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, 2010

Population, Immigration, and the Drying of the American Southwest

Paper Explores Looming Water Crisis Driven by Immigration Policy

The looming water crisis in the American Southwest – and the role of immigration-driven population growth – is the topic of a paper published this month by the Center for Immigration Studies and authored by New Mexico journalist Kathleene Parker.

The paper, 'Population, Immigration, and the Drying of the American Southwest,' online here, explores the link between the possibility of the potentially catastrophic economic and environmental water crisis and the fact that the Southwest is the fastest-growing region of the world's fourth-fastest-growing nation – a growth rate earlier cautioned against by various presidential commissions. It also looks at how that growth rate is driven by historically unprecedented immigration – legal and illegal – into the United States, the world's third-most-populous nation after China and India. Immigration is responsible for more than half of the population growth in the Southwest this past decade, and nearly all of the growth in the largest southwest state, California.

Such high immigration has happened absent discussion or acknowledgement of its impacts on population or limited resources, such as water. Parker presents evidence that indicates there is insufficient water for the region's current population, much less the larger future populations that will result if immigration continues at its present high rate.

The paper focuses on the drought- and growth-depleted Colorado River, including the high probability that the first-ever drought emergency could be declared on the river by early 2011 and the possibility that Lake Mead, the nation’s largest reservoir and a depression-era wonder of engineering, could run dry in the not too distant future, with hydroelectric production threatened even sooner.

This would imperil all of the Southwest, Nevada and Las Vegas – which depends on Lake Mead for 90 percent of its water – in particular, but also cities like Albuquerque, which uses Colorado River water via the San Juan-Chama diversion project. Such relatively junior water rights could be at risk in the midst of a profound or long-term water shortage on the Colorado River.

The legal allocation of the Colorado in the 1920s was based on a combination of flawed river-flow data and a failure to understand that the Southwest, historically, is a far more arid region – based on recent scientific research – than first believed. That concern is based on normal weather patterns, with the possibility of even further depletion of the river, the Southwest's main source of water, should global warming happen.

Yet the water crisis unfolds in an atmosphere where, as pointed out by prestigious scientific groups like the National Academy of Sciences and the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, the extent of the crisis is not being sufficiently acknowledged or the advisability of the region's high growth rate considered by leaders. That high growth rate, in turn, is driven by U.S. immigration policies that do not consider the implications of a growth rate that, if trends hold, could mean one billion Americans by late this century.

Six states are dependent upon Colorado River to provide water to roughly 60 million people, and that number could double over the next four decades if immigration is not returned to far lower levels in the near future.

Parker, now of Rio Rancho, N.M., earlier worked as a correspondent for the Santa Fe New Mexican in the 1990s, covering Los Alamos, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the Jemez Mountain region. She also freelanced for the Albuquerque Journal, covering the aftermath of the Cerro Grande fire and other topics, and she recently authored an article, for a major forestry magazine, on the Cerro Grande fire. She often teaches adult-education courses on population and environmental topics, has worked widely on water issues in Colorado and New Mexico, and frequently writes commentaries.

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: Bryan Griffith, (202) 466-8185, press@cis.org. The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization





Other recent posts at CIS below

See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.

1. Immigration and Economic Stagnation: An Examination of Trends 2000 to 2010 (Backgrounder)

2. Foiling Terrorists by Keeping Them Out (Blog)

3. ICE Finds Huge New Tunnel at Border, But Are Congratulations Really in Order? (Blog)

4. USCIS Takes Small Steps Forward on Alien Worker Programs (Blog)

5. Tories May Have Overreached vis-a-vis Language Requirement for Spouses (Blog)

6. Fading DREAMs (Blog)

7. Immigration Lessons from the Chandra Levy Murder Case (Blog)

8. ICE to Sanctuaries: Just Say No to Holds (Blog)





29 November, 2010

The American Immigration Council’s Irrelevant “Truths” About The DREAM Act

There was a Cold War joke about the Soviet press reporting the outcome of a two-man foot-race between a Soviet citizen and an American: “The Soviet runner finished right behind the winner, while the American finished next-to-last.”

That old chuckle popped into my mind upon reading Dispelling DREAM Act Myths, issued on November 23, 2010 by the Immigration Policy Center, which is the research and policy arm of the American Immigration Council [AIC].

(The AIC, in turn, seems to have an unspoken, but organic, relationship to the American Immigration Lawyers Association, since the two organizations occupy suites 200 and 300, respectively, at a common address in Washington, DC. Their phone numbers also differ by 100, so to speak. The AIC’s mission statement includes this: “The American Immigration Council believes that the dignity of the individual knows no boundary.” Whatever that means.)

According to all predictions, starting Monday, November 29 immigration-sanity patriots will once again have to man the anti-mass-amnesty barricades against the DREAM Act, the most dangerous immigration-related legislative threat to the American future since the several mass-amnesty attempts of 2006-7. So it’s vital to know what the forces of national dissolution like the AIC are serving up as talking points about DREAM for their allies.

The AIC’s November 23rd “dispelling myths” paper deals with nine “myths.” Here’s an example:

“Myth: The DREAM Act allows undocumented students to pay cheaper tuition than citizens.

Fact: The DREAM Act gives states the option to offer in-state tuition to students registered under DREAM, but it does NOT guarantee cheaper tuition. At most, the DREAM Act allows undocumented students to access the same benefits as their peers. The DREAM Act allows undocumented students to access in-state tuition, but only if they would otherwise qualify for such tuition, and if state law permits undocumented students to receive in-state tuition.”

So the AIC’s rebuttal to this “myth,” while literally correct, evades the larger point: illegal-alien students will be paying college tuition at in-state rates, while their American-citizen “peers” will have to pay full freight if they hail from a different state.

Another example:

“Myth: The DREAM Act will spur more illegal immigration because it rewards undocumented youth.

Fact: Programs like the DREAM Act, which have clear cut-off dates, offer no incentives for more illegal immigration. In order to qualify for the DREAM Act, a student must have entered the United States before the age of 16 and have lived in the U.S. for at least five years before the date of enactment. Economic conditions have far more impact on illegal immigration than specific pieces of legislation.”

Well, yes, for eligibility, DREAM’s applicants must have been continuously present in the U.S. for at least five years immediately preceding the date of DREAM’s enactment, and such aliens must have been no older than 16 when they entered the U.S.. That would be a “cut-off date”, alright.

But, as the bill-clarifiers at NumbersUSA point out (see the sheets of relevant facts they’ve issued, linked below), there’s no requirement in DREAM “that an amnesty applicant produce either documentation or any other evidence that the individual actually satisfies the criteria.”

So what’s to stop an alien from slithering into our country well after DREAM is enacted and still claiming DREAM eligibility some months or years down the road?

As a practical matter, nothing. And if you think word of this giant loophole won’t be trumpeted along immigrant networks back to their countries of origin, thereby encouraging further illegal entries, then you haven’t been paying attention all these years.

Last example:

“Myth: The DREAM Act will result in a mass amnesty.

Fact: The DREAM Act is not an amnesty. No one will automatically receive a green card. To legalize, individuals have to meet stringent eligibility criteria: they must have entered the United States before age 16; must have been here for five years or more; must not have committed any major crimes; must graduate from high school or the equivalent; and must complete at least two years of college or military service. Eligible students must first obtain conditional residency and complete the requirements before they can obtain a green card—a process that will take years. Not all immigrants who came as young children will be eligible to legalize because they will not meet some of these requirements.”

Oh yes, those “stringent” criteria for eligibility! In my view, the only one that might qualify as stringent is two years of military service. Anyway, all the supposed criteria are waivable by the Department of Homeland Security once they become too stringent, as the NumbersUSA folks point out.

What about the “It’s not an amnesty!” claim? That’s the usual hokum, of course. The DREAM beneficiaries get what they were after all along, without even a hint of a penalty. (Graduating from high school and attending college are punishments? Only if you’re with the AIC in grasping at straws.)

But the big enchilada: once the DREAMers naturalize as citizens, they’ll eventually be able to initiate chain migration of all their relatives, including their illegal-alien parents — i.e. the original criminals who brought them here .

You’ll note that the AIC’s myth-busting exercise about amnesty strategically includes nary a word about this blue whale in the room.

(By the way, what would be a good term for the up-to-age-30 DREAMer “youths,” themselves? “Anchor youths” seems appropriate.)

Torpedoing AIC’s remaining six myth-busting attempts about the DREAM Act is left as an exercise for the immigration-sanity reader.

To summarize: the AIC’s paper on DREAM Act myths encapsulates enough evasive, beside-the-point facts to say that the whole thing is a de facto lie—a la the Soviet triumphalism recalled above.

“DREAM,” by the way, stands for “Defense, Relief, and Education of Alien Minors.” Presumably the Patriot side could come up with a more pertinent description of DREAM that would yield the acronym “NIGHTMARE,”. But our efforts these days are better spent in substantive opposition.

So if you want to know more about the DREAM [sic] Act’s real import for Americans, check out the fact sheets put together by NumbersUSA. Their one-page PDF is here, and their four-page PDF is here.

These NumbersUSA fact sheets are several months old, so they’re not up-to-date with respect to a few microscopic tweaks that principal DREAM sponsor Sen. Durbin [D-IL] has recently made to DREAM, yielding S. 3963, the latest version of the bill [PDF; and blessedly short at only 20 pages -- what's the catch?? Oh, it's what I've written about above ...in part.].

But the NumbersUSA sheets are thoroughly up-to-date on the unchanging intrinsic horrors of the bill. Roy Beck’s November 23 comments about those tweaks are here.

SOURCE. See the original for links




Boats full of illegals are still flooding into Australia

No mystery about how to stop them: Just reinstate the policies of the previous conservative government -- but the present Leftist government clearly does not WANT to stop the illegals coming -- despite fighting an election on a promise of cutting the arrivals back

More than 100 suspected asylum seekers are being transferred to Christmas Island after three boats were intercepted in two days near Ashmore Island off north-west Australia.

The opposition immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, said the arrivals brought to almost 200 the number of boats intercepted since Labor was elected. "Three years ago you could count the number of people being detained who had arrived illegally by boat on one hand. There were just four," Mr Morrison said. "The Coalition's policies stopped the boats."

"Riots, brawling, gruesome protests and self-harm have all returned to our detention network after three years of Labor's failed policies," Mr Morrison said.

A spokesman for the Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen, acknowledged "pressures on our detention accommodation network". "Yet you have the Coalition running around the country opposing new detention accommodation," he said.

"Last week it outlined a refugee visa cap measure that would have the effect of putting asylum seekers … into arbitrary, indefinite detention."

SOURCE



28 November, 2010

Immigration cap loophole sees massive INCREASE in immigration to Britain

The Government's cap on immigration is being undermined by a surge in foreign workers who are exempt from new visa rules, official figures have shown. Home Office statistics reveal that the number of foreigners arriving on "intra company transfers" (ICTs), which do not count towards the cap total, rose sharply following the Coalition's announcement of an interim cap in mid-July.

There were 30 per cent more ICTs handed out in between July and September this year than in the same period last year. Experts said the increase showed that companies were to continuing to import cheap labour despite the Government's clampdown, and warned that numbers would continue to rise even after a permanent cap on migrant numbers comes into force next April.

Peter Skyte, of the trade union Unite, said: "It is a massive loophole. Our prediction has always been that the immigration cap would be all smoke and mirrors."

The ICT scheme allows firms to bring non-EU nationals who are already on their payroll into the UK. It is widely used in the IT industry. One Indian company alone, Tata Consultancy Services, sponsored 4,600 employees to come to Britain in 2008; another, Infosys Technologies Limited, sponsored 3,235 in the same year.

Theresa May, the Home Secretary, has said she will fulfil a Tory manifesto pledge by capping the "skilled worker" routes at 21,700 a year, but she agreed to exempt ICTs from the new restrictions following pressure from business leaders and Vince Cable, the Lib Dem Business Secretary.

In the third quarter of this year, as the Home Office was restricting other immigration routes, more than 8,000 foreigners came to work in the UK under ICTs - up from 6,000 in the same period last year.

If the current ICT rate is sustained, more than 32,000 immigrants would arrive under the route each year, meaning the true number of migrant workers would be about 54,000 a year when capped routes and ICTs are added together.

Mr Skyte said Unite feared there were significant loopholes in limits imposed on ICTs by the Home Secretary last week. Under the terms of the permanent cap, ICT workers earning between £24,000 and £40,000 a year will only allowed to remain in Britain for 12 months.

Mr Skyte said: "We think companies will simply transfer lower-paid staff for 11 months and three weeks, for example, and then they will be sent home for a few weeks and re-apply under a new ICT. "There doesn't seem to be anything in the rules to stop it. "In other words, the number of people coming on ICTs could actually rise.

"The Home Office has also failed to take the chance to prevent companies counting allowances for things like accommodation as part of their gross pay, and it looks like some employers have sought to make as much use of the route as possible while current rules are in place. "The Government's announcement has squandered a golden opportunity to tackle abuse and misuse of ICTs."

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the pressure group MigrationWatch, said: "There is clearly a build-up of ICT applications this year. "While it is essential that staff who are seriously needed can get into Britain, this route will have to be watched very closely to avoid it becoming a loophole in the whole system of economic migration."

On the possibility of workers exploiting the 12-month ICT rule, he said: "We have yet to see the details of this scheme but if it allows people permitted to come for a year to go home for a few weeks and return then it will rapidly become absurd."

One British worker, who declined to be named but is employed in IT by a well-known bank, said: "Employers will find plenty of ways to abuse the system. "Where I work now there are British workers being made redundant and at the same time ICTs are being brought in to replace them. The Government's measures have had no effect whatsoever."

Another IT worker said: "Sadly the IT business in this country is doomed, primarily because they have printed ICTs and other visas like confetti."

Damian Green, the immigration minister, said: "The new immigration limit clearly sets out which workers we will allow into the UK job market. "It has been drawn up following extensive consultation with businesses and reflects their views. But our view is clear: we need employers to look first to those who are out of work and already live in this country.

"The limit will allow us to protect those businesses which are vital to our economy, allowing them to attract the best and the brightest, but more importantly it will bring immigration down to sustainable levels."

In the whole of last year there were 22,030 ICTs but in just the first nine months of this year the figure had already reached 22,520. The quarterly total of ICTs has crept up incrementally since the beginning of last year, when there were 4,355 applications between January and March. In comparison, in 1992 there were just 7,000 ICTs handed out during the whole year.

SOURCE





Large number of working class Britons abandoned and ignored by the major political parties

They see Britain as an "unfair" society -- particularly as regards immigration

Five million people have given up on mainstream political parties in the past ten years. Most of this huge number have stopped voting altogether. Some have defected to the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). Some, thankfully a smaller number, have even embraced the loathsome British National Party (BNP).

These millions of people look at David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg and can’t see much of a difference between them. They look at their policies and see the same attitude to punishing criminals; the same signing up to the European Union’s demands; the same support for multiculturalism and more immigration.

Ed Miliband encountered this angry class of mainstream political deserter on Thursday when he sat down with some Tesco shopworkers in Dudley in the West Midlands. They were working hard to make ends meet and they hated the way that their taxes were abused by people on welfare, people who could work but don’t.

The Labour leader looked shocked and uncomfortable at such conservative views from people he probably regarded as core Labour voters.

When I try to give these disenfranchised voters a human face, I think of a woman I saw being interviewed on television and who voted BNP in last year’s European elections. Talking to a television reporter, while packing a gift parcel for troops in Afghanistan, she said she wanted her son’s school to teach British history. She wanted her local town hall to celebrate Christmas and not have her council tax used for a politically correct ‘Winterval’ festival. She didn’t want her country governed by Brussels.

Race wasn’t mentioned, but her disillusionment with the mainstream parties had led her, in desperation, to lend her vote to a racist party.

For the first time, the concerns of this army of five million have been analysed in detail by the lobby group NothingBritish.com, which campaigns against the BNP and extremism in politics and polled thousands of what it calls ANTI voters.

The acronym ANTI comes from four defining characteristics. First they are ‘Angry’ about the political system. They are tired of broken promises and political parties ready to surrender solemn pledges as soon as they are in office. Last year’s expenses crisis wasn’t the beginning of their disdain for MPs, but it did confirm their low view of parliament and politics.

Secondly, they feel ‘Neglected’ financially, and because of this are much more pessimistic about their future than the average Briton. They are the pound-stretching class. They have to watch every penny. They worry about keeping their jobs. They resent their taxes going to undeserving causes or being used to bail out Ireland and rich bankers.

The third characteristic of the ANTI voter is ‘Traditionalism’. They hold traditional views about crime, drugs, family values and national pride. They worry their country is changing too fast and not for the better.

Finally, and most importantly, the ANTI voter is opposed to large-scale ‘Immigration’. Their worry about immigration isn’t about race, except for a small minority. It is about pressure on the housing stock. It’s about competition for scarce jobs. It’s about children trying to learn in schools where English isn’t the first language for many of the class.

When questioned, 89 per cent of these ANTIs said they would be more likely to vote for a party that promised to be tougher on immigration; 85 per cent said they would be more likely to vote for a party that promised to take back powers from Europe; 81 per cent said they would be more likely to vote for a party that promised to crack down on crime.

