpeople from leaving the region.

As Mr Rudd attempts to find a diplomatic breakthrough to the standoff that has left 78 asylum-seekers in limbo on Australian Customs vessel the Oceanic Viking for three weeks, only 21 per cent of voters believe Labor is the best party to best handle the asylum-seeker issue.

Newspoll also found 46 per cent thought the Government was "too soft" while only 16 per cent believed the government's policies were "too hard". But voters are also unimpressed with the Opposition, with just 22 per cent convinced that the Coalition would better handle the issue if it were in government. Voters have lost faith with both parties on the issue since April, but the Government - down from 27 per cent to 21 per cent - has fallen further than the Coalition - down from 26 per cent to 22 per cent.

SOURCE



Former Prime minister of Australia blasts his Leftist successor's immigration policies

Former prime minister John Howard has lashed out at Kevin Rudd's handling of asylum seekers and accused his Government of wasting the nation's cash. Mr Rudd's approval rating dropped considerably last week as the impasse continues over what to do with hundreds of Australia-bound asylum seekers who remain in limbo.

Mr Howard used an interview with The Sunday Telegraph to attack the Federal Government's so-called Indonesian solution and defended his own record on immigration. "We stopped the boats coming. The facts speak for themselves. The Indonesian solution? Well, there doesn't seem to be one," he said. "The current handling of the 78 people aboard the Customs ship? I'll refrain from comment on that ... but speaking robustly in defence of our policy - we stopped the boats.

"People knew where we stood. We didn't try and be all things to all men. The net result was support for immigration and a humanitarian refugee program increased.''

Mr Howard also claims the Government has achieved very little since defeating him in 2007 and took credit for Australia keeping its head above water during the global financial crisis. "I can't think of a major thing it has done, except spend the bank balance that Costello and I left behind. Nothing else," he said....

"Mr Rudd will say he had the global financial crisis to handle. Well, courtesy of us he was well endowed with money in the bank."

SOURCE





8 November, 2009

Britain's Leftist government deliberately covered up immigration risk

Labour's “open door” immigration policy knowingly risked allowing dangerous people to settle in Britain unchecked, according to documents seen by The Sunday Times. The Whitehall correspondence, which was illegally withheld by the Home Office for four years, shows how ministers were told by the country’s most senior immigration official that his staff were to be “encouraged to take risks” when granting visas, work permits and extended residency to hundreds of thousands of new migrants.

The cover-up of this policy of risk-taking was so concerted that Richard Thomas, the then information commissioner, sent a team of investigators into the Home Office to trawl all the relevant papers. Earlier this year he rebuked the department for breaking the law and ordered it to release the material under the freedom of information (FoI) law.

The documents help to explain the huge rise in the flow of migrants into Britain as the Home Office rushed to clear a backlog of 45,000 cases. Officials agreed to fast-track 337,000 applications with minimal checks. This led to a rapid rise in immigration. In 1999, 170,000 visas were granted; by 2002, this had risen to 300,000.

As officials were being ordered to take risks, several potentially dangerous people entered the UK. In late 2001, more than 20 Taliban, who had fled from Afghanistan after their defeat by American and British forces, were allowed to stay in the UK.

The documents cast new light on the row over past immigration policy, highlighted by the recent rise of the British National party. Last week Alan Johnson became the first Labour home secretary to admit the government had made mistakes in its handling of immigration. He said ministers had ignored problems about failed asylum seekers and foreign national prisoners. They had also failed to grasp public unease about the growing pressure on jobs and public services.

Johnson’s remarks signalled the government’s belated recognition that its immigration policy has alienated its white working-class vote, tempting a significant minority to back the BNP. The documents indicate that, far from being a mistake, there was a deliberate policy — apparently endorsed at the highest level in the Home Office — to promote concerted risk-taking by immigration staff whose job was to decide whether non-European Union migrants applying to work, study or marry in Britain were genuine.

A key figure in the scandal was Sir Bill Jeffrey, who was the director-general of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, Britain’s most senior immigration official. He is now at the centre of controversy as the senior civil servant in charge of the Ministry of Defence.

The other key figure was Beverley Hughes, then minister of state for citizenship and immigration. She was later forced to resign after it emerged she had misled MPs about whether she had been warned that Romanian and Bulgarian crime gangs might want to exploit the UK’s decision to open its borders to those seeking work from eastern Europe.

In March 2003, shortly after the 2001 entry permits to the Taliban had come to light — to an outcry in the press — Jeffrey spelled out the policy in a note to Hughes. “We are still in a situation where some risks have to be taken, and staff should feel that if they are encouraged to take risks they will be supported when something does go wrong,” he wrote.

The minister’s office replied by e-mail three days later: “Beverley Hughes has seen and noted your submission of 7 March . . . Beverley feels the basic point is that while staff have to take some risks, this was a decision that flew in the face of common sense.”

The e-mail was copied to David Blunkett, then home secretary, and Sir John Gieve, his most senior mandarin. The words “to be withheld” were later scribbled across the top, an apparent instruction not to comply with an FoI request for its release. The same words appear on a note, prepared by Jeffrey, sent to Hughes a few day later. In it, in response to Hughes’s insistent complaints about the need to clear the 45,000 backlog, he outlined the new “risk-taking” policy. This involved fast-tracking all 337,000 applications, with little or no regard as to whether they were merited.

The policy, codenamed Brace, meant that officials had to make quick decisions based on the paperwork in an applicant’s file, regardless of whether it was complete. No further follow-up checks were to be made.

Jeffrey said staff were given guidance that “Brace is about pragmatic (ie not pursing every angle that could conceivably justify refusal) grants rather than pragmatic refusals”. In other words, the official policy was in principle to grant applications rather than to refuse them.

This telling exchange — and equally significant evidence of a concerted cover-up — is buried deep in a batch of documents that ministers tried desperately to prevent being made public.

Their illegal activity followed an application by a Whitehall whistleblower, Steve Moxon, to force them to release the material under the Freedom of Information Act. An immigration case worker whose ultimate bosses had been Jeffrey and Hughes, Moxon was sacked after telling The Sunday Times about the fast-tracking process in 2004. He has spent five years trying to obtain the truth about the policy, which Hughes always claimed publicly was implemented by junior officials without her knowledge. Not only do the papers expose her claim as untrue; they go further in showing that Hughes and Jeffrey were happy to encourage the culture of deliberate risk-taking.

More HERE



Australian Prime Minister is all at sea over the "boat people"

A COUPLE of days ago, I found myself shouting at the radio. "For God's sake, answer the bloody question!" I suspect there were many such cries of frustration in households around the nation. Kevin Rudd was being interviewed - one of the 14 or so radio and TV appearances in his much-publicised media blitz on the asylum seeker issue. And he had nothing to tell us. No answers. Just platitudes, slogans and spin.

The Prime Minister's minders would have done better to keep him locked up in The Lodge and away from the phone. What is the point of a media blitz when you have nothing to say? All Rudd achieved was to deepen suspicion that he hasn't a clue about how to deal with the problem. He resembled a headless chook running around in circles.

Tuesday's dramatic Newspoll - Labor down seven points and an 18-point two-party preferred lead slashed to just four - shocked Rudd. And his response to the poll shocked quite a few in the Labor caucus. As one of them said: "It doesn't matter if this is a rogue poll. It doesn't matter if the swing against us is seven points or five or three. What matters is the way the PM and those around him reacted."

Under real pressure for the first time since he became Labor leader three years ago, Rudd found himself without a message and without a position. He was wrong-footed by a bad poll and a difficult issue. And now a growing group of critics in the party are pointing the finger at structures Rudd has set up around himself and the Government. It is no exaggeration to say there is a degree of panic among Labor MPs as the crisis over asylum seekers worsens.