Moreover, 94 per cent of BNP voters and 91 per cent of UKIP voters agreed with the statement that ‘Britain is no longer a fair country that rewards its people based on merit’.

Before the General Election, these voters were hardly on David Cameron’s radar. From the first moment he became Tory leader, he aimed to win back the votes of ‘Liberal England’ — the people who had defected from the Conservatives to either the Liberal Democrats or to Tony Blair. He wanted to win back people who cared about the environment, the National Health Service and civil liberties. He wanted to soften conservatism, not toughen it.

He built up a campaign machine at Conservative HQ that focused not on the whole country, but on the two million swing voters in the 100 marginal seats who tend to decide who becomes Prime Minister.

As an electoral strategy it failed to secure him an outright majority, although it won enough seats to end Labour rule. Now, however, as Prime Minister, David Cameron has a bigger responsibility. In No 10 Downing Street, Cameron has a responsibility to govern for the whole nation and we should judge him, in part, on whether he can reduce the ANTI voter army.

As a Conservative, Cameron has an opportunity — many would say an obligation — to show that a politician can keep promises and can make a practical improvement to the lives of the pound-stretching class. So, what would an ANTI voter make of his performance so far? On immigration, the most important issue, there are at least hopeful signs.

When David Cameron began negotiations with Nick Clegg about forming a coalition government, he made it clear he wasn’t prepared to compromise on the promise he made to reduce net immigration of people outside the EU from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands.

That promise is essentially a 70 per cent cut from the Labour years when weak border controls allowed two million people to come to live and work in Britain. It was the equivalent of two extra cities the size of Birmingham added to the nation’s population, in little more than ten years.

The Prime Minister and Home Secretary Theresa May have fought a tough battle within the Coalition Government to defend the pledge. The Liberal Democrats do not believe in the Tories’ hard-line approach and Nick Clegg wants illegal immigrants to have the right to settle in Britain.

Business Secretary Vince Cable attempted to dilute the immigration cap, but Mrs May dug in her stiletto heels and wouldn’t be moved. She also defeated big business interests who’d rather import cheap labour from overseas than patiently train British workers, many of whom prefer to live on benefits.

So far, so good. But economic migration is only one route into Britain. Many more immigrants come into the UK as students, but they register at bogus colleges and work in the black economy.
Others still enter our country using bogus marriages and family visas, but they arrive neither able to speak English nor with any understanding of British culture.

If Theresa May succeeds in blocking these immigrants, too, in a step-by-step attack on Britain’s lax border controls, she’ll do more than any other politician to restore the ANTI voters’ trust in politics.

In addition to Theresa May, the two other members of Cameron’s team who best understand the ANTI voter are Iain Duncan Smith and George Osborne. In particular, they understand the ANTIs’ concerns about tax payers’ money going to undeserving causes and are trying to rebuild the welfare system so that work pays and people who refuse reasonable job offers lose their benefits.

When these reforms were first announced, Labour instinctively accused the Tories of being harsh. But as Ed Miliband found out, on his visit to Dudley and that Tesco supermarket, low-income workers who do the decent thing are tired of being taken for a ride.

Ed Miliband is certainly going to find it hard to win over the pound-stretchers. He is associated with the government that created the conditions that gave rise to the ANTI voter: out-of-control immigration; a welfare system that was unfair to those in work; and massive growth in anti-social behaviour. Unlike Cameron, he can only make promises. He can’t easily do anything that will overcome the ANTIs’ deep suspicion of politicians’ words.

These hurdles won’t mean that the Labour leader won’t or shouldn’t try. Nothing will stop Cameron being re-elected if the economy is strong by the time of the next election and he fixes the deficit, fixes immigration and fixes welfare.

But Miliband has half a chance if things turn messy for Cameron. By messy, I mean rising fuel bills. I mean higher VAT and higher holiday taxes. I mean a crime wave on streets where there are fewer police officers, a crime wave committed by people who the Coalition didn’t put in prison because Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke does not believe in locking up criminals. I mean Europe continuing to order Britain to do things like give votes to prisoners.

What Cameron has to realise is that, more than anything else, the ANTI voters describe Britain as ‘unfair’.

Unfair to them and unfair to people who do the right thing.
Cameron has a great opportunity to bring these disaffected voters back into the mainstream of politics, but only if he becomes their champion.

On immigration and welfare the signs are good. But on Europe, tax and crime, he’s going in the wrong direction.

SOURCE



27 November, 2010

Two million new homes needed in Britain to cope with the next 25 years of immigration

Which will be very difficult, expensive and disruptive given Britain's extensive legal restrictions on land-use (green belts etc.) and energetic Greenie opposition to any changes to country areas. A rather amazing example of that here

More than two million new homes will have to be built over the next 25 years to cope with immigration, official figures disclosed yesterday. They showed that room will have to be found to provide homes for 83,000 migrant families a year if the influx continues at the current rate.

More than a third of all the new houses and flats made available between now and the mid-2030s will be needed for individuals and families coming to Britain from abroad, the analysis said. At least 600,000 of these will have to be in the most overcrowded parts of the country, London and the South-East.

The demand for homes to house migrants is a key reason for the need to build, the Communities Department said. ‘Population growth is the main driver of household growth, accounting for nearly three-quarters of the increase in households between 2008 and 2033,’ said a spokesman.

Around two-thirds of population growth is directly brought about by immigration. Immigration pressure groups accused officials of trying to underplay the effect of the flow of people into the country on new housebuilding.

Development is highly unpopular among the great majority of people living in the southern half of the country, where transport, health and social services, water and power supplies are already struggling to keep up.

Sir Andrew Green, of the Migrationwatch think-tank, said that officials had failed in their analysis to mention the role of immigration in population growth and had relegated any mention of housing for migrants to technical discussions in the second half of their paper. ‘It is inexcusable for the Government to paper over the huge impact of continued massive levels of immigration on housing,’ he said. ‘The first response to the housing crisis should be to face the facts. The last government was in denial. That cannot be allowed to continue.’

Home Office ministers have capped numbers of visas for workers from outside Europe and are moving on to try to reduce the record rate at which students, many of them thought to be disguised economic migrants, are arriving in Britain.

The Office for National Statistics recorded 211,000 foreign students coming into the country last year and its latest figure for ‘net migration’ – the number of people added to the population in a year after immigration and emigration are both counted – is 215,000. According to the Communities Department, immigration amounts for 36 per cent of the demand for new homes over 25 years.

Much of the rest will be needed because of family break-ups and the ageing population. The decline of marriage and the rise of cohabitation have resulted in much higher numbers of single parents and separated fathers, and older people increasingly live alone. In all, 5.8million new homes will be needed by 2033, the analysis said.

SOURCE






Is Illegal Immigration Moral?

Victor Davis Hanson

We know illegal immigration is no longer really unlawful, but is it moral?

Usually Americans debate the fiscal costs of illegal immigration. Supporters of open borders rightly remind us that illegal immigrants pay sales taxes. Often their payroll-tax contributions are not later tapped by Social Security payouts.

Opponents counter that illegal immigrants are more likely to end up on state assistance, are less likely to report cash income, and cost the state more through the duplicate issuing of services and documents in both English and Spanish. Such to-and-fro talking points are endless.

So is the debate over beneficiaries of illegal immigration. Are profit-minded employers villains who want cheap labor in lieu of hiring more expensive Americans? Or is the culprit a cynical Mexican government that counts on billions of dollars in remittances from its expatriate poor that it otherwise ignored?

Or is the engine that drives illegal immigration the American middle class? Why should millions of suburbanites assume that, like 18th-century French aristocrats, they should have imported labor to clean their homes, manicure their lawns and watch over their kids?

Or is the catalyst the self-interested professional Latino lobby in politics and academia that sees a steady stream of impoverished Latin American nationals as a permanent victimized constituency, empowering and showcasing elite self-appointed spokesmen such as themselves?

Or is the real advocate the Democratic Party that wishes to remake the electoral map of the American Southwest by ensuring larger future pools of natural supporters? Again, the debate over who benefits and why is never-ending.

But what is often left out of the equation is the moral dimension of illegal immigration. We see the issue too often reduced to caricature, involving a noble, impoverished victim without much free will and subject to cosmic forces of sinister oppression. But everyone makes free choices that affect others. So ponder the ethics of a guest arriving in a host country knowingly against its sovereign protocols and laws.

First, there is the larger effect on the sanctity of a legal system. If a guest ignores the law -- and thereby often must keep breaking more laws -- should citizens also have the right to similarly pick and choose which statutes they find worthy of honoring and which are too bothersome? Once it is deemed moral for the impoverished to cross a border without a passport, could not the same arguments of social justice be used for the poor of any status not to report earned income or even file a 1040 form?

Second, what is the effect of mass illegal immigration on impoverished U.S. citizens? Does anyone care? When 10 million to 15 million aliens are here illegally, where is the leverage for the American working poor to bargain with employers? If it is deemed ethical to grant in-state tuition discounts to illegal-immigrant students, is it equally ethical to charge three times as much for out-of-state, financially needy American students -- whose federal government usually offers billions to subsidize state colleges and universities? If foreign nationals are afforded more entitlements, are there fewer for U.S. citizens?

Third, consider the moral ramifications on legal immigration -- the traditional great strength of the American nation. What are we to tell the legal immigrant from Oaxaca who got a green card at some cost and trouble, or who, once legally in the United States, went through the lengthy and expensive process of acquiring citizenship? Was he a dupe to dutifully follow our laws?

And given the current precedent, if a million soon-to-be-impoverished Greeks, 2 million fleeing North Koreans, or 5 million starving Somalis were to enter the United States illegally and en masse, could anyone object to their unlawful entry and residence? If so, on what legal, practical or moral grounds?

Fourth, examine the morality of remittances. It is deemed noble to send billions of dollars back to families and friends struggling in Latin America. But how is such a considerable loss of income made up? Are American taxpayers supposed to step in to subsidize increased social services so that illegal immigrants can afford to send billions of dollars back across the border? What is the morality of that equation in times of recession? Shouldn't illegal immigrants at least try to buy health insurance before sending cash back to Mexico?

The debate over illegal immigration is too often confined to costs and benefits. But ultimately it is a complicated moral issue -- and one often ignored by all too many moralists.

SOURCE



26 November, 2010

580,000 immigrants to Britain during the Labour party’s last year in office

Immigration pushed up Britain’s population by more than 200,000 during Labour’s last year in power, an official count showed yesterday. The figure approaches the biggest leaps during the Tony Blair and Gordon Brown years and is more than double the immigration level Coalition ministers are aiming for.

In the 12 months to the end of March, 580,000 people moved to Britain, including a record 211,000 students. In the same period 364,000 left the country – the lowest level in a decade.

Net migration to the UK rose to 215,000 in the year to March. That has resulted in a rise in the population of up to 215,000. This net migration count underlines the huge task facing the Government if it is to keep the figure below 100,000. The totals for 2008 and 2009 were 163,000 and 198,000 respectively.

The Office for National Statistics has said that the population will hit 70million by 2029 if net migration runs at 180,000 a year. The ONS, which published the figures, said emigration may have fallen because young Britons had struggled to find jobs in recession-hit countries.

The ONS breakdown revealed that the fastest-growing group of immigrants are students. The 211,000 figure for 2010 compares with 175,000 in 2008 and only around 100,000 in 2001.

Migrationwatch said non-EU citizens accounted for the bulk of immigration. Sir Andrew Green, the pressure group’s chairman, added: ‘These new figures confirm the massive impact that immigration is having on our population. This fully justifies the Government’s efforts to get our immigration system under control – a policy that the public overwhelmingly support.’

Immigration minister Damian Green said: ‘These statistics once again show why we must tighten our immigration system in order to reduce net migration to manageable levels. ‘We aim to reduce net migration from the hundreds of thousands, back down to the tens of thousands by taking action on all routes into the UK.

‘The annual limit that we announced this week will ensure we continue to attract the brightest and the best while we reduce economic migration.

‘We will shortly be launching a consultation on student visas, so as with economic migration we refocus on the areas which add the greatest value and where evidence of abuse is limited, protecting our world class universities.’

Home Office ministers this week announced a 21,700 cap on visas for workers from outside Europe.

The number of student visas issued by the Home Office has been running much higher than the ONS count of arrivals at air and sea ports. In the year to September, it handed out 355,065 student visas, up 16 per cent on the figure for a year earlier.

The ONS-Home Office disparity is down to a number of factors, including the rule that says a foreigner staying for less than a year is not considered an immigrant. Some recipients of student visas never make it to Britain, while others who have studied using one never move back to their home countries.

SOURCE





Ah, the wonders of open immigration!

A comment from NJ

For some reason I don't think officials here and in the U.K. ever think all that deeply about the policy they've had for decades of opening their borders to characters like this:

A Taliban fighter in Dhani-Ghorri in northern Afghanistan last month told the Guardian he lived most of the time in east London, but came to Afghanistan for three months of the year for combat.

"I work as a minicab driver," said the man, who has the rank of a mid-level Taliban commander. "I make good money there [in the UK], you know. But these people are my friends and my family and it's my duty to come to fight the jihad with them."

It's certainly not that the average guy in London is any more liberal than here in the U.S. When I've been to pubs there, the guy next to me is just as likely as an American to grouse about open immigration.

As I've noted, one pub there was across from a new Islamic Center, and once the Muslims moved in they immediately started demanding the pub be closed. That failure to assimilate is reason enough to cut off immigration.

Regular people hate this sort of thing. But somehow the elected officials don't get it. Even Chris Christie, our allegedly conservative governor, keeps yapping about finding "a path to citizenship" for those illegals he doesn't really consider to be illegal.

Though a lot of wannabe conservatives are too dumb to figure it out, this attitude is what led directly to the Gropergate scandal. If we're going to let the whole world run around the West, then we have to have the same security standards in America as we do in Afghanistan. If you doubt that, consider the piece that ran in the Neocon Review recently laying out that very line of logic.

By the way, when these London-based Taliban want to fly to the U.S., they don't even need visas. They're U.K. citizens. They can get right on the plane.

So can someone tell me again what the case is for treating a young male of Mideastern origin the same as an aging granny in airports? I keep forgetting.

SOURCE (See the original for links)



25 November, 2010

Leftist policy on illegals weak and inhumane says Australian conservative expert


The graph shows how the illegals stopped coming under the policies introduced by the previous conservative government

The architect of the Howard government's Pacific Solution says Labor's decision to soften Australia's immigration policies has backfired.

Philip Ruddock's comments follow revelations that Labor was warned three months after it first came to power that closing the Nauru detention centre -- a key plank of the Howard-era offshore processing regime -- would lead to an increase in people-smuggling.

Mr Ruddock, who served as immigration minister from 1996 to 2003, told The Australian he believed the Gillard government was treating its asylum policy as a "menu to pick and choose from" and it should review its measures immediately to give priority to refugees most in need.

He called for a return to temporary protection visas, the reopening of Nauru and better co-operation with Indonesia. "The government has a responsibility to ensure that we manage our borders and we are able to give priority to those who need it most," Mr Ruddock said.

"In my judgment, it was a far more humane system when you had nobody getting on boats and none of these pressures were there, and I don't think these pressures would have occurred without the changes in policy."

Mr Ruddock's decision to enter the debate follows the release under Freedom of Information laws of a confidential briefing on February 25, 2008, in which Immigration Department officials warned then immigration minister Chris Evans to expect an upswing in boat arrivals after the Nauru detention centre was abandoned that month. "While a range of risk-mitigation strategies have prevented significant boat arrivals in recent years, current intelligence on issues including the closure of Nauru suggest the possibility of increased people-smuggling efforts," the advice states.

Labor has not conceded its decision to dismantle the Pacific Solution outpost of Nauru has increased asylum-seekers and blames the so-called push factors of unrest in source countries such as Sri Lanka and Afghanistan.

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said the information in the FOI, which was heavily edited and blacked out, needed to be seen in its full context. "The government receives advice on people-smuggling issues regularly and again, the advice to the government when we came to office in 2007 was that people-smugglers remain very active," Mr Bowen told ABC radio.

His comments came as new figures, obtained by The Australian, reveal that self-harm rates among detainees are on the rise, with 79 reports in the four months from July 1 compared with a total of 39 incidents last financial year.

The founder of Labor for Refugees, Australian Workers Union national secretary Paul Howes, conceded yesterday there was "a lot of room for improvement" within Labor's immigration policy and called for processing of applications to be sped up. "I think they've been doing a better job than they were . . . (but) it is very distressing for refugees to go through all they do to get here and then feel so hopeless they attempt self-harm," Mr Howes said. This year, there have been two suicides, hunger strikes, a mass brawl and rooftop protests.

SOURCE








Average Australians well aware of economic case against more immigration

By Ross Gittins, a generally Left-leaning economist

The Big Australia issue has gone quiet since the election but it hasn't gone away. It can't go away because it's too central to our future and, despite Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott's rare agreement to eschew rapid population growth, the issue remains unresolved.

This year Rebecca Huntley of Ipsos, a global market research firm, and Bernard Salt of KPMG, a financial services firm, conducted interviews with business people and discussions with 13 groups of consumers, showing them two markedly different scenarios of what Australia could look like in 2020.

In the "measured Australia" scenario, governments limited population growth, focused on making our activities more environmentally sustainable and limited our economic links with the rest of the world.

In the "global Australia" scenario, governments set aside concerns about the environment, promoted rapid economic and population growth, and made Australia ever more a part of Asia.

Not surprisingly, the business people hated measured Australia and loved global Australia. But even though global Australia was described in glowing terms - ignoring the environment apparently had no adverse effects - ordinary people rejected it. And although measured Australia was painted in negative terms - all downside and no upside - there were aspects of it people quite liked.

The message I draw is that if governments keep pursuing rapid growth to please business they'll encounter increasing resentment and resistance from voters.

Considering the human animal's deep-seated fear of foreigners, it's not surprising resentment has focused on immigration. It's clear from the way in the election campaign both sides purported to have set their face against high migration that they're starting to get the message.

But at the moment they're promising to restrict immigration with one hand while encouraging a decade-long, labour-consuming boom in the construction of mines and gas facilities with the other. And this will be happening at a time when the economy is already close to full employment and baby boomers retire as the population ages.

Their two approaches don't fit together. And unless our leaders find a way to resolve the contradiction there's trouble ahead.

Business people support rapid population growth, which really means high immigration; there's little governments can do to influence the birth rate, because they know a bigger population means a bigger economy. And in a bigger economy they can increase their sales and profits.

That's fine for them, but it doesn't necessarily follow that a bigger economy is better for you and me. Only if the extra people add more to national income than their own share of that income will the average incomes of the rest of us be increased. And that's not to say any gain in material standard of living isn't offset by a decline in our quality of life, which goes unmeasured by gross domestic product.

The most recent study by the Productivity Commission, in 2006, found that even extra skilled migration did little or nothing to raise the average incomes of the existing population, with the migrants themselves the only beneficiaries.

This may explain why, this time, economists are approaching the question from the other end: we're getting the future economic growth from the desire of the world's mining companies to greatly expand Australia's capacity to export coal, iron ore and natural gas, but we don't have sufficient skilled labour to meet that need and unless we bring in a lot more labour this episode will end in soaring wages and inflation.

Peter McDonald, a leading demographer at the Australian National University, argues that governments don't determine the level of net migration, the economy does. When our economy's in recession, few immigrants come and more Aussies leave; when the economy's booming, more immigrants come and fewer Aussies leave. Governments could try to resist this increase, but so far they've opted to get out of the way.

To most business people, economists and demographers, the answer to our present problem is obvious: since economic growth must go ahead, the two sides of politics should stop their populist pandering to the punters' resentment of foreigners.

But it seems clear from the Ipsos discussion groups that people's resistance to high immigration focuses on their concerns about the present inadequacy of public infrastructure: roads, transport, water and energy. We're not coping now, what would it be like with more people?

And the punters have a point. In their instinctive reaction to the idea of more foreigners they've put their finger on the great weakness in the economic case for immigration.

As economists know - but don't like to talk or even think about - the reason immigration adds little or nothing to the material living standards of the existing population is that each extra person coming to Australia - the workers and their families - has to be provided with extra capital equipment: a home to live in, machines to use at work and a host of public infrastructure such as roads, public transport, schools, hospitals, libraries, police stations and much else.

The cost of that extra capital has to be set against the benefit from the extra labour. If the extra capital isn't forthcoming, living standards - and, no doubt, quality of life - decline.

If we don't build the extra homes - as we haven't been doing for some years - rents and house prices keep rising, making home ownership less affordable. To build the extra public facilities, governments have to raise taxes and borrow money. But they hate raising taxes and both sides of federal politics have sworn to eliminate government debt.

The interviews and discussion groups revealed both business people and consumers to be highly doubtful about the ability of governments - particularly state governments - to provide the infrastructure we need. As well they might be.

SOURCE



24 November, 2010

Fewer Jobs, More Immigrants

Despite Loss of 1 Million Jobs, 13.1 Million Arrived in the USA 2000-09

New Census Bureau data collected in March of this year show that 13.1 million immigrants (legal and illegal) arrived in the previous 10 years, even though there was a net decline of 1 million jobs during the decade. In contrast, during the 1990s job growth was 21 million, and 12.1 million new immigrants arrived. Despite fundamentally different economic conditions, the level of immigration was similar for both ten-year periods.

The report, “Immigration and Economic Stagnation: An Examination of Trends 2000 to 2010,” is online here. Among the findings:

The March 2010 data show that 13.1 million immigrants (legal and illegal) have arrived in the United States since January 2000. This is the case despite two significant recessions during the decade and a net loss of one million jobs.

Data collected in March 2000 showed one million fewer immigrants arrived from January 1990 to March 2000 (12.1 million), while 21 million jobs were created during the decade.

In 2008 and 2009, 2.4 million new immigrants (legal and illegal) settled in the United States, even though 8.2 million jobs were lost over the same period.

The new data indicate that, without a change in U.S. immigration policy, the level of new immigration can remain high even in the face of massive job losses.

Immigration is a complex process; it is not simply a function of U.S. labor market conditions. Factors such as the desire to be with relatives or to access public services in the United States also significantly impact migration.

Although new immigration remains high, the 2.4 million new arrivals represent a decline from earlier in this decade. In the two years prior to 2006, for example, there were 2.9 million arrivals, according to Census Bureau data.

There was no significant change in legal immigration during the past decade. Although the number of jobs declined in the decade just completed, 10.3 million green cards were issued from 2000 to 2009, more than in any decade in American history.

Illegal immigrants also continue to arrive, though prior research indicates that the number coming dropped significantly at the end of the decade.

Among the states with the largest proportional increase in their immigrant populations over the last decade are Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Kentucky, Alaska, Mississippi, Arkansas, Washington, North Carolina, Maryland, and Nebraska.

Discussion: Some have argued that immigration levels are simply a function of labor market conditions in the United States. But the new Census Bureau data remind us that immigration is a complex process driven by many factors in addition to the economy. In 2008 and 2009 net job losses numbered over 8 million, and the immigrant unemployment rate doubled. Yet more than two million new legal and illegal immigrants settled in the United States in those two years.

This does not mean the economy is irrelevant to immigration levels. Rather it means that many factors in addition to the economy impact the flow new immigrants into the country. Such factors as the desire to be with relatives, political freedom, lower levels of official corruption, and the generosity of American taxpayer-funded public services are all among the reasons people come to the United States. These things do not change during a recession or even during a prolonged period of relatively weak economic growth, like the decade just completed.

Immigration has a momentum of its own. In 2000 there were already more than 30 million immigrants (legal and illegal) living in the country. This enormous population means there are social networks of friends and family who provide information about conditions in the United States to those back home. This in turn makes those in the home country more aware of opportunities in the United States and more likely to come. New immigrants often live with established immigrants who can help the new arrivals. Thus as the immigrant population grows, it creates pressure and opportunities for even more immigration.

Data Source: Unlike in past decennial censuses, the 2010 census, which will be released shortly, has no immigration questions. Thus it will provide no information about the nation’s immigrant population. The Census Bureau data analyzed in this report are from the March Current Population Survey, also referred to as the Annual Social and Economic Supplement. The new data provide a first look at immigration for the decade just completed. In this report, we use the terms “immigrant” to mean all persons living in this country who were not U.S. citizens at birth. The Census Bureau often refers to these individuals as “foreign born.” The immigrant or foreign-born includes those in the country legally and illegally. Prior research indicates that some 90 percent of illegal immigrants are included in the Current Population Survey.

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. The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization





Tens of thousands of foreign students to be barred from Britain in bid to cut immigration numbers

Tens of thousands of foreign students will be barred from studying at private colleges to help slash immigration and curb the growing abuse of the system, the Home Secretary will signal today. Theresa May will launch a review of student visas amid concerns that almost half the migrants who come to study in the UK each year are not on degree courses but a range of lesser qualifications such as A-levels and even GCSEs.

Mrs May will question whether they are the "brightest and the best" that the country wants and will make them a key target for cutting numbers after pledging to protect those wanting to study degrees. It comes as separate figures revealed there has been a 40 per cent rise in the number of bogus colleges, most of which offer non-degree or language courses.

The Home Secretary will announce the review as she unveils what the annual cap on migrant workers will be next year. Along with other measures, the cap is expected to limit numbers arriving to around 40,000 and is the first move to meet David Cameron's pledge of bringing overall net migration down from 196,000 to the "tens of thousands".

Yesterday Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, appeared to be concerned about plans to restrict students after he was pictured clutching notes outside 10 Downing Street.

Mr Cable has been the Cabinet's most vocal critic of the various measures to cut immigration and the notes seemed to echo previous concerns that curbing students would damage the country's reputation in the world.

They also appeared to remind colleagues that foreign students bring income to universities and colleges and that changing rules that allow students to look for work after their degree was wrong.

The Government's chief immigration adviser warned last week that any cut in foreign workers will only have a limited impact and that the number of students from outside the EU will have to be halved if the target is to be met.

Ministers have been under pressure from university leaders and some Cabinet members who fear that restrictions on student numbers will damage the UK's reputation as a world-leading centre for education, as well as cutting the lucrative funds brought in by foreign students.

However, around 130,000 foreign students who came in the year to March were not here to study degrees, almost half the near 280,000 non-EU students who arrived. Of those, more than 90,000 attended a private college to study anything from GCSEs to vocational qualifications. Thousands more attended language schools. The rest either attended established further education colleges or schools.

More HERE



23 November, 2010

British immigration cap deal ‘strikes right balance’

Not so much a cap as a colander, by the sound of it. But legal immigrants are not the problem so it probably does not matter much either way

A compromise deal on the government’s flagship immigration cap policy will be signed off by the cabinet on Tuesday, after Vince Cable agreed that it struck the right balance between addressing the worries of the public and safeguarding the interests of business.

The business secretary’s fears about the economic impact of the cap have been eased by David Cameron’s promise to exempt many “intra-company transfers”, which allow multinationals to bring staff in from overseas offices.

Theresa May, home secretary, was still working on the final announcement on Monday night, which will be unveiled to parliament on Tuesday. But people involved in the talks said they expected companies would be free to transfer staff from overseas if they earn more than £40,000 a year.

It is expected that those earning less than £24,000 a year will be banned from the transfer route, as the government seeks to stem the flow of Indian IT workers entering the country by this means. Those earning £24,000-£40,000 may only be allowed into the UK for a year. The issue of company transfers had emerged as one of the most contentious parts of the policy to restrict the number of work permits given each year to people from outside of the European Union. The Japanese embassy said its companies would have cut investment and withdrawn from the UK if they were stopped from transferring staff.

Ms May is thought to have accepted many of the recommendations made last week by the independent Migration Advisory Committee on how to implement the cap, including lifting required earnings and educational standards across most categories.

David Metcalf, head of the committee, recommended that the limit on skilled and highly skilled non-EU workers be set at 43,700 next year, down from 50,000 in 2009. However, people involved in the talks said the final figure would be different because the committee’s calculation did not take into account Mr Cameron’s exemption for transfers and other factors.

Ms May will also announce a consultation period ahead of implementing deep cuts to the number of foreign visas issued to non-EU students each year. The Home Office says the route is abused by people looking to come to Britain to work. But ministers such as Mr Cable and David Willetts, university minister, want to make sure the restrictions do not damage legitimate universities or hinder bright students.

SOURCE





Recent posts at CIS below

See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.

1. Jessica Vaughan on Fox & Friends (Video)

2. Jessica Vaughan on fine of Fenway Park vendor (Video)

3. A Case Study: Violating and Enforcing the Immigration Law (Blog)

4. Where is President Obama's 'Yes, We Can' on the Border? (Blog)

5. Some Examples of Clumsy Censorship Within USCIS (Blog)

6. Do Foreign Students Contribute Billions to U.S. Economy, or Take from It? (Blog)

7. Attrition Works, Yet Again (Blog)

8. Illegal Immigration Is a Crime That Breeds More Crime: A Typology (Blog)

9. California Supreme Court Backs Illegal-Alien Tuition Break (Blog)



22 November, 2010

FX Glorifying Illegal Immigration

Hollywood’s efforts to convince us that illegal immigration is not a crime have jumped the shark. It seems FX Cable Television Network is working on a series in which the main character is a heroic private investigator. Oh, and he also happens to be an illegal immigrant.

In the past we’ve seen all sorts of P.I.’s on TV: Cannon was the portly P.I., Barnaby Jones was the senior citizen P.I. We’ve even seen a psychic detective (Allison DuBois) and a compulsively neat detective (Monk).

This newest series, though, can’t be blamed simply on Hollywood’s lack of originality. More likely it’s an attempt to lead the general public to believe there is nothing wrong with being here in the United States illegally.

It is possible Hollywood dislikes the fact that, despite their greatest efforts to convince them otherwise, most Americans have a problem with illegal immigration.

The show’s writer, Chap Taylor, told Deadline Hollywood: “In Los Angeles and in the U.S., people's lives are built on the labor of those immigrants…our job is to tell good stories as honestly as we possibly can. If everyone is mad at us, we've done our job."

Well, I’m sure those of us in Arizona who face the dangers of criminal aliens daily will be annoyed at the ignorance of this Hollywood elite.

Most Americans remember when, following a series of attacks on Arizona’s ranchers by illegal aliens and multiple Arizona law enforcement officers were injured or killed in the line of duty, a bill was introduced to allow Arizona’s sheriffs to protect themselves and their citizens from criminals. The proponents of the SB 1070 sought a workable solution to halt the invasion of illegal immigrants, more than 17 percent of whom are found to have criminal records in the United States, and to humbly compensate for the failures of the federal government to carry out its duty to protect the Arizona border.

The criticism that ensued from the left coast and the country’s elites was sharp and saddening to those who simply wanted help. The Obama Administration’s Justice Department, the ACLU and other activist groups filed lawsuits against Arizona and its sheriffs challenging the bill—some calling it “racist” and an infringement on civil rights.

To help provide Arizona sheriffs a sufficient legal defense to take on the Obama Administration and the ACLU, no doubt financed in part by Hollywood liberals, opposing a secure border and enforcement of SB 1070, BorderSheriffs.com was formed, headed by co-chairs Sheriff Paul Babeu of Pinal County and the author of this piece, Sheriff Larry Dever of Cochise County. The organization is committed to the idea that, contrary to what Hollywood elites think, SB 1070 is absolutely necessary for Arizona to protect its interest. Without it state law enforcement would be inhibited from enforcing federal immigration laws and cracking down on illegal immigrants like our friend the private investigator.

So, why the fuss about a detective series featuring an illegal immigrant? Well maybe it’s time for Americans concerned with their national security to stand up and say we don’t appreciate it when our concerns are scorned or dismissed. We don’t appreciate Hollywood disregarding the violence and the crime associated with illegal immigration.

I've lost four friends, three law enforcement officers and a rancher in the midst of this illegal border mess. Anyone who wishes to trivialize their lives or dedication to duty is not my friend. I'm not going to yield one piece of turf, topographical or political, to anyone. If some producer wants to trivialize this mess, shame on them.

The liberal and well-heeled producers and writers who provide us with entertainment ought to leave their gated Beverly Hills mansions and spend a few days on the border in Arizona with myself of Sheriff Babeu. They’d get an education and maybe we’d get a more realistic portrayal of the illegal immigration crisis.

SOURCE








New law to end welfare housing priority for immigrants to Britain

New immigrants could be pushed to the bottom of council-house waiting lists to end ‘unfairness’ to local people. Under Coalition plans being unveiled tomorrow, town halls can give priority to people with established links to the area.

The move will be followed later this week by the announcement of strict curbs on the number of ‘skilled’ migrants allowed into Britain.

The measures highlight the growing importance of immigration as an issue as spending cuts, tax rises and un-employment squeeze family finances. There are nearly five million names on council house waiting lists in England. Under the system introduced by Labour in 2002, anyone can add their name, with the lack of control sparking widespread claims that newly-arrived immigrants ‘jump the queue’.

Housing Minister Grant Shapps will propose cracking down by giving councils the right to set criteria, including favouring local residents. But immigrants with families would still have to be housed if they were deemed homeless.

Tory Mr Shapps will also allow town halls to reject those who have applied for housing in another district, to discourage multiple applications. And he is expected to end the right to a council house for life for new tenants, with some potentially being asked to move out after two years. Existing tenants will not be affected.

Home Secretary Theresa May is expected to announce strict caps on the ‘business back-route’, under which migrants from outside the EU can enter the UK if they have skills which companies claim are in short supply.

Research seen by The Mail on Sunday – and which is likely to be seized on by the Government to justify the curbs – has found that thousands of migrants have been allowed into the country to work in professions in which Britons cannot find jobs. Last year 1,694 migrants were brought in to be care home assistants, though there were 33,265 such workers claiming unemployment benefit. Equally, 1,089 software professionals came into the country, despite there being 4,540 claiming benefit. A total of 2,202 chefs were allowed in, despite 11,960 being unemployed here.

The crackdown follows wrangling in the Coalition after Liberal Democrat Business Secretary Vince Cable said in September that an interim cap, introduced before this week’s permanent cap, was hugely damaging to business. He was slapped down by No 10, which said limits would still allow the ‘brightest and best’ to come to Britain.

Government sources said the council-house system needed reform because Labour had left it in ‘chaos’. A source said: ‘We are aiming at a totemic shift from saying council housing should be available to everyone to focusing on people who genuinely need help.’