The panic has deepened with every day that the Customs ship Oceanic Viking remains off the coast of Indonesia with its cargo of rescued Sri Lankans refusing to go ashore. The group, with its "take us to Australia or else" demand, in effect hijacked the vessel. They have made Rudd - who claims to have tough policies - look weak and indecisive.

According to caucus sources, as a result of Rudd's dominance of the party and the way his office is set up, he is isolated from the kind of advice that might help to deal with the situation. The older, more experienced hands originally on Rudd's staff have left. And, to quote one of Labor's longest-serving parliamentary operators: "We no longer have powerful people in caucus who can walk in and offer a frank view. "That's because they're all, in one way or another, clients of Kevin's."

In short, there is no way wiser heads can get a message of sense into Rudd's office, and that's a serious problem. Even Labor MPs who simply want to register their concern at the extent of anti-boat people sentiment in their electorates have to be very careful. One of them explains: "If you give Kevin or his staff a hard message, they just cut you off."

The Government has not been inactive. During the week, the PM belatedly got around to phoning the Sri Lankan President in a bid to ease the pressure on Tamils to flee that country. And Australian officials aboard the Oceanic Viking went to great lengths, with offers of rapid processing of claims, to tempt the 78 asylum seekers to leave the ship. But the perception is that it has all been ineffectual.

No one suggests there is any easy solution to the situation Rudd faces. It's as complex a political problem as an Australian leader is likely to encounter. John Howard handled a lot of difficult situations and experienced some horrific opinion poll slumps. At times - in 1998, 2001 and early 2004 - pundits were just about ready to write him off. But I can't recall Howard looking as though he didn't have a handle on a problem - except at the very end.

In tough times, a political leader needs a machine to help him fight his way through. Rudd - pretty much by choice - has no such machine. If he is now forced to order the Oceanic Viking to take the stubborn Sri Lankans to Christmas Island, it will be a humiliating backdown, and caucus criticism will become more vocal.

Rudd may be close to over-reaching himself in his cavalier disregard for party feeling. ALP anger stirred up by the appointment of Peter Costello to a cushy post on the Board of Guardians of the Future Fund - coinciding with the concern over asylum seeker policy - should be a warning to him. It provoked muttering not just among Labor MPs, but among Government staffers as well. Labor, after all, had spent years painting Costello as economically incompetent. Front benchers - including Treasurer Wayne Swan - had repeatedly accused him of dishonesty. And now the Labor Government praises his expertise and gives him a key economic job. It demonstrates the hypocrisy that causes politics to be held in great odium by the public.

When, three days later, Costello announced that he would become managing director of a new investment and corporate advisory firm, the muttering increased. In the words of a prominent MP: "Think of the credibility it gives to the CEO of a new merchant bank to also be on the board of one of the world's biggest sovereign funds." Paul Keating's bitter denunciation of the appointment was far closer to rank and file Labor thinking than Rudd's justification of jobs for the (Coalition) boys.

SOURCE





7 November, 2009

Obama Saved/Created 650,000 Jobs?

Maybe -- but America imported 1,125,000 foreign workers at same time

The White House issued a new report claiming that the Stimulus Bill earlier this year has created or saved approximately 650,000 U.S. jobs. Unfortunately, another government program -- immigration -- completely wiped out any overall benefit the stimulus jobs could have been for the American working man and woman.

All of us need to point out to every local newspaper, every Member of Congress and every one of our co-workers and family that the federal government has imported more than a million working-age foreign citizens this year to negate every positive impact the stimulus could have had for U.S. workers.

Yes, we are happy to see the news that far fewer H-1B visas have been issued this year for foreign tech workers than usual. But the H-1B visas -- as destructive as they are to some occupations -- are only a tiny fraction of the flow of working-age foreign citizens into the U.S. each year. Here is what CNN just reported about the Stimulus jobs:

The largest stimulus program in the nation's history has created or saved at least 650,000 state and local jobs, according to a report released by the Obama administration on Friday.

Based on approximately $150 billion in spending from the $787 billion recovery package, the tally is the first broad, concrete look at the stimulus program's impact on the economy. The numbers are drawn from tens of thousands of reports from state and local recipients as well as private companies.

NumbersUSA has tried since last November to persuade the news media to monthly report how many working-age foreign citizens are getting first-time work permits from the feds. It remains the great national secret because the U.S. news media -- from the liberal to the conservative wing -- won't report these facts. So, NumbersUSA once again will stand alone in telling you the inconvenient truth from the latest U.S. government statistics:

* Each month, the feds give out about 160,000 first-time permanent and temporary work permits to working-age foreign citizens.

* The 160,000 working-age foreign citizens are divided almost equally into those getting permanent work permits through green cards and those getting temporary work permits each month.

* Of the immigrants aged 18-65 who get permanent work permits each month, about 35,000 of them were already working in the U.S. on previous temporary work permits.

* Thus, the NET figure is 160,000 minus 35,000 equals about 125,000 foreign citizens who are getting a work permit for the first time each month.

The bottom line is that while this White House has focused on saving or creating 650,000 U.S. jobs, that same White House and about 90% of the Members of the U.S. Congress have allowed the federal bureaucracy to give out permanent and temporary work permits to about 1 million one hundred and twenty-five thousand first-time foreign workers thus far during 2009.

The White House said the actual number of jobs created so far is likely closer to 1 million, since its report on stimulus job creation only focused on $150 billion of the $339 billion in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds spent so far. -- CNN

Even if you accept the White House's claim of having created/saved 1 million jobs, the feds have wiped out all the benefit to the American worker by giving work permits to 1.125 million new foreign workers in 2009.

Until Pres. Obama and Congress pass an Immigration Suspension bill, they are going to be throwing hundreds of billions of dollars down a rat hole as they create jobs in the economy that don't even keep up with the immigrants they are bringing into the country.

SOURCE (See the original for links)



It's Rudd's fatal shore

Andrew Bolt comments on the illegal immigrants who come to Australia on overcrowded small boats -- some of which sink. The "Fatal shore" is an allusion to the fact that many of the original British immigrants to Australia died on the way because of the primitive sailing-ship technology of the time

TWELVE more dead. Now will the Rudd Government finally see that its "compassion" kills? The sinking on Sunday of a boat carrying Sri Lankan asylum seekers brings to 54 the number of boat people who have died this year trying to reach us. Yes, 54. That's the price of the "compassion" this Government showed last year by weakening the laws that once deterred boat people from risking their lives like this.

And don't tell me I have no right to be angry. I've warned a dozen times, in print and on air, that people would die as a consequence of what Rudd had done. Just last week I showed that 42 boat people had died already in sinkings off Malaysia and Indonesia, and in an explosion at Ashmore Reef, proving the Government had again deceived you in claiming there was "no evidence" of these deaths. Now we have these latest deaths - including two boys - and more will die, too, unless this deceitful and opportunistic Prime Minister undoes the mischief he has wrought.

No, I do not blame Rudd directly for these deaths. He didn't man the boats or sink them. But I do blame him directly for luring people into such lethal voyages through his sheer foolishness, political opportunism and vanity. And I blame him for then deceitfully disclaiming all responsibility.

Let's first nail the worst of those deceits - his claim that he's actually been "tough" on boat people, and this year's 12-fold increase in arrivals has nothing to do with his policies: That it's outrageous to suggest that he's luring people to their deaths. Well, look at the graph on this page, taken from the website of his own Department of Immigration.

See the circle? I've added that to mark the date in late July last year when Rudd revealed his most dramatic changes to the boat people laws. And see the number of illegal immigrants caught and detained immediately soar? Draw your own conclusion.

As for Rudd being "tough" on boat people, let's check what he actually did that day to instead persuade them their luck was in, and Australia once more a soft touch.

Rudd had already scrapped the temporary protection visas, which allowed us to send back refugees who'd got here by boat once their countries were again safe. He'd also scrapped the "Pacific Solution", under which boat people were sent to Nauru and Manus Island, with no guarantees they'd ever be let into Australia. And on July 29, he sent the biggest signal of all to show that unlike wicked John Howard, he was compassionate. Automatic detention of boat people was over. From now on, children and adults cleared of security risk would no longer be held. They'd be free to stay at large while the government worked out if they really were refugees. What's more, the onus of proof would be switched: rather than making boat people prove they were no threat, the government would have to prove they were to keep them in detention.

How the Left cheered! How journalists praised. How rights activists sighed they could feel proud again. And how the people smugglers pricked up their ears.

Rudd denies he went weak, but this is how his grand gesture in July was hailed at the time by constitutional law expert Professor Clive Williams, a human rights activist and candidate for Labor pre-selection, who summed up well the mood in Rudd's ranks: "A clear break has been made from the Howard era ... this risk-based approach is more compassionate ... "

Rudd was warned against this "clear break", of course, and not just by some who-cares journalist. The Australian Federal Police, the International Organisation for Migration and Indonesian officials all said it gave people smugglers a green flag.

Look at the graph again: he had. Or ask boat people themselves if they'd seen this signal - people who'd waited in Indonesia for months, even years, for some such sign. An Iraqi told the ABC: "Kevin Rudd - he's changed everything about refugee. If I go to Australia now, different." An Afghan told The Australian: "I know Kevin Rudd is the new PM ... he has tried to get more immigrants. I have heard that if someone arrives it is easy."

But Rudd was too intoxicated with the easy praise to heed such warnings. Too pleased with this chance to damn the Liberals as the nasty party which put children "behind barbed wire". Oh, how easily Labor preened and mocked back then, and how feebly the spineless Liberals took it.

In the very month that Rudd watered down the laws, the Labor head of a joint parliamentary committee on migration toured the detention centre at Christmas Island and declared it "an enormous white elephant". Michael Danby said his committee agreed with him, and was now wondering what to do with Howard's "stalag". Could they turn it into a tourist centre, perhaps?

Still laughing, Michael? Thanks to the great wave of boats unleashed in large part by your boss, this "stalag" at Christmas Island is so crammed that Rudd is now having to double its size, and has rushed over dongas once intended for Aboriginal communities.

Of course, Rudd is trying to dodge any blame. Here's his latest spin to explain the surge in boats: "What we're faced with in Sri Lanka is 260,000 people displaced because of the civil war." More deceit, I'm afraid. In fact, that war ended in May with the defeat of a terrorist group the Tamil Tigers. Sri Lanka is now safer, not more dangerous, both for the Tamils and Sinhalese there.

While it's true that some Tamils, especially those connected with the Tigers regime, are now trying to leave Sri Lanka, not least for economic reasons, it's also true that many of the 78 rescued Tamil boat people now refusing to leave our patrol ship Oceanic Viking have said they'd actually left their island years ago, and have spent up to five years in Indonesia, waiting for this chance to sail here. And let's not forget that many of the boats now coming are filled not with Tamils but Afghans, Pakistanis, Iraqis and even, it seems, some Sri Lankan Muslims.

But it's the lie of Rudd's "compassion" that most needs puncturing before more people die. LET me give just one more example of how misapplied "compassion" can actually kill. The Oceanic Viking Tamils were rescued by Australia last month after issuing a fake SOS from their ship, after reportedly drilling holes in the hull. Likewise, 42 Afghans were rescued in April at Ashmore Reef and even granted permanent residency here after blowing up their own boat, killing five.

How compassionate we were both times. And foolishly so, in the case of the Afghans, who can now stay despite refusing to say which of them set off the deadly explosion.

But now check the price of this compassion. The Government has just ordered a coroner's inquiry into the deaths on Sunday of the 12 Sri Lankans to find why their boat suddenly capsized off the Cocos Islands, just as they and 27 others were about to be rescued in Australian search-and-rescue territory. Why the inquiry? Because some of those involved in the rescue claim the Sri Lankans may have deliberately sunk their own boat. Plus, of course, an inquiry lets Rudd say "no comment" in the meantime.

Yes, it's nice to seem good. But it's far finer to actually do good, even if it makes you look bad. Kevin Rudd chose last year to seem good, but with the dead now bobbing in our waters, he must be judged instead by the deadly consequences. What has his "compassion" - of a flashy kind so common in this Age of Seeming - actually brought?

SOURCE





6 November, 2009

Berets and Baguettes? France Rethinks Its Identity

For decades, the French considered it taboo to question whether immigration and foreign influences were diluting France's social and cultural character. Indeed, the topic was considered so toxic that no one in France besides extreme-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen would even take it up in public. But times have changed. Twenty years after Le Pen's National Front Party (FN) became a political force in France, its view that immigration is threatening the French national identity is starting to gain wider acceptance. Now, the government is putting the issue front and center for the first time by encouraging people to have a vigorous national debate about what it means to be French in the 21st century.

"We must reaffirm the values of national identity and pride in being French," Eric Besson, the Minister for Immigration and National Identity, said as he announced the three-month series of discussions on Nov. 2. "This debate doesn't scare me. I even find it passionate." Besson says it's important for an increasingly diverse France to define its essential unifying values and reclaim a national pride and patriotism that the National Front co-opted long ago for its own xenophobic purposes.

Others are worried, though. Fleshing out how people view the concept of Frenchness today has sparked controversy, as one might expect. Detractors have loudly denounced the initiative as stealing the national-identity page from Le Pen's playbook — and casting suspicion on immigrants, naturalized citizens and French-born minorities as posing threats to it. Some opponents have also accused the government of using an emotive issue to try to divert attention from a series of high-profile political scandals in recent months, such as the accusations of nepotism surrounding a bid by President Nicolas Sarkozy's son to attain a public post and the allegations that the French Culture Minister Frédéric Mitterrand paid for sex with boys in Thailand. Besson was also highly criticized himself for ordering an illegal refugee camp near Calais to be razed in September, and three Afghans be deported back to their war-torn country. "Shaken by a series of political scandals that have thrust the FN back onto the stage, the government is again serving up the old nationalist soup," says Djamila Sonzogni, a Green Party councilor in eastern France.

Critics also believe the idea is motivated by political opportunism. With regional elections looming next March, leftist politicians and pundits say the government is using the national-identity theme to appeal to the right-wing Le Pen voters who flocked to Sarkozy's 2007 presidential campaign once he began promising to get tough on crime and immigration. Le Pen's daughter Marine, the FN vice president, has voiced a similar accusation. "This country is suffering a major crisis of identity that is driving it into chaos," she told the Europe 1 radio station on Oct. 28. "We've been denied this debate for 25 years. We want a (real) national debate, not an electoral gadget."

The French public seems to be either split or confused by the government's motivations in calling for the debate. One poll published on Oct. 29 showed that 64% of people believe the issue is being used "above all as an electoral tool," but in another poll released three days later, 60% of respondents favored a debate on the topic.

The discussions are to take place during hundreds of locally organized town-hall meetings involving education, union and cultural officials and ordinary people concerned about the state of French identity. Among the questions Besson has suggested for the debates: Should France implement "integration contracts," which would set minimal levels of language and cultural knowledge for citizenship; and should students be required to sing the national anthem "La Marseillaise" at least once a year?