Mr Shapps will keep controls requiring councils to prioritise people in the greatest housing need, such as the homeless or those in overcrowded accommodation.

Councils and housing associations will have to give tenants at least six months’ notice to move out if they are found to be no longer eligible for social housing.

Social housing landlords will be able to check tenants’ finances after two years in a property. Tenants could be evicted if their financial situation is deemed to have improved sufficiently.

SOURCE



21 November, 2010

DREAM Act Would Allow Illegals With Criminal Records to Gain Residency, GOP Says

As President Obama and his Democratic allies push to pass legislation this year that would allow certain illegal immigrants to become legal U.S. residents, Republicans are pushing back with details about the DREAM Act that have gone largely unnoticed.

The legislation would permit young people to become U.S. residents after spending two years in college or the military. It would apply to immigrants who were under 16 when they arrived in the U.S., have been in the country at least five years and have a diploma from a U.S. high school or the equivalent.

But Republican Sen. Jeff Session of Alabama released a "DREAM Alert" revealing that at least one version of the legislation would allow qualified illegal immigrants up to the age of 35 to gain resident status, prevent the Department of Homeland Security from removing any illegal who has a pending application – regardless of age or criminal record – and offers amnesty to qualified illegals with misdemeanor convictions, even DUIs.

The alert says that not only would the legislation put an estimated 2.1 million illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship, it would also give them access to in-state tuition rates at public universities, federal student loans, and federal work-study programs.

Illegals who gain citizenship under this legislation will have the legal right to petition for the entry of their family members, including their adult brothers and sisters and the parents who illegally brought or sent them to the U.S.

"In less than a decade, this reality could easily double or triple the more than 2.1 million green cards that will be immediately distributed as a result of the DREAM Act," the alert reads.

A spokesman for Sessions noted that two other versions of the legislation lower the age limit to 30 and won't grant illegals access to in-state tuition deals. It's unclear which version Democrats will choose.

Yet any of the versions should give Americans pause, Session's spokesman said. "The scope of this proposal is enormous, extending amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants including a number who have committed serious crimes, incentivizing further illegality and making it more difficult to develop a just and responsible immigration policy," said Session's spokesman Stephen Miller.

The bill failed to pass the Senate in September. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has vowed to bring the bill to the Senate floor for a vote during the lame duck session.

SOURCE







Salary bar to be £40,000 for highly skilled migrant workers

Highly skilled workers from outside the European Union will have to be coming to a job in Britain paying them at least £40,000 a year under new government plans.

The proposals are to be unveiled this week as ministers reveal the first annual "cap" on immigration into Britain which will apply from next April.

Last week Professor David Metcalf, chairman of the independent Migration Advisory Committee, recommended a total limit of between 37,400 and 43,700 workers a year from outside the EU. Mr Metcalf also recommended a 13 to 25 per cent cut in the number of "Tier 1" highly-skilled workers and "Tier 2" skilled migrants coming to the UK, despite worries from employers that they will be unable to fill key posts.

The Sunday Telegraph understands that under current plans Tier 1 migrants will in future have to come into a job paying at least £40,000 a year – putting the large majority of them into the 40 per cent tax bracket – with a contract for at least 12 months. New categories of Tier 1 immigrant will be unveiled including "investor", "major businessman" and "special talent."

In June, the Home Office introduced a temporary limit of 24,100 workers to enter the country before April 2011, when this cap will be replaced by permanent measures.

Any increase in overall numbers allowed in will be seen as a victory for Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, who has protested on behalf of employers that they must be allowed to attract the best talent from overseas.

Mr Cable said two months ago he was being warned by business leaders that companies were relocating overseas because of what they saw as harsh restrictions in Britain from employing people from outside the EU.

The issue is one of the biggest fault lines between Conservative ministers and their Liberal Democrat coalition partners.

In the last year of the Labour government, net migration – the number of people coming to live in Britain compared with those emigrating – stood at almost 200,000. The coalition has pledged to at least halve this by 2015 – largely by cutting down the number of skilled workers.

SOURCE



20 November, 2010

Failed asylum seekers ignore British courts

Locking them up until they get on a plane is too harsh, apparently

At least 100 failed asylum seekers have gone missing after being ordered to leave the UK since May, figures showed today. A total of 176 unsuccessful asylum applicants absconded after authorities served them with removal notices, and a maximum of 75 have been tracked down since.

But the figure of 101 unaccounted for may be higher because of the way records are kept. Tory MP David Nuttall, who uncovered the figures, said there could be 'hundreds' of failed asylum seekers in the country and that it was 'pointless' to tell people to leave if they could not be forced to do so.

The UK Border Agency said it makes 'strenuous efforts' to stop failed asylum seekers from absconding and that measures are in place to try and track them down.

In a written parliamentary reply to Mr Nuttall (Bury North), immigration minister Damian Green said 176 failed asylum seekers absconded between May 1 and October 31 this year after being served with removal notices. Home Office figures showed 32 had subsequently been detained, 19 removed or embarked, and 24 had subsequently lodged a new application for asylum. But officials said the same individuals could be counted in more than one of the categories.

In the same period for 2009, 265 absconded with 94 subsequently detained, 43 removed or embarked, and 66 new applications lodged - leaving at least 62 unaccounted for.

'This is evidence that there are hundreds of failed asylum seekers somewhere in the country and we know not where,' Mr Nuttall said. 'The vast majority of my constituents expect that once asylum seekers have exhausted the appeals process, and it has been determined that they do not have the right to be here, that they would properly be removed.

'Clearly that is not working in all cases and I will be interested to see how it is proposed that this is tightened up. 'I am fully supportive of what the Government is doing but I want to improve the operation of government. They have taken over the system that was in place before but it is not working. 'So let's see what we can do to improve it. If somebody stays anyway it is pointless to tell them they cannot stay.'

But Matthew Coats, head of immigration at the UK Border Agency, said: 'When an individual absconds we circulate information and use intelligence to track them down. We prioritise cases where public safety may be at risk, working closely with police. Immigration absconders and those who help them face the risk of prosecution, an unlimited fine and prison.

'The UK Border Agency makes strenuous efforts to ensure that failed asylum seekers do not abscond in the first place. Applicants have to regularly report in person, but we also make personal visits to ensure that failed asylum seekers are still living at their recorded address. 'We continue to return those who refuse to leave voluntarily.'

Around 25,000 asylum applications are received each year. In 2009, 72 per cent of applications - 17,545 cases - were refused.

SOURCE





Stop being so generous to migrants: French plea to Britain after Dunkirk suburb is over-run

The mayor of a French village invaded by migrants has called on Britain to halt handouts to deter them from crossing the Channel. His comments came after makeshift tents appeared in the Dunkirk suburb of Teteghem, which is less than five miles from the main port. Fears are growing there that it could become the site of a new ‘Jungle’ – the infamous ghetto in nearby Calais which was torn down last year.

Franck Dhersin, a former MP and adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy, says his village cannot cope, and pointed the finger at Britain’s benefits system. He told the Daily Mail: ‘The reason the migrants keep coming to France and slipping over the Channel is because the UK is too generous with them. 'Stop giving them money and a place to live and they will soon go somewhere else. End of problem.’

He revealed that his village was currently home to 200 Afghans, Iraqis, Kurds, Sudanese, Vietnamese, Eritreans and Palestinians. ‘For the past four weeks, numbers of migrants camping out have been increasing by 50 per week. 'At this rate within a month we will have another Calais Jungle on our doorsteps,’ he said. ‘I regularly visit the migrants and they all tell me they want to go to England.

‘Why? The reason is simple. They have money and a place to stay as soon as they arrive. ‘England has done a lot to help the situation by setting up police and Customs over here, but the problem still remains.

‘Since they razed the Calais Jungle last year the situation has changed,’ added Mr Dhersin. ‘Now, instead of choosing Calais, the migrants are trying Dunkirk and the Belgian ports of Zeebrugge and Ostend.’

He said that Teteghem was an ideal squat location for migrants because it is next to the motorway linking France to Belgium and very close to the port of Dunkirk.

‘The reason they are here is because the people-smugglers have charged them money to camp here. The smugglers are dangerous and very violent. 'Last week a Vietnamese man stabbed another man and the week before that there was a shooting.’

Already migrants have been knocking on doors asking for water and power to charge their mobile phones, said the mayor. ‘We are a small village with a population of 7,500. The migrants are hardened people. They have travelled thousands of miles to get here. ‘They have nothing to lose and will stop at nothing to get what they need’, he added. 'Something has got to be done, but in the long term the problem must be solved in Britain. 'We are just victims of a British problem here.’

Francoise Lavoisier, of the Salam migrant charity, said: ‘Lots of the migrants used to live in the Jungle. 'They are trying to go to Britain because they think it’s an Eldorado.’

SOURCE



19 November, 2010

By 2066, white Britons ‘will be outnumbered’ if immigration continues at current rates

White Britons will be a minority by 2066 if immigration continues at the current rate, according to research. A leading population expert last night warned that failure to deal with the influx of foreign workers would ‘change national identity’.

Professor David Coleman, of Oxford University, spoke out as the Migration Advisory Board prepares to reveal its recommendation for the Government’s proposed cap on immigrants from outside the EU.

If immigration stays at its long-term rate of around 180,000 a year, the white British-born population would decline from 80 per cent of the total now to just 59 per cent in 2051, analysis of figures from the Office of National Statistics shows.

By then white immigrants would have more than doubled from 4 to 10 per cent of the total, while the ethnic minority population would have risen from 16 to 31 per cent.

If the trend continued, the white British population, defined as English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish-born citizens, would become the minority after about 2066.

The Government has vowed to slash the level of net immigration after a decade of open borders under Labour. Today the Migration Advisory Board will suggest a level for the cap, following complaints from businesses that the plans are hampering their ability to bring in key staff.

But even if the Coalition gets net immigration down to 80,000 a year, Prof Coleman says white Britons would be outnumbered by 2080.

In an article for Prospect magazine, he writes: ‘The 50 per cent benchmark has no special demographic significance, but it would have a considerable psychological and political impact. ‘The transition to a “majority minority” population, whenever it happens, would represent an enormous change to national identity – cultural, political, economic and religious.

‘In Britain, judging by the opposition to high immigration reported in opinion polls over recent years, it seems likely that such developments would be unwelcome.’

He warned that the relative youthfulness of the immigrant population means that the 50 per cent milestone will be passed much quicker among ‘schoolchildren, students and young workers’.

The ethnic minority population expanded by almost two million between 2001 and 2007, from 13 per cent to nearly 16 per cent of the total. Immigration accounted for 57 per cent of population growth in this time, and foreign-born mothers now account for a quarter of births in England and Wales.

Both Leicester and Birmingham are expected to become ‘majority minority’ during the 2020s. Two London boroughs were already majority non-white in 2001.

Tory MP Nicholas Soames, who runs the cross-party group Balanced Migration, said: ‘Immigrants over the years have made a great contribution to British life but it’s now really out of control. ‘We must break the link between the right to work here and the right to settle here.’

SOURCE






AZ: “Hulk” actor joins Arpaio posse

Television 'Hulk' actor Lou Ferrigno has joined an Arizona sheriff's posse targeting illegal immigrants in the Phoenix valley area, the sheriff's office said on Wednesday.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said Ferrigno, 59, a body builder who donned green makeup to star in the popular 1970s television series 'The Incredible Hulk,' was among 56 people sworn in as volunteers for an armed immigration posse.

Arpaio said the posse would work with sheriff's deputies in operations targeting smugglers and businesses suspected of employing illegal immigrants in the county, among other duties.

Arizona passed a tough law earlier this year requiring police to determine the immigration status of people they suspected were in the country illegally. Key parts were stayed by a U.S. federal judge before it came into effect in late July.

SOURCE



18 November, 2010

Rhode Island going soft

Governor-elect Lincoln Chafee repeated a pledge yesterday to rescind an executive order on illegal immigration, but his office said he is discussing with State Police whether they should ask for immigration papers when there is reasonable suspicion that a person is in the United States illegally.

The order signed by Governor Don Carcieri, a Republican. sparked outrage in the immigrant and minority communities in part because it instructed State Police to check the immigration status of suspects in the course of investigations.

Chafee spokesman Mike Trainor said State Police want to cooperate with immigration authorities, and Chafee will discuss with them how best to do that. When asked whether police will still ask people for their immigration papers once the order is rescinded, Trainor replied: “That’s at the heart of what we’ll be discussing with the State Police.’’

Chafee’s pledge to rescind the order had been key to winning Hispanic support, an important demographic in Providence, which Chafee, an independent, carried comfortably in this month’s election.

Doris De Los Santos — head of the Rhode Island Latino PAC, which endorsed Chafee and worked for his election — said she understands that Chafee must be open to sitting down with different groups to discuss his positions. But she called for Chafee to adhere to the spirit of his promise to rescind the order.

“We really hope that the same spirit that moved the governor-elect to decide [the executive order] was a divisive action and one that wasn’t fruitful for the advancement of us as a community and as a state, that that would be the same driving force behind any other discussions related to the same issue,’’ she said.

Among the other provisions of the executive order that would be rescinded is one that requires the state and state contractors to use a federal database to confirm the immigration status of all new hires. The federal government and its contractors are required to use the database, and its use is required to some extent in 13 states, including Rhode Island.

SOURCE






Effective border control must be supported -- even by supporters of concessions for illegals

A study by Zogby, commissioned by the Center for Immigration Studies, found that the view of minority voters on the issue of immigration is more complex than advocates believe. 61% of Hispanics think that immigration enforcement is inadequate. 70% of blacks and 69% of Asians harbor the same sentiment. These voters disagree with the leadership of immigration advocacy groups who oppose enforcement measures. There is a gap in perception between what minority voters want and reality. They want enforcement and less immigration. Immigration advocates who beat down every proposed enforcement measure are offering their own personal opinion, not those of the voters and their communities. The majority of Americans support enforcement and oppose amnesty. Voters sent to congress, lawmakers who have expressed anti-immigration views. And this includes such high profile Hispanics as Suzanna Martinez and, Brian Sandoval, governors–elect of New Mexico and Nevada, respectively, and senator-elect Marco Rubio of Florida, all of whom are Hispanic and, all of whom are strong supporters of immigration enforcement. In fact, governors-elect Martinez and Sandoval both support the Arizona immigration law, SB 1070, and other measures to tamp down on illegal immigration.

Surveys and polls on this issue are unequivocal. Pulse Opinion Research LLC in 2009 found that 78% of Americans oppose amnesty and 88% of blacks do. Rasmussen Reports in a survey in June of 2009, found that 71% of Americans want those who hire illegals arrested and, 64% support surprise raids to arrest illegal workers. The American Council for Immigration Reform in its 2009 survey found, that 78% of Americans believe immigration has a negative impact on the cost and quality of health care and other social services. It found that 78% opposed amnesty. And CNN/Opinion Research Corp. in its poll reports, that 73% of Americans called for a drop in the number of illegal immigrants. Even more telling is a Washington Post/ABC News poll which found that 74% of the electorate thinks the government is not doing enough to keep illegals from coming into the country. Even Sheriff Joe Arpaio, notorious for his round up of illegal immigrants in Arizona polls show, is viewed favorably by the majority of Americans who believe that his policies have a positive impact on Arizona’s image. Across the board, according the Rasmussen Poll (May 2009) Americans are not in favor of making life any easier for illegal immigrants. Immigration advocates must deal with this reality.

Americans have made their feelings manifest. They are not about to ease up on illegal immigrants whom, rightly or wrongly, they blame for some of the nation’s ills. But as a people, Americans are mindful of the fact that ours is a country of immigrants. They would support an orderly system of immigration which grants relief to those already here; provided they are assured they will not be asked to grant amnesty again in 10 years to more illegals who slipped through our porous borders. They want the problem solved once and for all.

More HERE



17 November, 2010

New England: Immigration focus on employers

Federal immigration officials are increasingly imposing thousands of dollars in fines on New England companies - from Fenway Park snack vendors to a Maine blueberry grower - for failing to prove that all their employees are in the United States legally.

The fines rose from just $14,534 in fiscal year 2008 to $118,000 this year in New England alone.

Those penalties are the result of a major shift last year in the Obama administration's immigration strategy. Instead of the dramatic, large-scale raids that snagged hundreds of illegal immigrants, including at a New Bedford factory three years ago, federal officials say they are focusing more on the businesses that hire them. The aim is to eliminate the job opportunities that attract illegal workers.

"We're hoping that it sends a strong message within certain industries. Hopefully the word gets out that you've got to play on a fair playing field," said Bruce Foucart, head of investigations for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, in New England, which carried out investigations and imposed the fines. "By hiring people illegally and not paying the proper wages and benefits . . . it just isn't fair. It negatively affects everyone, including the employees."

Federal records show the effect of the new policy. Arrests of individuals are sharply down, from more than 6,000 two years ago to 1,664 last fiscal year, the most recent year for which figures are available. Meanwhile, ICE arrested a "record-breaking" 187 employers for violating the law last year.

Critics say the new policy has little impact on illegal immigrants.