Some fear that these types of questions — even the debates themselves — invite assumptions that generations of immigrants have already undermined France's identity and may provoke nationalist sentiments long championed by Le Pen. "When you put immigration and national identity side by side, it creates the notion that immigration poses a threat to national identity — which can inspire racism," Mouloud Aounit, president of the Movement Against Racism and for Friendship Between Peoples, told the daily l'Humanité on Nov. 2. "But this debate also reveals an identity crisis of a part of French society ... and the failure of its model of integration, which doesn't allow people to do just that."

Besson's supporters say the goal, however, is not to single out immigrants and minorities, but rather to safeguard the unique aspects of the French identity that they perceive as being threatened by foreign influences. "Globalization erases a little more of every nation's characteristics every day," says Frédéric Lefebvre, spokesman for Sarkozy's ruling Union for a Popular Majority Party. Given such cultural erosion, Lefebvre called for a defense of our "cultural model and la Douce France" — an allusion to crooner Charles Trenet's famous 1943 song rhapsodizing about the villages, people and traditions of pastoral France.

But Trenet's song was meant to be an inspiration to his countrymen to withstand the brutal Nazi occupation of France. Some of Besson's critics say the national-identity debate, meanwhile, is rooted in modern-day xenophobia, not nostalgia. Perhaps a solution might be to inspire patriotism by asking French people to warble Trenet's ditty regularly rather than dutifully drone "La Marseillaise" once a year.

SOURCE

Another take on the French identity debate here.



Australian Govt policy 'benefits people smugglers'

Federal Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull has accused the government of outsourcing its immigration program to people smugglers as 78 Sri Lankan asylum seekers continue to refuse to leave an Australian customs vessel.

Australia has been trying for almost two weeks to convince the ethnic Tamils to voluntarily leave the Oceanic Viking and enter the Tanjung Pinang Detention Centre on the Indonesian island of Bintan. Security clearance for the vessel to remain in Indonesia expires on Friday night and it is not yet known whether Indonesia will grant another extension.

Mr Turnbull said Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's changes to the previous government's asylum-seeker policy had resulted in a system that benefited people smugglers. "He made those changes and what do we have? Thousands, 2,000, unauthorised arrivals, a surge in people smuggling. Our immigration program is being outsourced to the people smugglers," Mr Turnbull told ABC Radio on Friday.

He said he was reluctant to give advice about the current situation on which he was not fully briefed, but said his party had a clear policy on border protection. "If we have an election next year and I win and become the next prime minister, our border protection policies will be tougher and we will over time once again, as we have before, eliminate people smugglers," he said.

SOURCE





5 November, 2009

Health Care Reform Legislation Becomes Vehicle for Reshaping Immigration Policy

Weak Verification and Loosening of Welfare Reform Rules Alter Longstanding System of Enforcement and Incentives

Current versions of both the House and Senate health care reform bills contain inadequate verification measures that will fail to prevent millions of illegal aliens from accessing taxpayer funded health benefits, charges the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). And in a radical change from current law, both versions of the bill grant immediate health care benefits to immigrants currently subject to a 5-year waiting period before they may access most federal benefits.

FAIR has pledged to try to block these proposals: "If powerful special interests prevail, the final version of a health care reform bill will have been used to transform immigration policies as aggressively as it was used to transform the U.S. health care system itself," says Dan Stein, President of FAIR.

FAIR states that narrow special interests such as the National Council of La Raza and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus have been pushing hard to include sweeping changes to immigration policy within the health care reform bill - no limits to eligibility and immediate access for everyone regardless of status. "They never know when enough is enough," says Stein.

While FAIR takes no official position on the overall bill, The Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962), the group contends that health care legislation should be "immigration neutral," not a vehicle to reverse longstanding immigration polices. Not properly checking the citizenship status of those applying for benefits, and granting instant access to legal residents still bound by their 5-year waiting period for benefits, shatters the integrity of a system based on penalties and incentives.

Background: The verification measures to stop ineligible aliens from accessing benefits under the House health care reform bill still contain loopholes for fraud and abuse. While those claiming to be non-citizens will be checked through the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, the verification mechanism recommended for those who claim to be citizens is a new, untested system that does not require supporting documentation. This is a massive loophole. FAIR urges Congress to instead mandate use of an existing verification model, approved by Congress in 2005, which requires that individuals claiming to be citizens first present citizenship documentation before receiving federal benefits such as Medicaid.

In addition to eligibility verification deficiencies, providing immediate access to federal health benefits for immigrants threatens to dismantle one of the original reforms of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA or Welfare Reform). The Act created a 5-year waiting period before new immigrants can access "Federal means-tested public benefits" and required that a person petitioning for an alien's admission must sign an affidavit promising financial support to the alien. In addition to reducing overall federal outlays, the policy was designed to protect American taxpayers by ensuring legal immigrants do not become public charges by immediately taking advantage of benefits upon their arrival in the United States.

The policy has been one of the very few sensible reforms made to an immigration system that is otherwise in chaos. Yet, both the House and Senate versions of the health care reform bill specify that taxpayer subsidies are not subject to the 5-year waiting period, thus allowing legal aliens to immediately access benefits at a cost to American taxpayers of at least $33.8 billion during the 2014-2019 budget period. Unless, this provision is removed, FAIR believes this will establish a dramatic and costly precedent to eliminate the 5-year waiting period for virtually every federal benefit.

"Neglecting verification loopholes that reward those who have no legal right to be here, and offering instant benefits to people the day they get their green cards is costly health care policy, and even worse immigration policy," charged Stein. "It's unimaginable that Congress is making vast transformational changes to our immigration system under cover of a health care reform bill that is already a politically risky bill for lawmakers. House members should be irate at party leadership for having loaded this bill with immigration changes that most Americans will vehemently oppose."

The above is a press release dated October 9 from Federation for American Immigration Reform, 25 Massachusetts Avenue - Suite 330 Washington DC, 20001, Office 202-328-7004. Contact Bob Dane 202-328-7004 or Ira Mehlman 206-420-7733 for details of the above. Email: media@fairus.org. Founded in 1979, FAIR is the oldest and largest immigration reform group in America. FAIR fights for immigration policies that enhance national security, improve the economy, protect jobs and wages and establish a rule of law that is recognized and enforced.



Australian government being conned by Tamil tall tales about persecution

By Michael Roberts (Adjunct associate professor of anthropology at the University of Adelaide)

AS a dual Australian Sri Lankan national, what has struck me most about the ongoing debate in Australia about Sri Lankan boat people is the abysmal ignorance about Sri Lanka's geography and distribution of peoples. This has led to the inability of Australians to put Tamil migration in its historical context and instead to uncritically accept tales of Tamil persecution and even genocide that are patently untrue.

Those known as Ceylon Tamils did not just begin migrating because of the end of the civil war in Sri Lanka. In fact, Tamil migration is a two-stage process and it has been under way for more than a century.

Ceylon Tamils began migrating from the north to the south in search of jobs from the late 19th century. By 1921, they constituted 11.5 per cent of the population in Colombo, while Indian Tamils (more recent migrants from the nearby state on the Indian mainland of Tamil Nadu) accounted for 13.4 per cent. So Tamils, (both Ceylonese and of more recent Indian origin), have resided in the city environs for generations. Some Ceylon Tamils have also been a segment of its Westernised elite. However, such status did not protect them during the mini-pogroms of 1958 and 1977 and the major pogrom of July 1983, which involved widespread assaults on Tamil persons and property in the south of the island.