"They get off with, at most, a slap on the wrists," said Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a Washington-based organization that favors tougher restrictions on immigration. "ICE does nothing to apprehend the illegal workers. They go down and get a new set of documents from the street corner and they get a new job. It becomes a game of musical chairs."

Federal immigration officials audited more than 2,000 companies nationwide last fiscal year, examining the federal I-9 forms that companies must maintain for employees certifying that they are all eligible to legally work in the United States. Nationwide, federal officials fined noncompliant companies $6.95 million last fiscal year, 10 times the amount two years before.

In New England, the quiet raids have upset many businesses. But they acknowledge they are paying closer attention to their employees' paperwork.

Some said they signed up for E-Verify, a federal system, voluntary in most states, that lets employers check the legal status of their workers. Others scrutinized their workers more closely, and many had to fire at least a few.

Drusilla Ray, president of Cherry Point Products, Inc., a 70-employee seafood processing plant in Milbridge, Maine, said she fired two workers from Honduras who did not have proper paperwork and paid a $2,475 fine last fiscal year. Next time, she said, "I probably would check a little more thoroughly."

Jeff Ferreira, foreman at F&B Rubberized Inc. in New Bedford, said the company fired about 18 immigrant workers and paid a nearly $10,000 fine in fiscal year 2009. Then, he said, a lawyer encouraged the workers to sue the company because it had failed to pay overtime, a violation of state law. They settled for $300,000.

Now, he said, the company has legal workers. But he noticed that his former workers simply found jobs someplace else. "They work in companies all over New Bedford," he said.

The fines frustrated businesses that said they wished Congress and the president would find a solution to illegal immigration so that they could avoid fines and other trouble.

Jasper Wyman & Son in Maine, a leading US blueberry grower, was fined $118,000 this year for violations that range from paperwork errors to the possibility that more than 200 of its 1,200 person workforce over two years was in the country illegally.

Edward R. Flanagan, president and CEO, said he never knew that the workers lacked proper documentation. He said the company does not exploit workers, paying as much as $20 an hour and offering free food and housing. But he also said that, in light of ICE's tough stance toward employers, last summer he hired a fully legal workforce using E-Verify.

Still, he worried about filling seasonal jobs raking blueberries. "It's true from California to Maine: Farm businesses cannot get workers, and we need [agricultural] jobs," said Flanagan, chairman of the American Frozen Food Institute, who has lobbied to pass an agricultural jobs bill. "Meanwhile, we are stuck in neutral. It's a terribly polar subject, and business is caught in the middle."

The current crackdown on employers who hire illegal immigrants stems from a 1986 federal law, the Immigration Reform and Control Act. The bipartisan law granted legal residency to nearly 2.7 million illegal immigrants while for the first time making it illegal for an employer to knowingly hire unauthorized workers.

The law led to the creation of the I-9 form, but its rules were so broad that it became easy for workers with fake documents to subvert the rules. So instead of meeting its goal to prevent illegal immigration, the numbers soared to an estimated 11 million last year, according to estimates from the Pew Hispanic Center.

Now the outcome of that 1986 law is often raised in the current debate over illegal immigration. Advocates for immigrants say illegal workers should have a chance to apply for legal residency, but critics fear illegal immigration will be allowed to soar again because of lack of enforcement.

The Obama administration has tried to strike a balance by strengthening enforcement of immigration laws while also favoring a path to legal residency for illegal immigrants.

Muzaffar Chishti of the Migration Policy Institute, a think tank based in Washington, said three pieces must be in place to solve the problem: Illegal workers should be here legally to reduce their incentive to get false documents, the government should carry out effective enforcement, and businesses should have access to the workers they need, more in expansive times, and fewer during a recession.

Otherwise, he said, the fake document industry will continue to thrive and sabotage the system. "That's the real challenge here," said Chishti, who runs the institute's office at the New York University School of Law. "Unless you get all these three things working together, we won't have anywhere close to a good, functioning system."

SOURCE





Va.: Prince William policy on illegal immigrants working

Prince William County's high-profile crackdown on illegal immigration was smoothly implemented by the county police department and staff and had few of the unintended consequences critics had feared even though it fell short of some of its original goals, according to a final report on the county's policy presented Tuesday.

The number of illegal immigrants in the county dropped by between 2,000 and 6,000 between 2006 and 2008, though it was unclear if that was caused by the police crackdown or the souring economy, the report said.

A major goal of the policy was to improve public safety and reduce crime. Most types of crime, however, were not affected by the policy, the report said, though aggravated assaults declined after its announcement in 2007. The study cautioned that the decline could represent changes in crime reporting.

One concern had been fears that the policy would prompt a flood of costly litigation and allegations of racial profiling, but such problems did not materialize and no lawsuits directly claiming racial profiling have been filed against the county, the report said.

The original policy, passed in October 2007, directed police to check the legal status of anyone they arrested if they had probable cause to believe they were in the country illegally.

In April 2008, the board voted to require police to check the status of everyone arrested.

SOURCE



16 November, 2010

Recent posts at CIS below

See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.

1. Population, Immigration, and the Drying of the American Southwest (Backgrounder)

2. Child Tax Credits for Illegal Immigrants (Memorandum)

3. Opaque DHS Border Study Implies Diminishing Returns for BP Staff Increases (Blog)

4. Between Calderon's Rhetoric and Border Reality (Blog)

5. Paying Illegal Immigrants to Go Home (Blog)

6. Dean Baker on Immigration's 'Mixed Bag' (Blog)

7. About That Recent Decline of Illegal Immigrants... Part II: Illegal Tide Rising Again? (Blog)

8. Good News: The Department of Justice Hires 24 More Immigration Judges (Blog)

9. About That Recent Decline of Illegal Immigrants... Part I: Illusionary Hiatus? (Blog)

10. Running, Not Running from, Hispanics in 2012 (Blog)

11. 'Let My People Stay!' – Iraqi Prime Minister Discourages Emigration (Blog)

12. The White House Should Welcome Arizona's Assistance (Blog)

13. Politico's Advice Regarding Wooing Hispanics, Part II: Tokenism (Blog)

14. Politico's Advice Regarding Wooing Hispanics, Part I: Pander to Their Narrow Self- Interest (Blog)

15. Washington State Takes Baby Step on Illegal Aliens and Driver's Licenses (Blog)





California court rules illegal immigrants can pay in-state tuition

Illegal immigrants can qualify to pay cheaper in-state tuition rates at California public universities, the state's Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The California Supreme Court's unanimous decision reversed a ruling by the state Court of Appeals and allowed the state's higher education institutions to continue their policy of allowing certain unlawful immigrants to pay in-state rates. The lower court had ruled that such immigrants, even if they lived and studied in California, should be treated as "nonresidents" when it came to how much they paid to go to these schools.

The Supreme Court decision addressed federal laws, which appeared to restrict some education-related benefits for illegal immigrants, and state laws, which appeared to authorize such people to receive in-state rates if they qualified.

A California state law, which took effect in January 2002, said those "without lawful immigration status" -- if they qualify on other grounds -- can get in-state tuition rates if they have "filed an application to legalize his or her immigration status."

But the plaintiffs in the case pointed to a federal law that stated illegal immigrants cannot qualify "for any postsecondary education benefit" (in this case, lower tuition rates) if other U.S. citizens didn't get the same benefit.

In its decision, the California Supreme Court found that federal law did not trump state law in this case. U.S. citizens from outside California, it pointed out, could receive in-state tuition as long as they attended high school in California for three or more years and either graduated from a high school or got their GED in California.

The court further stated that illegal immigrants should be treated like anyone from outside California, calling it significant that not all illegal immigrants would qualify for in-state tuition rates, just those who met the criteria.

"We conclude the exemption [from paying full, nonresident tuition rates] is not based on residence in California," the California Supreme Court decision said. "Rather, it is based on other criteria."

The decision applies to 112 community colleges, 33 universities and two independent postgraduate schools in California's public postsecondary education system.

Source



15 November, 2010

Israel caves in to pressure over dubious black "Jews"

They have nothing in common with actual Jews but a lot in common with other Africans: economic marginality and high rates of crime etc. So Israel too now has a black problem

After years of languishing in makeshift shelters in the Horn of Africa, the final remnants of an Ethiopian community claiming Jewish descent received permission Sunday to move to Israel. Israel's Cabinet voted to allow 7,846 Ethiopians to immigrate to the Jewish state over the next four years — announcing it would open its gates to Ethiopian immigration one last time, taking them in gradually to give them the best chance of acclimating to their new home.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told his Cabinet, "We have a moral commitment as Jews, as the people of Israel, to find a solution" for the Ethiopians, many of whom have relatives in Israel.

Eight thousand Ethiopian Jews were spirited to Israel in 1984 and another 14,000 in 1990 in secret airlifts. Thousands more have arrived on their own.

Since 1990, however, most Ethiopians moving to Israel have been Falash Mura, a community whose ancestors converted from Judaism to Christianity under duress about 100 years ago to avoid discrimination, but kept some Jewish customs. About 40,000 Falash Mura live in Israel.

Israel initially rejected their ties to Judaism, but religious officials later declared them the "seed of Israel." Falash Mura were formally converted to Orthodox Judaism upon their arrival in Israel, bringing the total number of Ethiopian immigrants to about 85,000. In comparison, about 100,000 immigrants from North America live in Israel.

After the last of the recognized members of the community left the Ethiopian village of Gondor in 2008, more Ethiopians came forward and claimed that they, too, were Falash Mura. Israel had initially prevented them from immigrating, doubting the validity of their claims and suspecting that their real motivation was to escape Ethiopia for a better life. Under Sunday's decision, they will be allowed to come to Israel in monthly increments over the next four years.

"This is an ethical, Jewish, humanitarian and Zionist decision ... to bring justice to those Jewish brothers still waiting to return and connect to the Jewish people in its land," said a statement from the Public Committee for the Remainder of the Ethiopian Jews, an Israeli advocacy group.

The 7,846 registered Falash Mura awaiting immigration live in makeshift shelters in Gondor and receive food and medical services from a North American Jewish aid group. Netanyahu called it "a complex humanitarian crisis" and said Israel wished to "avoid the creation of additional refugee camps in Ethiopia."

Many Ethiopian immigrants, from rural African settings, have had a particularly hard time acclimating to Israel's modern, fast-paced society. They have relatively high rates of poverty and crime, and they face discrimination from other Israelis.

The semi-governmental Jewish Agency has pledged $4.7 million to assist the Falash Mura, the organization's spokesman, Michael Jankelowitz, said. The group will teach Hebrew and instruct the immigrants in acculturating to Israeli society before they leave for Israel.

Once they arrive in Israel, he said, the Jewish Agency will house the immigrants in 30 centres throughout the country. "This saga has to be ended," Jankelowitz said.

SOURCE




UK too full of immigrants, says Pauline Hanson

The only political figure in Australia who tells it like it is



Pauline Hanson has abandoned plans to move to Britain, after discovering it's not the racially pure utopia she was hoping for.

After returning a fortnight ago from an extended holiday in Europe, the former One Nation leader has told The Sun-Herald she's back in Australia for good and considering yet another return to politics.

"I love England but so many people want to leave there because it's overrun with immigrants and refugees," Ms Hanson said.

"France is becoming filled with Muslims and the French and English are losing their way of life because they're controlled by foreigners in the European Union.

"Problems are worse over there than they are in Australia and Australia is still the best place in the world to live, but the same sorts of awful things are happening here too. Residents of Commonwealth countries who want to live here are discriminated against in favour of others."

Ms Hanson, 56, spent two months touring countries including England, the Czech Republic, Germany, Lithuania and France.

In February, Ms Hanson told Woman's Day magazine she was selling her home and property at Coleyville, south-west of Brisbane, and moving to Britain, partly because she was disappointed by the way Australia had changed.

Ms Hanson told The Sun-Herald she wouldn't rule out a return to politics. "I still haven't got politics out of my system," she said. "I get asked constantly, 'Are you going back into politics?' - even by people who recognised me overseas."

It was "difficult to say" whether she would sell her Coleyville house, but she said she would move "very soon, possibly interstate".

SOURCE



14 November, 2010

Population boom inevitable, Australian PM told

Why is it inevitable? It is well within the government's power to control if it has the will to do so. The problem is immigration, not excessive births

JULIA GILLARD's election pitch to avoid a "big Australia" is to be abandoned after a Treasury warning that strong future immigration is "probably inescapable".

In another policy retreat, the government's population review has been delayed and "recalibrated" to focus on skills shortages and regional growth, rather than nominating population targets.

Advertisement: Story continues below
During the election campaign in August, Ms Gillard said Australia should not "hurtle" towards a big population. At the time, she said a Treasury projection that Australia would have a population of 36 million people by 2050 was excessive. "I don't support the idea of a big Australia with arbitrary targets of, say … a 36 million-strong Australia," she said.

However, a Treasury briefing sent to Ms Gillard after the campaign suggests she could have no choice. The briefing warns that the prediction of 36 million people "factors in a significant reduction" in migration, from a recent peak of 300,000 to an annual average of 180,000.

It concludes that even if annual net migration was lowered to an unrealistically low 60,000 per annum, Australia's population would still reach 29 million by 2050.

"Given the powerful global forces driving the Australian economy, net immigration figures well in excess of that low number are probably inescapable," the briefing says.

"Strong population growth is not necessarily unsustainable. It need not adversely affect the environment, the liveability of cities, infrastructure and service delivery, provided the right plans and policies are put in place now in anticipation of it."

A senior Labor source said business groups had been pressuring the government to adopt a default position "where the issue of specific targets is not addressed". "I believe the government has accepted the reality that it is not prepared to cut migration to the extent needed to significantly reduce population growth," the source said.

Population Minister Tony Burke has indicated the government might miss an April 2011 deadline for its population review, blaming the extended caretaker period while a new government was being formed. "I don't want to give a commitment that we'll be able to get to that [April] time frame," Mr Burke said.

Days before the election was called in July, Mr Burke appointed three population panels to provide advice on demographic change and liveability, productivity and prosperity, and sustainable development.

Treasury's budget update released last week predicted that unemployment will fall to 4.5 per cent by June 2011, heightening concerns that skills shortages could re-emerge as a key issue.

Asked if it was prudent to be talking about immigration cuts at such a time, Treasurer Wayne Swan said the government had refocused the migration program on skills.

SOURCE






It's no longer taboo to question immigration

Comment from Canada

Privately, the impact of immigration has been a constant topic among Europeans, almost an obsession, but it's been a no-go area of public discussion. Only "racists" and "bigots" challenged immigration policy. For mainstream politicians it became a dreaded third rail.

Until now. The combination of Muslim extremism and the recession seems to have encouraged European leaders to confront this elephant in the room. With much trepidation, countries of the European Union are tightening immigration rules, and for the first time in 50 years talking about the expectation that immigrants should "assimilate."

It's produced some head-spinning changes in direction. In Germany, as recently as 2005, new legislation declared the country an immigrant society and officially placed multiculturalism at the heart of public policy. A couple of weeks ago German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared that "multikulti" was dead, kaput!

Remarkable, but not the sudden "racist" eruption that some commentators would have us believe. It has more to do with overpopulation and labour supply than bigotry.

With slower economic growth and the EU's expansion to include much of Eastern Europe, it has an adequate supply of cheap labour within its borders: one that's legally entitled to live and work in the EU. It no longer needs to import labour from forgotten empires.

And despite the visibility of immigrants in large cities, the numbers suggest Europe has never become an immigrant society in the North American sense. Its citizenry remains overwhelmingly indigenous. Germany's immigrant population stands at just over 12 per cent, and in most of Europe it's less than that (4.3 per cent in Italy).

Compare that to Canada, where a whopping 41 per cent of the population is made up of first-and second-generation immigrants, and only four per cent of the people are indigenous.

Together with massive public debt and a changing global marketplace, shifting patterns of immigration will shape the world our children will live in. For economic migrants, tighter rules in Europe will make North America even more attractive.

In Canada we need more immigrants to supplement our pathetic birthrate and grow our economy. The issue is whether we choose new citizens, or sit back and allow a free-for-all.

The U.S. is already more crowded than Canada, and stress on public services and an intractable unemployment rate could persuade Washington to scale back immigration. The flow of migrants into the U.S. has increased by an astonishing 40 per cent since the passage of the 1990 Immigration Act -- and almost half of those are illegals!

Without changes, the U.S. Census Bureau predicts the country's population will rise from around 310 million to more than 400 million by 2050 -- and some 70 million of that increase will come from immigration. Can the U.S. handle those numbers, particularly if it's looking at slower economic growth?

Of course greater prosperity and opportunity in China, India and elsewhere may eventually keep millions of potential migrants at home. Coupled with tougher immigration rules across the developed world, that could mean an end to the mass migration we've come to think of as a permanent phenomenon.

For decades now the accepted wisdom has been that immigration was a giant blender that would eventually result in a polyglot humanity -- one race from many, one global culture, a John Lennon world.

Or maybe mass migration reached its zenith in the 20th century, and our kids' world will continue to be dominated by national identity and ethnic diversity. Imagine!

SOURCE



13 November, 2010

AZ: Big human smuggling ring busted

The largest human-smuggling operation ever uncovered by state task-force investigators has been closed down in a joint effort by local and federal authorities because of a routine police check in Goodyear.

The smuggling ring, operating out of four sites in the West Valley as well as locations in southern Arizona and on the Mexican side of the border, transported thousands of undocumented immigrants into the country over the past two years. The huge operation, which brought immigrants into Arizona from Central and South America as well as Mexico, was dismantled Wednesday when investigators arrested and charged six men. They also seized 62 vehicles in the Valley, most of which were used to move illegal border-crossers around the state, officials said.

Investigators with the state's anti-smuggling task force, which is examining bank records to grasp the size of the operation, say a decrease in drophouse busts in the Valley has given them a chance to spend more time going after smuggling organizations.

The investigation began more than a year ago when Goodyear police Officer Sean Clarke, conducting a routine patrol check of a U-Haul rental-storage facility, noticed a number of trucks and vans with tinted windows that appeared to have reinforced shock absorbers. Both are telltale signs of vehicles being used for smuggling.

As Goodyear police began checking the vehicles, they were struck by something odd about the license plates: None was reported stolen. Investigators discovered that the plates were registered to fictitious owners at false addresses. "We were scratching our heads for a little bit," Goodyear police Cmdr. Ralph McLaughlin said. Suspecting they had stumbled onto a smuggling ring, Goodyear police shared the information with IIMPACT, the state's anti-smuggling task force.

Seasoned investigators stood in awe Wednesday as an employee at the Goodyear storage facility drilled padlocks off 18 storage units and opened the doors to reveal a van in each unit.

Some of the vans advertised locksmiths, flower shops and carpet-cleaning companies in an attempt to keep authorities from recognizing their real purpose: transporting illegal immigrants.

Investigators believe the storage yard on West McDowell Road was the end point for each vehicle on a circular route that took them from the Valley to the border.

Capt. Fred Zumbo of the Arizona Department of Public Safety said the smugglers would drive the vans and trucks to the U.S. side of the border, where they would pick up immigrants who had crossed on foot.

The organization's drivers were fearless, investigators believe, choosing to engage in chases with police when they were discovered. Members of the smuggling crew have been linked to at least three such incidents, including a 2009 rollover wreck near Sonoita that claimed 11 lives, officials said. "These are pursuits waiting to happen," Zumbo said as he surveyed a yard full of vans and trucks in Glendale. "You know darn well these drivers are driving these things loaded down, and they're running from the cops."

Once across the border, the immigrants would be taken in the vans to designated drophouses in Arizona, officials said. As pressure on smugglers increased near the border, the group consolidated operations in Phoenix, said Matthew Allen, special agent in charge of Homeland Security investigations for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Arizona.

"They are highly adaptable, and they change as a result of law-enforcement activities," Allen said. "Many of this organization's resources were in the southern part of the state. But when it got too hot for them in southern Arizona, they relocated a lot of their resources to the Phoenix area."

When the vehicles were done unloading, drivers would return them to the Goodyear storage yard where they were tucked into the containers so tight that drivers had to exit the trucks and vans through the rear of the vehicles.

Despite the measures smugglers took to cover their tracks, their activity did raise some suspicion. The rental spaces were always paid in cash, typically $2,400 to $2,500 a month, always in $50 and $100 bills, said Derek Roller, manager at the storage unit. Vans and trucks were also picked up and dropped off at 3 a.m., frequently on tow trucks, Roller said.

Investigators believe that Marco Rodriguez-Banks, 29, made the cash payments for the storage units.

Of the six people authorities charged in connection with the ring, Banks is the only one investigators have identified. Banks and five others were booked on suspicion of human smuggling, operating a criminal syndicate, fraud and fraudulent schemes, and identity theft.

Two homes raided Wednesday morning are owned by out-of-state residents, whose roles in the organization remain unclear. But police are certain that Banks was not working alone. "This is clearly a transportation cell that is part of larger organizations," Allen said. "Where we go from here is further up that food chain in the criminal organization."

SOURCE





Australian Govt ponders new laws on asylum seekers

The federal government is considering introducing new laws to circumvent a High Court ruling that's undermined the effectiveness of its offshore processing regime for asylum-seekers who arrive by boat.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard says Immigration Minister Chris Bowen is weighing up Labor's options after the court ruled that asylum-seekers whose claims are rejected offshore still have a right to judicial review. "He'll work through (the decision) and make some recommendations about need for legislative change," Ms Gillard told reporters in Seoul where she's attending a G20 meeting.

Ms Gillard also rejected claims - most notably from prominent human rights lawyer Julian Burnside - that Thursday's ruling could mean asylum-seekers processed in third countries were entitled to access Australia's courts. "There's a suggestion that somehow this High Court decision affects my plans for a regional protection framework and regional processing centre," Ms Gillard said. "It does not."

Mr Bowen backed the prime minister, saying the ruling could only affect processing in other countries if it was conducted by Australian officials. "The advice to me is that there are no implications for offshore processing where it would not be run by Australian officials," he told ABC Radio on Friday.

But that doesn't mean the coalition's plan to reopen a detention centre in Nauru would be in the clear, Mr Bowen said. "I've noticed a number of eminent jurists saying that the so-called Nauru Solution could be challenged under this regime because it would be run by Australian officials as opposed to being run by the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) officials or (other) international officials," he said.

Mr Bowen insisted that offshore processing remained a key plank in Labor's border-protection policy despite the High Court ruling. "I think there's a case for offshore detention continuing ... that would be my intention," he said. "Offshore detention and the excision of islands (are) appropriate."

The immigration minister said the government's options in terms of a legislative response "are open" and that he has sought advice from both the solicitor-general and his own department. "(But) I'm not going to stick into the game of `start ruling in, start ruling out' legislative responses or other responses," he said.

The opposition is refusing to back any such legislative response. Coalition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said Labor should instead reintroduce temporary protection visas and shift processing to Nauru. "Labor can't propose piecemeal changes that will simply paper over their High Court problem while doing nothing to address this growing crisis," Mr Morrison said in a statement. "If Labor is serious about cleaning up their mess they will restore the coalition's immigration and border-protection policy regime that stopped the boats."

SOURCE



12 November, 2010

Australian asylum policy in disarray

The Federal Government has been urged to review all asylum-seeker claims dealt with under the contentious offshore processing regime after a landmark High Court decision, labelled "diabolical" by the Opposition but hailed by human rights groups.

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen has called for legal advice on the unanimous court ruling, which could cast a cloud over the Gillard Government's plans to send unauthorised boat arrivals to a detention centre in East Timor.

The ruling means asylum-seekers taken to Christmas Island would have the same right to appeal when their refugee claims were rejected as those processed on the mainland.

Mr Bowen would work through the "significant ramifications" of the decision and take recommendations to cabinet in coming weeks.

"It's a significant judgment. It's an important judgment," Mr Bowen said yesterday. "It's a judgment which has the potential to elongate the amount of time it takes to process refugee claims."

Former immigration minister Philip Ruddock said the ruling was "diabolical" an opinion echoed by Opposition spokesman on immigration Scott Morrison.

"What this outcome will produce is just seeing more people coming on boats with false claims, making those claims, and appealing them endlessly through the courts, costing taxpayers an enormous amount of money and compromising the integrity of our immigration system overall," Mr Morrison said.

SOURCE





Australia's tougher skills test for legal immigrants angers some business groups

Perhaps they can recruit some of the Afghan and Tamil Tiger "refugees" into becoming waiters etc

Business groups have slammed the Government's new skilled migration test, saying it will exacerbate the skills shortage and make it even harder for small businesses to hire new and qualified staff in specialised areas.

The comments come just after new figures from economists suggest immigration will drop over the next few years and the skills shortage will become worse as employers search for qualified staff, especially in the engineering, trades, manufacturing and construction industries.

John Hart, chief executive of Restaurant and Catering Australia, says the new test will make the skills shortage in the hospitality industry even worse, warning that restaurants and other catering firms may struggle to find qualified chefs who are specialists in overseas cooking methods.

"This is going to make it worse, absolutely. Substantially so, because the harsher English language test requirements have been enhanced. This means that fewer cooks and chefs will be able to get a visa," he warns.

"It's already difficult enough, this is going to make it more difficult. This isn't very good news for us at all."

COSBOA chief executive Peter Strong says the changes will continue to make it difficult for SMEs to get involved with skilled migration.

"We have areas where we know we have skilled shortages, such as the hospitality industry, and it does make it hard. The red tape becomes more difficult, and that's one of the biggest issues here," he says.

"I really would like the Government to stop and think about how this is making it more difficult for businesses. If there are good reasons, there should be some sort of help desk or help services for businesses, especially small businesses."

The Australian Industry Group has slammed the new test, saying it will make it more difficult to attract skilled migrants.

"In particular, the decision to give fewer points to the skilled trades compared with university qualifications does not adequately reflect the critical need for trade skills in our economy," chief executive Heather Ridout said in a statement.

Ridout points out that university graduates receive 15 points while skilled traders receive 10 points, and has also criticised the English test, which she claims will disadvantage migrants from non-English speaking backgrounds.

"We would urge the Government to be open to further changes that would better balance the needs for both tertiary and trades skilled migrants," she said.

Bowen announced the changes yesterday, saying the new points test will assess independent skilled migrants as part of the Government's decision to reform the migration system. The test will, according to the minister, "emphasise the importance of English, work experience and high level qualifications... and is designed to ensure no one factor guarantees migration".

But Hart says this is the most frustrating part of the test, given that so many restaurants rely on authentic cuisine, and in order to provide such services they hire chefs and cooks from their native countries who may not have a firm grasp of English.

"It's nonsense to say that you should have an English language requirement of that level, because the reality is, they don't require that level of English to work in the kitchen. This isn't an academic pursuit."

"In fact, we rely on cultural diversity in this industry, in order to provide those sorts of cuisines. It seems the immigration department is attempting to stamp that out."

The changes come after the Government dramatically changed the skilled migrants list, giving preference to a number of occupations over others. Previously, simply listing an occupation would provide 50% of the test's passing mark, but now, a number of factors will be considered, including qualifications and work experience.

"The existing points test has not always led to outcomes consistent with the objectives of the skilled migration program," Bowen said yesterday.

"For example, the current test puts an overseas student with a short-term vocational qualification and one year's work experience in Australia ahead of a Harvard educated environmental engineer with three years' relevant work experience."
In comparison, Bowen argues the new test will recognise a larger pool of talent, and warns that employer-sponsored visa categories are not affected by the changes.

But Hart says despite the minister's assurances, the hospitality industry will still be affected, and he intends to seek a meeting with the minister as soon as possible.

"We will definitely be speaking with the department. We haven't yet been able to get a meeting with minister Bowen, but I'm sure at some stage he'll get around to talking to us."

The announcement comes just after research from Access Economics and KPMG found the skills shortage will worsen during the next few years. Access predicts net migration will fall to 170,000 over the next few years, and KPMG found 50% of businesses surveyed are complaining of skills shortages.

KPMG migration practices head Karen Waller recently told SmartCompany the Government needs to consider how the skilled migration system will help businesses, rather than keep them from hiring new staff.

"The challenge for government is to ensure there is independent and rigorous discussion about what role skilled migration plays in Australia to help businesses grow," Waller says.

SOURCE



11 November, 2010

Britain bribes foreign criminals to go home

Foreign rapists and muggers are being offered £1,500 each in cash if they agree to go home part of the way through their sentences. When they leave they receive a cash card loaded with £500.

A further £1,000 of British taxpayers’ cash will be payable within the first three months of their arrival home. The card will be programmed to work in ATM machines around the world.

Details of the controversial ‘bribes’ emerged after David Cameron promised to get foreign convicts go home rather than clog Britain’s jails.

The payment is three times the amount of cash that was offered by Labour, which had a similar scheme to send foreign convicts home. The offer is even available to criminals who have served their entire sentence in Britain – at a cost of £45,000 a year. They will get a cash payment of £750.

In opposition, the Tories said the scheme was ‘simply outrageous’. Dominic Grieve, then Conservative justice spokesman, said: ‘The lesson is clear: under Labour, crime pays and the taxpayer foots the bill.’ Now the Coalition says the scheme will save money, because it is cheaper than forcibly removing foreign criminals or leaving them in jail.

Immigration Minister Damian Green said: ‘Every day that a foreign national is held in prison costs the taxpayer money – that is why I want to see them removed from the UK at the earliest opportunity. 'The facilitated returns scheme is a practical solution that not only saves the taxpayer money in the long run, but also means foreign criminals are removed as soon as possible denying them the opportunity to re-offend or drag out the removal process with frivolous appeals.’

Once the criminals return home they have to make a claim that they need cash for rent, private healthcare or help to establish a business before they can obtain the £1,000.

Officials have struggled for years to deport foreign convicts and more than 11,000 are currently taking up space in Britain’s packed jails.

On Monday, the Daily Mail revealed how the Prime Minister had decided to spearhead a campaign for them to serve their sentences back home. He plans to tear up prisoner transfer agreements that mean convicts cannot be returned home without their consent.

Yesterday, he held what were described as ‘positive’ talks in Beijing about returning the 364 Chinese inmates in UK jails. The Government has introduced the enhanced payments as part of the drive to return foreign convicts to their own countries.

When Labour implemented the idea, it offered only £500 in cash, backed by varying amounts of ‘support in kind’. This could have included advice on setting up a business. At one stage, the total value of the package was £5,000. But the offer of in-kind support did not prove tempting to many criminals. Instead, they used human rights laws to argue that – after their release – they should be allowed to remain in Britain permanently.

Last year, 5,535 foreign prisoners were deported, of whom 30 per cent received financial incentives.

Yesterday Philip Davies, Tory MP for Shipley, said: ‘I think most people will think this obscene – people who should be kicked out of the country with nothing being asked to leave the country with a bribe. ‘It’s no wonder our prisons are so full with foreign criminals if they know they are going to get £1,500 when they leave.’

SOURCE





Migrant skills go to the top of the list in Australia

The points system for skilled migrants that notoriously preferred hairdressers over Harvard scientists is about to be abolished. Immigration Minister Chris Bowen is scheduled to announce in Sydney tomorrow a new points system in keeping with wider reforms to skilled migration.

The reforms shift the emphasis to high skill levels and employee sponsorship, making it harder for overseas students with low-quality Australian qualifications to secure permanent residency.

Stricter rules for skilled migration have damaged the business model used by private colleges and universities to attract students and fee revenue.

In China, Tertiary Education Minister Chris Evans rejected any suggestion the commonwealth should compensate education providers for lost income. "It's not about us making up the shortfall. I mean, universities are a business," he told the HES. "Some universities have gone into the international student market in a larger way than others."

An officially sanctioned and relatively easy pathway from local qualification to permanent residency as a skilled migrant helped create a multibillion-dollar export education industry.

Now, graduates will have to fit within July's new skilled occupation list, which gives prominence to high-skill jobs in health and engineering, and pass a strict new points test.

"The current weighting of points test factors leads to perverse outcomes such as the situation where a Harvard qualified environmental scientist with three years' relevant work experience would fail the points test, while an overseas student who completes a 92-week course in a 60-point occupation [such as cookery or hairdressing] would, with one year's experience, pass," says a discussion paper issued by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.

The test gave an advantage to low-skill occupations on the Migration Occupations in Demand List, which was axed in February by Senator Evans when he was immigration minister.

Monash University researcher Bob Birrell said a reformed points test would allow the government "to apply a more discriminating filter to select the best applicants". This was possible because earlier decisions had slashed the number of points-tested places available while the number of former students seeking those places had risen sharply.

The discussion paper says in these circumstances, "Australia can, and should, select the best and brightest migrants for independent migration".

Senator Evans said universities understood the danger of becoming too reliant on one market. "I think most of them have managed that risk quite sensibly over the years," he said. "They know they're vulnerable to such movements, as other industries are, and they'll just have to manage that as they work through the issues.

"But the fundamentally important issue at the moment is that the appreciation of the dollar is impacting on our export industries. It's going to impact on education. But it's not a question of the government picking up the tab for that lost revenue. They'll have to adjust their businesses. "My role is to try [to] support them by encouraging participation in international education in Australia."

February's discussion paper floats possible changes to reward superior levels of English and applicants with higher degrees. It also flags a relaxation of the emphasis on youth, saying the test "does not adequately recognise the trade-off between age and work experience, particularly for highly skilled professionals".

It canvasses a possible end to the points bonus enjoyed by those with relatives in the country or with Australian qualifications.

The paper says local qualifications attracted extra points because of "the general quality" of Australian education and the fact studies were undertaken in English. The poor English of foreign graduates from Australian institutions was one of the triggers for reform of skilled migration.

Maurene Horder, chief executive of the Migration Institute of Australia, said the new points system was keenly awaited. She said students and the market were anxious for clarity after a year of upheaval.

Sydney immigration lawyer Peter Bollard said reform was necessary since the old points test was not performing as expected. "It meant some people, especially with family sponsorship, could get through with very low skill levels," he said.

SOURCE



10 November, 2010

Iraqi PM says Christians should stay

Iraq's prime minister on Tuesday cautioned other countries not to encourage Christians to abandon their homeland, after France took in dozens of people wounded in a bloodbath at a Baghdad church.

In the latest attacks on the minority community, meanwhile, three homes in the Mansur district of western Baghdad belonging to Christians were firebombed without causing any casualties, an interior ministry source said.

The attacks came after a November 3 warning from Al-Qaeda that it would step up attacks on Christians.