It is worth noting that although the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam had been formed in 1976, and the goal of an independent state of Eelam proclaimed that year, the pogrom of 1983 - which followed a deadly assault by Tigers on the military - is widely regarded as the start of the civil war.

While middle-class Tamils have, together with Burgher, Sinhalese and Muslim families, been participating in the migration from Sri Lanka in search of better employment and education for their children since the 50s, the big surge in migration occurred after July 1983.

Despite this migration, Colombo District has not been denuded of its Tamil population. The Tamil population as a whole rose from 11.2 per cent in 1981 to 12.2 per cent in 2001. The number in the metropolitan cluster in fact rose by 58,291 in that period. This is because migration to foreign lands has been exceeded by internal movements from the northern and eastern parts of the island, to escape the conflict and in search of better economic opportunities.

Tamils have been under-represented in state-sector employment for some time, no doubt at least in part due to positive discrimination in favour of Sinhalese and negative discrimination against Tamils. Remarkably, however, a handful of senior Tamil officers remained in the armed services, a minute proportion of the senior ranks, but notable in a context where one might anticipate a zero figure. Moreover, a number of Tamils are sprinkled through the mercantile sector and professions. Indeed, some of the richest entrepreneurs are Tamil. Such success, however, has not eliminated memories of July 1983 and the sense of political marginalisation among some Tamils.

Such sentiments encourage some Tamils to migrate; but in a fair proportion of cases, the desire to migrate is inspired by a concern for the educational prospects of their children and the monetary support provided by kinfolk who are already in some Western country. The migration of Tamils from the Jaffna Peninsula and Batticaloa regions to Colombo in the recent past, therefore, is often a first stage in a projected step outwards.

This second step, of outmigration, calls for patience. Not all can meet the strict criteria laid down in Australia for skilled migrants or family reunion. Some, therefore, seek the illegal pathway provided by people smugglers who take them to Italy or Australia. It is usually young males, mostly Sinhalese but also Tamils and Muslims, who take the sea lanes by trawler to Italy.

It appears recently a few families elected to fly to Malaysia where they boarded the Jaya Lestari. This was a costly exercise. It also required passports and visas. It is unlikely that any of the Tamils (numbers uncertain) who slipped out of the internally displaced persons camps by, say, July could have secured the necessary papers in two months, unless they had connections with the LTTE or criminals engaged in forgery. In view of all the above, my conjecture is that Brindha, the tearful nine-year-old filmed by the ABC pleading for asylum, and her family did not spend time "in the jungle" as they claimed and were not fleeing the IDP camps, but are much more likely to be from the Tamil communities of Jaffna or Colombo. This is not to say they should be refused admission to Australia as migrants, simply that they are unlikely to be refugees.

Australians engaged in public debate about Sri Lanka need to be better informed. People such as Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young have uncritically accepted "the stories of the conditions in the camps . . . of people being persecuted and executed simply because they say, 'We don't want to be here any more' ". The fact is there is absolutely no evidence that people are being persecuted, much less executed. There is a vital distinction between political dissatisfaction and a well-founded fear of persecution, and Australians need to recognise that what is driving Tamil boatpeople is a mix of political grievance and economic hope, which is inspiring migratory moves along uncomfortable, and even perilous, paths.

SOURCE





4 November, 2009

New from the Center for Immigration Studies

1. The 287(g) Program: Protecting Home Towns and Homeland

Excerpt: This Backgrounder examines the 287(g) program’s history and its status. How is it being used? Which law enforcement agencies participate? What has the 287(g) program’s effect been on the foreign-born criminal element? We interviewed participating local law enforcement agencies (LEAs), reviewed statistics and reports provided by local LEAs, analyzed data provided by ICE through a FOIA request, and scoured news reports on the program. We begin by recounting briefly the program’s origin, then describe its application and results. We conclude by offering a number of recommendations. Between those bookends is the story of the 287(g) program’s successes, challenges, and potential.

********

2. Strategic Negligence: How the Sierra Club's Distortions on Border and Immigration Policy Are Undermining its Environmental Legacy

Excerpt: The environmental devastation in the Arizona borderlands caused by illegal immigration and drug smuggling is undeniable, and not just at Organ Pipe. The same account could have been written from other extraordinary places, including the Cabeza Prieta Wilderness, Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, and the Coronado National Forest.

********

3. Physician, Heal Thyself: Special Pleaders Demand Coverage of Illegal Aliens, While Mexico’s Health Care System Is a Wreck

Excerpt: The demand that illegal immigrants be eligible for taxpayer-funded benefits under the health care reform measures now before Congress offers an opportunity to examine the deep flaws in Mexico’s own health care system. American taxpayers already provide more than $1,100 in health care every year for each of the nearly eight million Mexican immigrants (legal and illegal) in the United States who are uninsured or on Medicaid. This is more than twice the per capita health expenditure of Mexico’s own health sector, which is corrupt, unwieldy, and grossly underfunded. Mexico’s neglect of its own people’s health care increases the demands of its expatriates on America’s emergency rooms, clinics, hospitals, doctors, and other providers.

********

4. Feds target Arpaio, jeopardize us

State and local involvement in immigration-law enforcement is essential these days, as foreign nationals bent on terrorism remain a looming threat, as Mexican drug cartels and other international crime syndicates extend their reach into American communities, and as illegal workers increasingly resort to identity fraud to stay employed in scarce jobs.

By utilizing immigration-law-enforcement tools in connection with local crime-suppression operations in Maricopa County, Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been keeping us all safer.

********

5. Obama Lifts HIV Immigration Ban

Excerpt: President Obama has announced the elimination of immigration provisions which ban entry of immigrants with HIV in a move that will undoubtedly increase HIV infection cases in the United States. The background to this change and the Bush Administration’s role was discussed in an earlier Center for Immigration Studies blog.

********

6. Here's Some Real Hate Speech for You

Excerpt: Well, their efforts are starting to pay off. No, CNN hasn't decided to fire Dobbs (which would cause them to drop behind the Hallmark Channel in viewership). Instead, someone fired a shot at Dobbs' house. As reported today by Fox News (!), a shot was fired on October 5 at Dobbs' home while he and his (Mexican-American) wife were out front; New Jersey State Police took the bullet for analysis.

********

7. WSJ Spin on H-1B Numbers

Excerpt: The Wall Street Journal has a front page story today on that portrays a sharp decline in the number of H-1B visas.

The paper reports that 'only 46,700' applications had been made for 65,000 H-1B visas available.

********

8. Giving Illegal Aliens the Police Service They Deserve

Excerpt: Chief Bratton, the Police Foundation, and law enforcement officials across the country who place the interests of the millions of criminal illegal aliens ahead of the safety and well-being of American men, women, and children dishonor their oath of office and the uniform that they wear. Rather than ignoring crimes committed by illegal aliens and pushing for amnesty, law enforcement officials should set the example for all Americans by upholding and safeguarding the rule of law.

********

9. Hate, Hate Everywhere

Excerpt: I feel like taking a shower after writing about the Southern Poverty Law Center, but for some reason it's taken seriously by the media and even government agencies, so I can't avoid it. A couple examples this week of how ludicrous the SPLC's charges of 'hate' are. James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal wrote 'In Defense of Carol Swain' in reaction to the SPLC smear-meister Mark Potok's claim that 'Carol Swain is an apologist for white supremacists.' Taranto does a good job of assessing the issue at hand, especially remarkable from the WSJ given the fact that Carol is an immigration restrictionist, though that's not what was at issue. I'll add only that I know Carol, a black woman who went from being a teenage mom and high-school dropout to earning a PhD and teaching at Vanderbilt, and the very idea that she's an 'apologist for white supremacists' is so outlandish, not to mention scurrilous, as to render whoever makes such a claim not credible on anything else. How can any self-respecting reporter ever quote Mark Potok again on anything?