On his first visit to the church targeted on October 31, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said that at a meeting with Benedict XVI in 2008 he had asked the pope "not to let the east be emptied of Christians, nor the West of Muslims."

"The countries that have welcomed the victims ... of this attack (on the church) have done a noble thing, but that should not encourage emigration," he said on a visit to the Syriac Catholic cathedral where the massacre occurred.

In all, 44 worshippers, two priests and seven security forces personnel died during the seizure of the cathedral by Islamist militants and the ensuing shootout when it was stormed by troops.

Around 60 people were wounded in the bloodbath and France swiftly offered to provide specialist treatment for those with the most serious injuries.

France is the only country to have offered to take in victims of the attack.

Thirty-four Iraqi Christians and a Muslim guard wounded in the incident flew in to France overnight on Monday for admission to hospitals for treatment.

French Immigration Minister Eric Besson has said this fitted France's "tradition of asylum" to take them in, and that asylum would be "handed out generously" to those who seek it.

An estimated 800,000 Christians lived in Iraq before the US-led invasion of 2003 but that number has since shrunk to around 500,000 in the face of repeated attacks against their community and churches.

Christians in Baghdad have now dwindled to around 150,000, a third of their former population in the capital.

On Sunday, a senior Iraqi clergyman said Iraq's Christians should leave the country or face being killed at the hands of Al-Qaeda. "If they stay they will be finished, one by one," Archbishop Athanasios Dawood told the BBC.

SOURCE





Australian government bribes asylum seekers to go home

THE Federal Government will offer incentives to asylum seekers who agree to go home. Immigration Minister Chris Bowen has announced Labor will provide asylum seekers who come to Australia by boat assistance to help them return to their country of origin. Mr Bowen said the aid would consist primarily of job training and placement, and small business start-up support.

The assistance recognises that some asylum seekers are returning to a country they haven't lived in for years, and where they may have limited assets and support networks, he said. "Properly targeted reintegration assistance for returned asylum seekers can minimise the risk that the return will be unsustainable and that returnees will again become displaced," Mr Bowen said.

The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) will deliver the assistance and remain in contact with returned asylum seekers to determine the effectiveness of the program.

Mr Bowen said similar assistance programs had been used by previous Australian Governments and were currently utilised by European countries to return asylum seekers who weren't found to be owed protection.

SOURCE



9 November, 2010

New British immigration policy outlined

In her first major speech on immigration, UK Home Secretary Theresa May stated that her goal was to bring in more high-value migrants to the UK, such as investors and research scientists, while at the same time encouraging employers to fill vacant jobs with local unemployed workers.

"The government intends to control immigration by focusing on all aspects of the immigration system, not just the points-based system," May said.

"So over the coming months action will be taken on students, families and settlement as well as people coming here to work," she added.

According to a statement released by the UK Border Agency, her priorities include:

* encouraging entrepreneurs and investors to come to the UK

* stopping abuse of the student visa route

* 'cutting the link' between temporary immigration and permanent settlement

Encouraging entrepreneurs to come to the UK may come in the form of a new business visa announced recently.

May concluded her speech by stating that net migration will be reduced from the current level of hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands by the end of the Parliamentary term.

"It will take hard work and a great deal of political courage. But the British people want us to do it and it is the right thing to do. So we will do it," she said.

SOURCE





Recent posts at CIS below

See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.

1. Subsidizing Sanctuaries: The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (Memorandum)

2. A Big Win for Immigration Control and Hispanic Outreach (Op-ed)

3. Terror reboots: Cargo plot reveals a new terror calling card (Op-ed)

4. Jews hardening on illegal immigration (Letter)

5. The President's Post-Election Press Conference and the Dog That Didn't Bark (Blog)

6. Not All Overseas Immigration Policy Ideas Are Good Ones (Blog)

7. Illegal-Alien Gang Member Convicted for Execution Slayings in N.J. (Blog)

8. Inept Law Enforcement: A Tale of Two Illegal-Alien Murderers (Blog)

9. Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics (Blog)

10. Immigration Decision-Makers: Upcoming Committee Changes (Blog)

11. Non-citizen Voting – RIP, Again (Blog)

12. Labor Department Does the Right Thing with Exploitative H-2B Program (Blog)

Summary of item 1 above:

Subsidizing Sanctuary Cities

Federal Government Reimburses for Jailing Illegals, Even When Locals Obstruct Immigration Enforcement

A new Center for Immigration Studies Memorandum finds that the Department of Justice annually awards millions of dollars in grants to local governments to compensate for the cost of jailing illegal aliens, even when those governments have policies obstructing immigration law enforcement or encouraging illegal settlement. The report includes a list of the 27 sanctuary jurisdictions receiving grants in 2010.

The grant program, known as the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), doled out a total of $400 million to about 850 cities, counties, and states in 2010. Among them were 27 jurisdictions widely considered to be sanctuary jurisdictions, which together received more than $62.6 million, or 15.6 percent of the total. For example, the 2010 SCAAP grantees include some jurisdictions – such as San Francisco, Chicago, Santa Clara County, Calif., Washington, D.C., and Arlington, Va. – which are trying to opt out of Secure Communities, the program that automatically flags criminal aliens for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) attention at the time they are booked into jail.

The authors suggest a remedy: restrict eligibility for SCAAP grants to those jurisdictions that agree to work with ICE to identify and remove criminal aliens by participating in Secure Communities, 287(g), or similar programs.

The report, 'Subsidizing Sanctuaries: The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program,' by Jessica Vaughan and Russ Doubleday, is online here4

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: Jessica Vaughan, (508)346-3380, jmv@cis.org. The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization



8 November, 2010

EU to let in 50,000 Indian workers into Britain

Tens of thousands of migrants from India are set to win the right to live and work in Britain because of the EU, leaked papers revealed yesterday.

Up to 20,000 information technology workers a year are to be handed British work permits as part of a deal between Brussels and India. It would mean thousands of extra migrant workers coming here on top of those already arriving under schemes to accept highly skilled workers from abroad.

Documents leaked to the MigrationWatch think-tank from the European Commission suggest a deal is being done to allow India between 35,000 and 50,000 EU work permits each year for skilled IT workers. Under the pact, Britain would be expected to accept 20,000 workers, while German would take 7,000 and France 3,000.

The numbers are based on the size of the IT industry in each EU country and on the record of each one in granting work permits to Indian workers in the past – a factor which pushes Britain to the top of the list of those expected to accept new migrants.

The revelation comes at a time of mounting controversy over Government plans to limit numbers of non-EU migrants coming in to Britain. Critics say Prime Minister David Cameron’s pledge for a cap is being ever more diluted because of hostility from big business and pressure from Liberal Democrat members of the Coalition.

Last week Business Secretary Vince Cable won a concession from Mr Cameron to exclude from the cap foreign workers coming in under ‘intra-company’ transfers, also known as Mode 4. Last year such transfers brought 22,000 skilled migrant workers into this country. Each can stay for up to five years. Critics say some of these are simply cheap a replacement for British workers.

EU officials are in talks over an EU/India free-trade agreement which may be finalised as soon as next week. The negotiations, which are being held in secret, are thought to have included discussions of a Mode 4 trade deal allowing easy movement of Indian workers into Europe.

MigrationWatch chairman Sir Andrew Green said: ‘This looks suspiciously like a side-door to Britain for 20,000 Indian IT workers every year. ‘It is even more astonishing coming at a time when British IT workers are finding it increasingly difficult to find employment and there is a 17 per cent unemployment rate among computer science graduates. ‘It is time to end the secrecy and for the Government to come clean with what is going on and what, if any, safeguards are being put in place.’

Some EU countries – thought to be mainly in Eastern Europe – are believed to have insisted that the numbers of Indian workers they must accept under the deal be strictly limited.

Many Indian workers moving to Europe would be likely to come to Britain because of its familiar language, hospitality to migrant workers, and the large Indian population already in this country.

Mr Cameron has pledged to bring net migration – the number added to the population each year by migration – below the 100,000 a year mark. Last year net migration to Britain was 196,000.

Mr Cable made his opposition to an immigration cap known as he travelled with Mr Cameron to India in the summer. He said he wanted to make any limit on numbers ‘as liberal a policy as possible’.

In September, Mr Cable said unemployed British school-leavers and graduates should go to India to get apprenticeships and training in high-tech industries. He said the one-way direction of migrant workers from India to Britain should be transformed into a two-way exchange. ‘I believe there should be a freer flow of labour,’ he added. [More emptyheaded Leftist theory!]

SOURCE







Bogus refugees target Ontario

About 440 failed refugees from the U.S. are streaming to Ontario’s border crossings each month to file claims in a bid to avoid deportation, federal statistics show. Bogus refugees from the U.S. accounted for 3,100 claimants who arrived at Pearson airport or border crossings from January to July of this year, according to immigration department figures obtained by the Toronto Sun.

The statistics reveal that even 300 U.S. citizens made refugee claims for asylum in Canada during that time. Many other claims were made by citizens of visa-free European Union countries — like Hungary and Slovakia — who are flooding here to work, immigration officials said.

The statistics show that during the first seven months of 2010, some 1,500 Hungarians and 115 from the Slovak Republic filed refugee claims. Nationals from both countries do not require a visa to travel here.

Immigration officers said there are cases where claimants work illegally and collect welfare and other payments to send back home. Most of the claimants settle in the Toronto area and receive welfare, health and other taxpayer-subsidized services.

Federal officials said there’s little they can do to stop the refugee wave. Immigration department spokesman Karen Shadd said an officer receiving a refugee claim can assess if it is eligible to be referred for a hearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). It can take longer than a year for the IRB to determine whether a claimant requires protection.

Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis said “every time there is a downturn in the economy people seek a better life in Canada and other countries. “Canada has a strong economy and is a target for people wanting to have a better life,” Karygiannis said. “In Europe the economy is at an all-time low.”

He said many Romas from Eastern Europe are moving here for a better life. “We need to deal with bogus claimants quickly and in an expedited manner,” Karygiannis said.

SOURCE



7 November, 2010

Latino voters' impact varied by region

Few Republican candidates in the midterm election paid a price for adopting a hard-line immigration stance — except in the West


Republican Susana Martinez of New Mexico was elected the first U.S. Latina governor

With images of menacing, tattooed Latinos and beleaguered whites, the TV ad contended that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was too soft on illegal immigrants. "It's clear whose side he's on," the announcer said, "and it's not yours."

Sharron Angle, a "tea party" favorite and Reid's Republican challenger, had attempted to pummel Reid for his support for legalizing illegal immigrants. But Angle paid a price for her tough stance when Nevada's Latino voters came out in record numbers last week and helped Reid win a fifth term.

Across the country, Lou Barletta, the mayor of a small Pennsylvania city who is best known for backing a law forbidding property owners from renting to illegal immigrants, had little difficulty winning election to the House of Representatives.

A look at the electoral map shows that, outside selected parts of the Southwest, few Republican candidates this year paid a price for adopting a hard-line immigration stance.

The reason is that most of the historic wave that swept Democrats from office last week was in Midwestern or Rust Belt states, where Latinos make up only a fragment of the voting population. For example, Democrats lost five House seats, a Senate seat and the governorship in Pennsylvania, where only 3% of eligible voters are Latino.

Jennifer Duffy, a senior editor at the Cook report who tracks congressional races, has a message to activists who contend immigration is the Democrats' salvation: Don't hold your breath. "You've got to have states where [immigration] matters, where that Latino vote is enough to tip races," Duffy said. "Those states are in the West."

Although Latinos have been moving to more remote parts of the country in recent years, many may be too young to vote or may lack citizenship status. That makes it even tougher to replicate the Western experience in places such as Pennsylvania, she said. "Not only do they not have the Latino vote to help, they have an illegal immigrant problem," Duffy said of Democrats. "It's a double whammy."

Analysts agree that most voters do not choose candidates based solely on their immigration position. In exit polls this year, only 8% of voters nationwide said immigration was their top issue. Latino voters placed immigration well behind the economy and jobs.

Barletta, a Republican, said immigration never really factored into his successful race against veteran Democratic Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski. "The issue really took a back seat to jobs, the economy and healthcare," he said in a telephone interview. Still, Barletta first came to wider fame because of his work on the immigration ordinance in the city of Hazleton, and said he was often approached by voters who favored his position.

A hard-line immigration stance has become almost standard for GOP candidates nationally, as an older generation that backed immigration reform is pushed out by conservative activists. Even though it wasn't the centerpiece of their agenda, GOP candidates weren't shy about talking about the need to secure the border or their backing of Arizona's controversial new immigration law.

The election pushed Congress sharply to the right on immigration matters. Numbers USA, which advocates tougher immigration restrictions, estimates that 40 congressional representatives and senators who favored some sort of legal residency for illegal immigrants were replaced by hardliners this election.

Some of those new Republican officeholders are themselves Latino. Raul Labrador, an immigration attorney of Puerto Rican descent, ousted Democrat Rep. Walt Minnick in Idaho while declaring in his formal immigration policy statement: "Illegal is illegal!"

Susana Martinez of New Mexico became the first Latina governor in the nation after criticizing her Democratic predecessor's decision to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Brian Sandoval won the governorship in Nevada and Marco Rubio a Senate seat in Florida. "I think what you're seeing is that there is no longer the notion that if you have a Spanish surname, you must be a Democrat," said Javier Ortiz, an Atlanta-based GOP operative who has been working to get Republican Latinos elected.

Still, polls show Latinos are fairly reliably in the Democratic column. Jill Hanauer of Project New West, which tracks Western political trends, said that Latino candidates like Martinez and Rubio are notable because they were able to oppose immigration reform in a way that did not alienate the Latino electorate. "In Nevada and Colorado, you had candidates use immigration to really motivate angry white voters," Hanauer said. The Latino Republicans "didn't go over the line." Even so, Sandoval got 33% of the Latino vote in exit polls, and Martinez 38%.

The damage the immigration issue inflicted on Western Republicans was not limited to Nevada. In California, Latinos overwhelmingly backed Democrats Jerry Brown for governor and Barbara Boxer for Senate over Republicans who struggled to sell their tough stance on illegal immigration.

In Colorado's Senate race, Republican challenger Ken Buck had a record of being aggressive in immigration enforcement as a district attorney, and he narrowly lost. Former Rep. Tom Tancredo, a vocal foe of illegal immigration, lost his bid for governor here, though he ran a quixotic third-party campaign and was never given much chance of winning.

Arizona was another story. In the epicenter of the immigration fight this year, Republicans swept statewide races and picked up two congressional seats after backing its new immigration law. Gov. Jan Brewer, who became a celebrity after signing the measure in April, coasted to reelection.

Steve Camarota at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, which advocates for tougher immigration restrictions, said that it was obvious that enforcement was more popular politically than legalization because Democrats didn't push legalization when Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D- San Francisco) was speaker of the House. "If she thought it was a political winner, don't you think she'd have brought it up?" Camarota said.

SOURCE





Republican Resurgence Likely to Derail 'Immigration Reform'

As part of an 11th-hour appeal, President Obama warned Hispanic voters last month that the fate of "comprehensive immigration reform" would hinge largely on Tuesday's midterm elections. Now that Republicans, through sweeping gains in those elections, have captured the House and diminished the Democratic majority in the Senate, the fate of that initiative is very much in doubt.

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, who is expected to become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said "immigration reform" will be pushed aside for streamlined enforcement of current laws. "The enforcement of our immigration laws is critical to both our national security and economic prosperity," he told the San Antonio Express. "We need to know who is entering our country, and why."

He told the newspaper that the committee under his leadership would "enact policies that will better secure our border and discourage illegal immigration, human smuggling and drug trafficking."

A Fox News national exit poll found that of the 8 percent of voters polled who identified illegal immigration as their top issue in the 2010 election, 68 percent were Republican while 27 percent were Democrat. Another poll, conducted on Election Day by the anti-illegal immigration group FAIR, found that 69 percent of people surveyed consider immigration an important issue and 61 percent believe Obama "has not been aggressive enough in enforcing immigration law."

FAIR is pushing the new Congress to focus on border security. "FAIR urges the leadership of the next Congress to embrace the agenda of the American people and transform our immigration policy to place their interests first," Dan Stein, president of FAIR, said. "The American people want our immigration laws enforced and overall levels of immigration reduced. They have clearly repudiated efforts to enact amnesty for millions of illegal aliens and increase foreign labor for business interests."

Republicans now have a record number of Latinos joining the next Congress, including Marco Rubio in the Senate and seven others in the House. They could prove a convincing force in the drive to shore up weak immigration laws.

Democrats tried to pounce on Republicans for their support of Arizona's controversial law that clamped down on illegal immigrants and their opposition to birthright citizenship and earned-citizenship proposals.

A week before Tuesday's election, Obama appealed to Hispanics in an interview on Univision Radio to vote for Democrats who would give him the support he needed to pass bills that overhaul the immigration system and provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in this country. "And if Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, we're going to punish our enemies and we're going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us, if they don't see that kind upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's going to be harder – and that's why I think it's so important that people focus on voting on Nov. 2," he said. Obama later said he should have used the word "opponents" instead of "enemies."

But not only did Republicans shake up Washington, they also captured a majority of governor's mansions across the country, which is also likely to affect the national debate on immigration reform.