********

10. Abuse of H-1B School Teachers

Excerpt: The H-1B visa, that was supposed to be used to fill jobs where U.S. workers are unavailable, has created the business of importing people on H-1B visas. These companies are known as 'H-1B bodyshops'.

********

11. What Do Amnesty Advocates Have Against Africans?

Excerpt: I wonder why supporters of illegal aliens show virtually no concern for the hundreds of millions of Africans who live in countries with exceptionally high child mortality rates and the lowest overall life expectancies in the world.

The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: center@cis.org www.cis.org.



Australians want a tougher stand on illegal immigrants

Most voters believe Government weakness on border protection is to blame for the rising number of boats in Australian waters, according to a new poll. The Essential Media poll, reported on The Punch today, also finds more than half of voters believe there is a “real prospect” there are terrorists aboard the boats and say the Government is doing the right thing in trying to turn the boats away.

The findings coincide with the latest Newspoll showing a 7 point rise in primary vote support for the Coalition and a corresponding fall for the Rudd Government.

This spectacular swing comes amid a mounting sense of crisis surrounding the arrivals of asylum-seekers in Australian waters.

Only one in three respondents in the Essential poll said Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was doing an “excellent or good” job on border protection. More than half rated his performance as “not so good” or poor.

But the Essential research finds a majority of voters also agrees that asylum seekers are coming from countries that have seen an escalation in violence and persecution.

Writing on The Punch, director of Essential Media and Communications Peter Lewis said the findings showed Mr Rudd’s “attempts to play tough cop are failing to translate into public approval for his handling of the issue.” Mr Lewis said the public understanding that asylum seekers were fleeing violent countries “suggests that if the public were presented with a story that humanised the plight of the asylum seekers they would be more likely to take a global view” and less likely to blame the Government for the current troubles.

SOURCE





3 November, 2009

Health Care Reform Bill Will Dramatically Reshape U.S. Immigration Policy

Weak Verification and Waiving of Welfare Reform Provisions Key Strategies for Amnesty Advocates and Immigrant Rights Groups

QUICK SUMMARY

If powerful special interests prevail, the final version of a health care reform bill will have been used to transform immigration policies and immigration-related aspects of welfare policy almost as much as transforming the U.S. health care system itself. Current versions of both the House and Senate bills contain inadequate verification measures to prevent millions of illegal aliens from accessing taxpayer funded health benefits. And both versions of the bill now contain language that completely waives the long-standing rule requiring that legal aliens must wait 5 years before receiving access to federal health care benefits. Put into place in the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA or Welfare Reform), the policy was designed to ensure that legal immigrants did not become “public charges” and that they did not come to the U.S. simply to acquire benefits. This common-sense policy has been scrapped and now 5.5 million legal aliens will have instant access to health care benefits. FAIR believes this will establish a dramatic precedent to eliminate the 5 year waiting period entirely for virtually every federal benefit.

ILLEGAL ALIEN ACCESS

As expected, the proposed legislation is a mixed bag when it comes to preventing illegal aliens from accessing the recently resurrected public option. The legislation does call for the use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program for those who claim to be non-citizens. However, for those who claim to be citizens, a new untested verification system is to be used and no photo identification is required!, Furthermore, the bureaucratic channels by which the social security number and name are processed and confirmed have the potential to be ripe with fraud. Even if the documents are found to be fraudulent, the process could take months before the government is alerted to the deceit.

LEGAL ALIEN ACCESS

The welfare reform legislation of 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, made Legal Permanent Residents (LPR’s) wait 5 years before they became eligible for most federal benefits. This effectively reduced federal outlays, but more importantly, reduced the potential that newly arrived immigrants were coming to the U.S. simply to access benefits. The prohibition has been one of the very few sensible reforms made to an immigration system that is otherwise in chaos.

The current House Health Care Reform bill waives this longstanding rule so that LPR’s may instantly receive taxpayer health care benefits!

Over the last 5 years, the United States has admitted more than 5.5 million immigrants as LPR’s. Under the provisions of the House bill, this population will no longer be subject to the 5 year waiting period. Waiving the 5 year waiting period will cost the American taxpayers at least $33.8 billion during the 2014-2019 budget period. If we assume that all 5 year LPR’s were to utilize the provision, the costs to the American taxpayers would rise to an astounding $173.4 billion over the projected period.

85% Say Government Services Should Go Only To Those Here Legally

Rasmussen Reports recently asked voters to weigh in on whether or not illegal aliens should have access to universal health coverage. The results show 85% of voters support providing proof of citizenship before accessing government services. When asked specifically with regard to health care, 83% stated support for proving citizenship before receiving government funded health subsidies.

The above is part of a press release dated November 3 from Federation for American Immigration Reform, 25 Massachusetts Avenue - Suite 330 Washington DC, 20001, Office 202-328-7004 www.fairus.org. Contact Dustin Carnevale on 202-328-7004 for details of the above. Email: media@fairus.org. Founded in 1979, FAIR is the oldest and largest immigration reform group in America. FAIR fights for immigration policies that enhance national security, improve the economy, protect jobs and wages and establish a rule of law that is recognized and enforced.



Hard decisions on "refugees" must be made by the Australian government

An editorial from the Sydney "Daily Telegraph" below, referring particularly to the recent capsize and sinking of an illegal immigrant boat

THE current refugee crisis - and that often-overused word is sadly justified, with at least 16 people presently unaccounted for in the waters off the Cocos Islands - has effectively paralysed Australian politics.

Decisions are difficult to make in circumstances where so many lives are at stake. An error could lead to a further massive increase in the number of deaths of those seeking unauthorised entry. Yet decisions must be made. An absence of authority on this issue guarantees yet more attempted arrivals, and with them the attendant deadly risks.

The decision-making process would be far easier if the atmosphere were not so charged with allegations of racism. These accusations ought to be put aside. Australians, including those who argue for strong border protection, are not - in the overwhelmingly majority - racist. It is not racist to insist on orderly procedures for immigration, be it formal or through requests for asylum.

Nor is it racist to make Australia a difficult target for people-smugglers and others who would exploit both this country's welcoming nature and the desperation of those who wish to come here. In fact, a case can be made that deterring people-smugglers is a humanitarian act, in that it exposes fewer people to the dangers of rogue sea travel. By some counts, more than 50 have perished since the recent upsurge in attempted arrivals.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has faced criticism over his claim to be both tough and kind over refugee issues, as though it is impossible to be both. This is not the case. By maintaining the toughness of our approach - for example, by not caving in to those who threaten self-harm unless their immigration demands are met - Australia is extending a kindness to others who might be inspired to attempt the same thing.

In response to the current situation, Rudd must add steel to Australia's border protection policies. It matters little that some opponents may make capital from this. Lives are in the balance. Some issues are more important than politics.

SOURCE



British immigration boss admits: we got it wrong on immigration

The Home Secretary admitted yesterday that the Government had made mistakes in its handling of immigration and had overreacted to the 7/7 bombings in London.

In his first speech on the subject, Alan Johnson said that ministers had ignored immigration problems and the growing pressure on jobs and services in parts of Britain. Some communities had legitimate concerns because they had been particularly affected.

Mr Johnson did not directly address the rise of the British National Party, but his comments came 12 days after its leader Nick Griffin made his landmark appearance on Question Time thanks to the party’s success in the European elections. Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, struggled to defend the Government’s record on immigration during the television debate.

Mr Johnson is the first Labour Home Secretary to admit mistakes on immigration. He said his predecessors had not addressed problems that led to huge backlogs of asylum seekers and foreign national prisoners. It emerged in 2006 that there were up to 450,000 “legacy cases” that officials are now working through.

In his speech to the Royal Society for the Arts, Mr Johnson said: “There are communities which have been disproportionately affected by immigration, where people have legitimate concerns about the strain that the growth in the local population has placed on jobs and services.”

Labour had been “maladroit” in its handling of the issue, but he said ending immigration altogether was “no sensible argument”. The Home Secretary also conceded that some counter-terror proposals made after the 7/7 attacks had gone too far. “That probably was an understandable feeling: that we should be more draconian. But perhaps that wasn’t the right way to go,” he said.

Chris Grayling, the Shadow Home Secretary, said: “Three months ago the Home Secretary said he isn’t losing sleep over immigration. Now he’s admitting that it’s putting massive pressure on many communities . . . What we need is a tightly controlled system with much lower levels of immigration and an annual cap on the number of people who come to live and work here.”

SOURCE



Canada to reduce refugee intake

Canada plans to cut substantially the number of refugees it will accept in the coming year from people who make their claim after arriving in the country, according to new government figures.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney says Canada expects to accept between 9,000 and 12,000 claims in 2010, including their dependants, from people who apply for asylum after arriving in Canada. The number is less than half the 22,500 to 28,800 refugees and dependants targeted for acceptance in 2006 under the former Liberal government. The targets have dropped steadily since 2006 according to the annual reports to Parliament on immigration levels.

Olivia Chow, the NDP immigration critic, said Monday she sees the new targets as evidence the government, which is planning to introduce a refugee reform package in the coming weeks, wants to "look tough." "Beatings, torture, suffering and even deaths will occur," she said, "and unfortunately many will be turned away. Canada is no longer a land of hope and compassion."

Kenney has made no secret of his unhappiness with the current refugee process, which he says needs to be reformed to reduce abuse by "bogus" refugees. He also has promised to crack down on phoney immigration consultants who, he says, tutor aspiring refugees on how to outwit the system.

The latest immigration report said Canada plans to accept between 240,000 and 265,000 permanent residents in the coming year, a number that is in line with targets in recent years. The bulk of the new residents — as many as 166,800 — will be admitted under the economic class, meaning people willing to start a business or those having skills that are in short supply in Canada.

The targets for family class have dropped to a maximum of 63,000 from 71,000.

Canada accepted almost 22,000 refugees in 2008. The number includes those sponsored from abroad by the government and private interests, as well as those who sought asylum after arriving in Canada and their dependents.

SOURCE





2 November, 2009

Britain: Bogus student checks 'don't work'

Immigration officers have warned bosses that new rules designed to stop bogus students entering the UK are not working, the BBC has learned.

Non-EU students are supposed to apply to registered institutions, and must prove they can support themselves. But claims are now verified in the students' home countries, and UK staff say they have limited ability to challenge those they suspect. The UK Border Agency insists all entrants must meet immigration rules.

One Heathrow Airport immigration officer - speaking on condition of anonymity - told BBC Radio 5 live's Donal MacIntyre programme that UK staff were overwhelmed by the volume of student arrivals. "Student season has extended now to virtually the whole year," he said. "We are looking at upwards of 500 to 1,000 stuck in the hall, queues stretching for hundreds of yards down the terminal. "On occasions we've had to shut the hall as we couldn't cope. "That has led to planes being backed up... to not allow them to proceed into Heathrow until we could clear what we've got."

Many of these students are entirely legitimate, but he said he and his colleagues are almost powerless to challenge those whom they suspect are not. "If someone presents a case like that to a chief immigration officer, they take a look at the size and the number of people in the hall, and they turn around and say, 'Look, because of the pressure of work, they've got a visa, get them into the country'. "It would take two officers off the desk for hours just to present a case to send them to a detention centre."

And he believes this means people who have been denied entry to the UK on other grounds are able to enter the UK on bogus student visas. "We have an awful lot of students who have been refused five, six, even up to nine visas to come here to this country, whether it be for working holidays or student applications," he said. "And they're now coming here."

Under the new system, colleges which offer courses to students from outside the European Economic Area must be accredited by the Home Office. But the Heathrow immigration officer alleges that the list of approved institutions contains colleges which he and his colleagues know to have a history of awarding fake qualifications. "It beggars belief that these places can be graded the way they are, when we know for a fact that we've proved and got signatures from the passengers that they paid for their certificates," he said.

The immigration officer told BBC Radio 5 live about a recent case of an Indian woman in her 50s who presented herself as a student enrolling on an advanced course, despite the fact that she could barely speak English. "She was going to do an ACCA accounting course, of which when asked in Hindi what ACCA meant, she didn't have a clue," he said. "She wasn't even able to say in her own language what the course was going to entail."

These concerns are echoed on an internal UK Border Agency online message board, seen by the BBC. One officer wrote: "I can no longer feel proud of my role, given that I am forced on a daily basis to allow entry to passengers who clearly hold no ability or intention to follow any course of study in the United Kingdom".

Another commented: "The introduction of the appallingly thought-out points-based system for students has, in one fell swoop, failed the UK taxpayer who expects us to do a good job in tackling illegal immigration." The website quotes an acknowledgement from chief executive Lin Homer that the Border Agency had "not got it right" on student visas.

But Jeremy Oppenheim, head of the points-based system at the UK Border Agency, insisted that the rules were working. "The points-based system means that only those colleges and schools who provide quality education and take responsibility for their students will be licensed to bring in foreign students," he told Radio 5 live. "Schools and colleges are inspected by accreditation bodies and the UK Border Agency to ensure they are genuine. Before we tightened controls, around 4,000 UK institutions were bringing in international students. This currently stands at around 2,000.

"Anyone coming in to the UK must satisfy the border force officer that they meet the immigration rules and will comply with any conditions attached to their visa. If they cannot, the officer can and will refuse entry."

SOURCE



Migration to Australia: the true story

By Paul Sheehan

I begin this column as someone who has been accused of being a ''shameful'' person, ''a nasty piece of work'', an ''ungrateful, unkind maggot'', because I recently wrote about refugee policy in a column that was described as ''bollocks'', ''biased'', ''poorly researched'', ''sensationalist drivel'', ''crap'', ''rubbish'', ''unworthy tabloid rubbish'' and ''playing the race card''.

These insults are useful. They are irrational, immature, febrile. They are also consistent with a slightly more subtle orthodoxy that argues that anyone who supports the detention of asylum seekers on Christmas Island is not merely on the wrong side of a moral and legal argument, but is of cruel and deficient character.

A predictable orgy of blame-throwing has accompanied the latest influx of boat people, an influx that followed changes in the policy and rhetoric of the Rudd Government, which announced it would use mandatory detention as a last resort.

The term xenophobia has immediately been thrown about by the usual suspects, the refugee lobby, the human rights lobby, the utopian left and a predictable section of the media. The policy of detention has been portrayed as self-evidently cruel and discriminatory, and the bipartisan political support for a regime that acts as a deterrent to unauthorised arrivals has been presented as proof of this country's latent xenophobia. Australia is not a xenophobic nation. The argument is nonsense. Let me count the ways:

1. The number of refugees or humanitarian cases admitted by the Howard government was the highest of any government in Australian history, other than a brief spike after World War II. This legal intake did not generate significant public opposition or partisan division in Canberra. The number of humanitarian arrivals admitted during the Howard years was more than 128,000, says the field's leading expert, Dr Katherine Betts.

2. The number of Muslims admitted to permanent residence was far higher during the Howard years than during any other government. The Muslim population rose from 200,000, in 1996, to 340,000 in 2006, a 65 per cent surge in 10 years. (Figures again supplied by Betts.) This surge took place during a time of rising violence by militant Islamists, and the murder of scores of Australians by Islamic fundamentalists. Yet the historic increase in Muslim numbers via legal channels generated no meaningful political opposition.

3. Australia has the highest number of foreign-born residents of any large, advanced Western democracy. The proportion is almost one in four. For years Australia has maintained one of the world's largest per capita immigrants intakes, and the majority of arrivals have been non-European. Debate over immigration has flared only when the immigration stream has been abused by widespread fraud. The most sustained opposition has come from environmentalists concerned with sustainable growth.

4. People who arrive by boat present a more confronting challenge to legal, security and health screening than those who arrive by air and overstay their visas. Arrivals by air must present valid documentation before travelling. It is common practice for those who arrive by boat to destroy their travel documents, and engage people smugglers, measures designed to create a fait accompli, and make it more difficult to send them back to their nations of origin. This makes a far more difficult and expensive process of checking arrivals' legal, security and health status.

5. The rigorous deterrence and screening of unauthorised arrivals is integral to national security. Some of those who have settled in Australia and later engaged in criminal behaviour or welfare fraud have arrived via the refugee or humanitarian programs. The screening process for such programs is more problematic. So, too, is the absorption process. A recent spate of convictions for terrorist activity within Australia has largely involved people who came as immigrants.

6. The Tamil Tigers, whose campaign for independence from the central government in Sri Lanka led to a long and bloody civil war, have received considerable support from within the Tamil community in Australia. In April more than 1000 ethnic Tamils blockaded the gates of Kirribilli House, the Prime Minister's Sydney residence, calling for a ceasefire in the Sri Lankan Government's military offensive against the Tigers. The Sri Lankan high commissioner to Australia, Senaka Walgampaya, said the Tamil Tigers had received significant support from Australia, a view shared by Australian intelligence.

7. The number of refugees or displaced persons in the world, more than 20 million, is roughly the same as the population of Australia, 22 million. Advanced economies could only accept all these people by incurring domestic social and economic costs, which they are not prepared to make. Immigration policies have ripple-on effects, hence the need for quotas.

8. The Rudd Government deploys a zero-sum refugee policy. Although it increased immigration and temporary-working visa intakes, it maintained the annual intake of refugee/humanitarian at 13,500. Government policy thus dictates that those who arrive by boat and are given asylum status have displaced people who have registered with the United Nations or the government. The 13,500 annual refugee quota is a real waiting line of people with real needs. It is a queue that cannot simply be rendered invisible or irrelevant.

9. UN laws and conventions pertaining to the treatment of asylum seekers have no override authority over Australian law. The concept of ''the international community'' is no more than a rhetorical device. In reality the phrase refers to other like-minded human-rights activists overseas. Most democracies punish governments that fail the test of border security.

10. The 78 ethnic Tamils who have illegally occupied the Australian customs vessel Oceanic Viking are demanding rights that do not exist under international law. Most have been in Indonesia for some time. They want to settle in Australia, or another wealthy country, but that decision is not theirs to make.

The Oceanic Viking needs to be reclaimed, secured, prepared for sea, then sail for Sri Lanka with the 78 recalcitrants on board. They have rejected Indonesia. Anything less is a capitulation to moral blackmail, where children have been used as props and pawns. The impasse is not a test of rights but a test of wills. The prolonging of the Oceanic Viking saga has shown Rudd to be a man who seeks to be all things to all people.

SOURCE





1 November, 2009

Here's Some Real Hate Speech for You

Illegal immigration critic demonized and now shot at

After the 2007 amnesty failed in the Senate, the open borders crowd decided to forego policy debates and turn up to 11 their efforts to demonize their opponents. As part of that strategy, the Southern Poverty Law Center was assigned to designate FAIR a "hate group," La Raza started a "We Can Stop the Hate" campaign, and the new radical-left group America's Voice posted an online election for the "Top Anti-Immigrant Wolf" (vote for me!).

But the chief target of this two-year hate has been Lou Dobbs. The "Drop Dobbs" campaign, to get CNN to fire the only anchor on their network whose show anyone watches, is sponsored by — surprise! — La Raza, the SPLC, Media Matters, LULAC, et al. Last Wednesday, October 21, saw a series of coordinated protests by open-borders groups in cities around the country. The following day, Geraldo Rivera said in a speech that the opponents of amnesty have been "reckless beyond imagining" and that Dobbs in particular "is almost singlehandedly responsible for creating, for being the architect of the young-Latino-as-scapegoat for everything that ails this country."

Well, their efforts are starting to pay off. No, CNN hasn't decided to fire Dobbs (which would cause them to drop behind the Hallmark Channel in viewership). Instead, someone fired a shot at Dobbs's house. As reported today by Fox News (!), a shot was fired on October 5 at Dobbs's home while he and his (Mexican-American) wife were out front; New Jersey State Police took the bullet for analysis.

Whatever you think of Dobbs's schtick, he's always clear that his fulminating is about illegal immigration. He's not even a restrictionist, for heaven's sake, having said a number of times that he favors increased legal immigration. But the open-borders crowd believes — sincerely believes — that there can be no legitimate arguments against amnesty and for enforcement, so anyone taking those positions must, by definition, be evil. This is not a prescription for a healthy policy debate.

In a classic example of bad timing, this very evening America's Voice is set to air an ad on MSNBC (where else?) calling for Dobbs's firing because "Every weekday CNN airs 60 minutes of anti-immigrant hate." Will they have the decency to pull the ad, in light of the physical threat to Dobbs and his wife engendered by their hate campaign? Don't hold your breath.

Source

Jeffrey Lord sees the Left-leaning United Church of Christ as the principal haters. For a Leftist perspective, see The CS Monitor. They blame a "hunter" for shooting at Dobbs. No mention of any hunters sighted in the area, though



Australia: "Asylum-seekers" admit living in Indonesia

A rather gross example of "asylum-seekers" being anything but

Family First senator Steve Fielding has questioned whether 78 Sri Lankan asylum-seekers, who have "hijacked" an Australian customs boat, are real refugees. It has been revealed that most of the ethnic Tamil group, who are refusing to leave the Oceanic Viking moored off Indonesia's coast, have been living in the country for years. In written messages thrown off the boat, Fairfax newspapers reported the asylum seekers as saying they'd been living in Indonesia for as long as five years and had been accepted by the United Nations office in Jakarta as genuine refugees.

Senator Fielding said on Sunday it was the first he'd heard of the development but questioned whether the group, whose spokesman is a man called Alex, really were legitimate asylum seekers. "I remember the first phone call we took from, I think Alex, his English wasn't so good," he told Network Ten. "Within two weeks his English is better than mine, so I'm not so sure how genuine some of these people are."

The group were meant to be offloaded from the ship under a deal struck between Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. But they haven't budged for two weeks and Senator Fielding said the situation was bamboozling the federal government. "This is our boat, it's been hijacked by the refugees, and the Rudd government hasn't got a clue what to do," he said.

Senator Fielding said Labor's border protection policies were attracting more asylum seekers to Australia. "People smugglers are using these laws to send more people our way," he said. "That is a huge concern, something needs to be done. "The Rudd government has a band-aid solution, the Indonesian solution is an Indonesian fiasco and it's clearly not working."

Senator Fielding said every time one asylum seeker was granted an Australian visa, another who had been waiting their turn in a refugee camp missed out. "Those people trying to jump the queue should go to the back of the queue," he said.

SOURCE








Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.


The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: You usually CAN buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.