Two Hispanic Republican-elect governors – Brian Sandoval in Nevada and Susanna Martinez in New Mexico – both will represent Southwest states, but they aren’t bowing to immigration doves.

Sandoval has said he supports Arizona's immigration law but has been told by law enforcement officials that it is not needed in Nevada, which tops the nation in unemployed and illegal workers. Martinez has vowed to start seeking to repeal a state law that allows illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses and opposes providing illegal immigrants with free tuition through taxpayer-funded lottery scholarships.

But some Democrats aren't giving up on immigration reform just yet. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid promised before his re-election victory that he would bring up the DREAM Act for a vote in the lame duck session. The measure would grant conditional legal status to some illegal immigrant students under certain conditions.

Rep. Michael Honda, D-Calif., chairman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, said he intends to introduce an immigration reform bill in the next Congress. "With Republicans now in the majority in the House of Representatives, many policies will probably change radically," he wrote in an opinion article published in the San Francisco Chronicle. "What must not change, however, is work on immigration reform."

Honda said his bill will allow all Americans to be reunited with their families, including gay couples. "The benefits of this policy cannot be overstated: American workers with their families by their side are happier, healthier and more able to succeed than those living apart from loved ones for years on end," he wrote. "This is a time when we must use every available resource to stimulate our economy and control government spending. That is why comprehensive immigration reform makes good sense."

SOURCE



6 November, 2010

DJs, Kabaddi players, comedians and models beat British government's migrant cap

Magicians, disc jockeys, waitresses, comedians and models have all benefited from a route into the UK excluded from the Government’s immigration cap.

The revelations intensified the row over the Coalition’s decision to exempt intra-company transfers from the annual cap on non-EU economic immigrants.

As the furore continues, Home Secretary Theresa May will today make her first major immigration speech. She will announce a crackdown on foreign students and a new salary limit for economic migrants.

On Wednesday it emerged that Lib Dem Business Secretary Vince Cable had successfully argued that intra-company transfer of ‘skilled workers’ from abroad was crucial to the competitiveness of British business. But internal government figures show the route has been exploited by companies seeking to bring in entertainers or – in some cases – traditionally low-paid staff.

They have included commentators, comedians, ice hockey coaches, magicians, acupuncturists, disc jockeys, models, and polo grooms and players. In recent years, businesses have even brought in waitresses from outside the EU. One source said: ‘We were told they are bringing in skilled workers. We have to be honest and say they are not all brain surgeons or rocket scientists.’

The biggest number of intra-company transfers involved IT workers – of whom more than 65,000 were allowed in between 1999 and 2008. The unemployment rate among British IT workers is around 16 per cent. In total, Labour allowed in around 350,000 people using the intra-company transfers route.

Tory MP James Clappison, who unearthed the figures, said the Coalition had to be alive to the dangers of excluding intra-company transfers from the flagship cap policy. ‘There have to be legitimate questions about the intra-company transfer system when one looks at the numbers of people, and the types of work they are doing,’ he said. ‘They are ignoring the labour market in the UK and also in the EU to bring people in from outside. One company has brought in 19,000 people.’

In her speech, Mrs May is expected to promise that the intra-company transfer system – while not part of the cap – will still be subject to a new salary limit. Companies must pay any employee they wish to bring in a minimum wage, which could be fixed at £40,000 or more.

A review of the student visa system will be announced, with the aim of slashing the 300,000 visas handed out every year.

Mrs May is also expected to promise that net migration will be halved – taking it from almost 200,000 a year to the ‘tens of thousands’.

SOURCE






Asylum-seekers are not criminals Australia's Immigration Minister tells angry residents

In that case, why does the government jail them?

Chris Bowen has rejected claims people campaigning against detention centres being built in their communities are racists. But the Immigration Minister insists asylum-seekers are safe and unlikely to escape detention and break the law.

Mr Bowen is trying to hose down community concerns after a meeting in Northam, about 100km northeast of Perth, on Thursday night in which the Department of Immigration and the local council answered questions from angry residents about the plan to house 1500 asylum-seekers in the community.

West Australian Labor senator Glenn Sterle was invited to the meeting but left when he was denied a chance to address the nearly 700-strong audience by the meeting's facilitator, former state Labor MP Gavan Troy.

Many residents raised concerns about the detention centre's impact on Northam's already strained and understaffed hospital and the contingency plans in place if there were a riot.

Senator Sterle condemned the constant "heckling and throwing of racist statements" for drowning out what were some genuine concerns about the centre. Mr Bowen said he believed in freedom of speech and people should be able to raise views.

The meeting was dominated by people voicing intense hostility to the detention centre and to asylum-seekers, with some labelling them "criminals" who could escape and attack local women.

Mr Bowen said there had been very few escapes from detention centres. "I'm not aware of any evidence that people who do escape from detention centres on very rare occasions undertake criminal acts," he said. "All the evidence shows that people while their claims are being processed conduct themselves in a perfectly appropriate way."

Liberal Premier Colin Barnett called on the Gillard government to halve the number of male asylum-seekers planned for the Northam detention centre, saying he understood the "great anxiety" expressed by furious locals. But he said T-shirts with "Bomb their boats" written on them worn by two residents at the meeting were inappropriate. He said it showed the issue needed to be handled carefully and there should have been proper prior consultation.

Northam resident Chris David yesterday claimed the meeting had been hijacked by a vocal minority bent on fearmongering. Another resident, Nigel Sutton, said he was shocked when he heard One Nation state deputy president Lyn Vickery tell the meeting asylum-seekers would "slit your throat".

SOURCE



5 November, 2010

Where is immigration reform now after the election?

To say that Democrats got their heads handed to them during the midterm elections would be putting it rather kindly; in addition to securing a whopping 690 state legislative seats, the GOP victory tally also features approximately 60 seats in the house.

Already a somewhat sobered President Barack Obama has conceded that the loss of the stronghold, which his administration enjoyed in the House, now requires a re-working of the strained working relationships between Democrats and Republicans.

This now begs the question what will happen to the much-discussed idea of immigration reform. Prior to the GOP victory, the Arizona anti-illegal immigration law was held up as a sign of all that was wrong with conservative politics. Yet Gov. Jan Brewer's re-election against the backdrop of the immigration debate cements what Congress might not have wanted to hear: Americans support legal immigrants but do not take kindly to having an administration turn a blind eye to illegal immigration.

With immigration a major talking point in numerous midterm races -- and immigration reform wisely put off until after election day 2010 -- there is little consensus as to where to go from here.

Perhaps a bit cocky in the wake of the resounding GOP victory, Republican Lamar Smith from the Texas 21st U.S. House district predicts that reform may be put off in favor of border enforcement. Staunchly opposing the administration's hints at wanting to set up a "path to citizenship" that would legalize virtually millions of illegal immigrants currently living and working in the United States, the GOP victory may point toward the road blocks that immigration reform must face at this time.

Truth be told, it is short-sighted to assume that illegal immigration will be a topic that now slinks into the background. While the victories of GOP candidates running on an anti-illegal immigration platform in general -- and Jan Brewer's gubernatorial victory in particular -- may give the impression that reform is off the table and enforcement is the call of the hour, there were plenty of candidates for whom illegal immigration was an insurmountable stumbling block. Cases in point were Sharron Angle, who failed to give Harry Reid his marching papers, and also Meg Whitman, whose ambiguous stance on the issue most likely cost her a good portion of the conservative and also independent vote.

After the new congressional members are sworn in and have picked out their drapes and rugs, it is crucial to remember that immigration reform is still every bit as much of a talking point among the electorate as it was prior to the midterm elections. If Congress and the administration fail to act on this understanding and choose to put illegal immigration on the back burner once again, the trouncing at the next presidential election may be of biblical proportions.

SOURCE






Australian government not only shelters thug illegals from justice but approves their refugee claims and releases them into the community

Given their behaviour, there is a clear likelihood that the thugs concerned are former Tamil Tiger terrorists

A Perth magistrate says the immigration department "effectively sabotaged" police investigations into a riot by detainees on Christmas Island and allowed key players to escape justice.

Magistrate Stephen Malley on Thursday also criticised federal police as he delivered his verdicts on charges against five Sri Lankan Tamil detainees following the riot at the detention centre on November 21 last year.

He said it was "bizarre" that within 48 hours of the extremely violent confrontation, the immigration department shipped off 40 detainees to the mainland, many of whom were involved in the violence. The actions of the department "effectively sabotaged" investigations into the riot by the Australian Federal Police (AFP), Mr Malley said.

The Perth Magistrates Court heard that Afghan detainees were violently set upon by Sri Lankan detainees following a dispute between the two groups. Mr Malley said rioters armed themselves with tree branches, pool cues, mop handles, chairs and parts of soccer goal posts that were dismantled during the violence.

He said that following the riot the immigration department showed "little or no regard whether those they were releasing committed serious or criminal acts". Those more seriously involved were in effect "assisted to evade prosecution", the magistrate said. The department showed "reckless disregard" for the significance of the events and had given limited assistance to the AFP, he said.

Mr Malley also said video interviews conducted by police were "poorly done and in most instances worthless" while photo boards used for identification were inadequate.

He found that staff employed by the firm Serco, charged with running the centre, were "not well trained in the manner in which to deal with these events".

Originally 11 Sri Lankans were put on trial over the riots but six had charges against them dismissed. Mr Malley said the case had been frustrating for the court given the inadequacy of the investigations and the "considerable money" invested in bringing lesser players before the courts.

The magistrate found two of the five Sri Lankans guilty on charges of rioting and weapons possession and another guilty of possessing a weapon. On the rioting charges, Pranavan Sivasubramaniyam and Anburajan Anton were given six-month jail sentences suspended for six months. They and Gnararajah Jesurajah were put on good behaviour bonds of $500 on the weapons possession charges. Anantharajeevan Thangarasha and Kokilakumar Subramanian were found not guilty on the charges against them.

The court heard the riot started in a compound at the detention centre and spread onto the sports oval. Sri Lankans, agitated over an earlier confrontation in which Tamils were injured, gathered and pursued outnumbered Afghans, bashing many of them in a "violent confrontation based on racial lines", Mr Malley found. "The evidence is of a running battle, with Afghanis retreating towards the medical compound chased by the Sri Lankan detainees."

In sentencing, Mr Malley told the convicted men they had allowed their emotions to affect their better judgment. The five Sri Lankans have been granted refugee status but have been kept in detention in Perth pending the result of their trial. They are expected to be released from detention within weeks.

SOURCE



4 November, 2010

British government vows to curb every migrant route

Immigrants face an unprecedented crackdown on every route into the UK amid a warning from MPs that the Coalition’s cap on foreign workers will make ‘little difference’.

A report claims the plan for an annual limit on non-EU work permits could reduce overall immigration levels by just one per cent. Only 20 per cent of the 500,000 migrants who come here each year will even be covered by the cap, let alone be barred, the Commons home affairs select committee says. It also claimed the cap would be damaging to British business and concluded the only way to slash net migration is to also cut the number of foreign students.

Ministers responded by saying it had always been their intention to impose restrictions on every different route migrants use to enter the UK. This will lead to huge reductions in the 300,000-plus foreign students given visas every year, and tighter controls on people coming here to marry.

Overall, the Coalition wants to at least halve net migration – the difference between the number of immigrants and those leaving – by the end of this Parliament. Currently, net migration stands at 200,000 – with the Tories planning to slash this to the ‘tens of thousands’.

Home Office minister Damian Green said: ‘We have been saying for months now we need to act on every immigration route to make the numbers sustainable.’

The select committee’s report focuses solely on the Government’s plan for an annual limit on non-EU economic migrants. An interim cap is in place, with the final number to be allowed in being fixed by April.

The interim limit was only five per cent lower than last year’s total. The MPs said that, even if visas were refused to all non-EU nationals seeking work permits, the total number of immigrants entering the UK would be reduced by ‘considerably less than 20 per cent’. They add that if the cap were implemented at the interim five per cent, the reduction would be ‘less than one per cent’.

The MPs also claim the cap will ‘damage the UK’s ability to recruit the most distinguished scientists into universities and highly talented individuals into UK companies and public services’.

In a fresh blow David Cameron’s former speechwriter Ian Birrell said the proposed cap was a political ‘gesture’. A friend of the Prime Minister, he said in an article for the London Evening Standard the Tories had come up with an ‘arbitrary cap to make it appear they had a policy on immigration’.

Mr Birrell, who has a severely disabled child, bonded with Mr Cameron over the problems suffered by his late son Ivan. In his article he warned that the care for such children could suffer. He said: ‘We should not forget the less glamorous sectors of care homes and hospitals. As the parent of a profoundly disabled child, the importance of overseas care staff cannot be overstated. ‘They are the key to survival, since few Britons are interested in the long hours and tough work of caring for chronically sick people. Already agencies are reporting problems in filling posts.’

Labour immigration spokesman Phil Woolas said the MPs’ report confirmed ‘the cap was a pre-election gimmick to con voters’.

But Government sources said a series of crackdowns would be announced in coming months. The biggest losers will be non-EU students. In the year to June this year, 362,015 foreign students were allowed to come and study in the UK, up 35 per cent on the previous year.

It could be made harder for them to do non-degree courses –90,000 are in the private sector at smaller colleges, which offer GCSEs or vocational training.

SOURCE






Locating housing for "asylum seekers" in a pretty Australian country town unwise

HOUSING asylum seekers in the idyllic South Australian town of Inverbrackie will send the wrong message to people smugglers, Tony Abbott has said.

Mr Abbott was in the Adelaide Hills on Wednesday where residents were angry at the federal government's decision to use empty defence force housing for asylum seeker families. "Just as I look at this facility, it's hard to see that bringing asylum-seeker families to a beautiful, idyllic area like this is going to send anything other than the dead wrong message to people smugglers and their customers," Mr Abbott said. "If anything it is going to add the pull factor."

Mr Abbott also met community representatives, attending a forum at Woodside organised by the Woodside Community Action Group.

His trip followed a visit from Immigration Minister Chris Bowen on Monday who has been criticised for failing to consult with South Australians before announcing 400 asylum seekers would be housed at Inverbrackie.

The Woodside action group said it represented 500 people who had a genuine entitlement to consultation on matters that directly affected their community. The group said it was concerned about the logistics of transporting 400 people in and out of the town on days of extreme fire danger during summer and was also concerned about the impact asylum seekers would have on the local health and education services.

Mr Bowen announced on Monday he had set up a community reference group to consult on the detention centre and appointed a liaison officer.

SOURCE



3 November, 2010

U.S. and Its ‘Broken’ Immigration System to Be Reviewed by U.N. Human Rights Council

The United States this week will undergo its first appraisal by the U.N. Human Rights Council, and one of the issues likely to be raised – thanks to the Obama administration – is Arizona’s new immigration law.

On Friday, representatives of HRC member states, observer countries and non-governmental organizations will evaluate the U.S. human rights record in a three-hour “interactive dialogue” at HRC headquarters in Geneva.

Known as the “universal periodic review” (UPR), the process is one every U.N. member state is expected to go through every four years.

Among the documents on the table during the evaluation will be a report by the government, presenting its assessment of the human rights situation in the U.S. Ahead of its Nov. 5 review, the State Department submitted the report to the HRC in August, and sparked a storm of controversy by including in it a reference to the Arizona legislation.

“A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world,” the report stated. “The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.”

The document went on to pledge that “President Obama remains firmly committed to fixing our broken immigration system …”

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) has tasked its European Center for Law and Justice (ECLJ) affiliate, which participates in the UPR process as an accredited NGO, to prepare a submission asking for the Arizona law reference to be disregarded during the UPR, on the grounds that it “falls outside the realm of human rights.”

“By including the Arizona immigration law in the report, the Obama Administration undercut American sovereignty, the well-established principle of federalism, and the popular will of the people,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for ACLJ and ECLJ.

The Arizona law comes before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Monday. Brewer is appealing a lower-court ruling that put on hold key provisions of the law. A decision is not expected for weeks or months.

Among issues expected to come up during the U.S. UPR on Friday, based on U.N. documents prepared for the meeting as well as questions submitted in advance by various countries, are:

-- Stateless persons

The U.N. High Commission for Refugees wants the U.S. to provide “a pathway to permanent legal status” for people inside the country who are stateless. For those who do not qualify for legal status, it recommends that administrative reforms be made to ease the restrictions placed on them. Norway plans to ask the U.S. delegation whether there is any intention to revise “the amended immigration and asylum laws.”

-- The death penalty

A number of countries raise the death penalty issue, including the Netherlands, which asks whether the U.S. would consider abolishing or declaring a moratorium on the death penalty within federal and military jurisdictions, and if not, then to “elaborate on the challenges” preventing it from doing so.

-- Treatment of detained terror suspects

Russia asks what steps are being taken against those responsible for torturing detainees at “secret prisons” and detention facilities at Bagram and Guantanamo Bay. Russia also wants to know what is being done to provide effective remedies to “civilian victims of the ‘war on terror,’ including detainees at “secret prisons” and Bagram and Guantanamo Bay. Britain asks the U.S. to outline the steps needed to ensure the final closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.

After Friday’s session, a troika of randomly-selected countries – Cameroon, France and Japan – will compile a document containing recommendations arising from the proceedings. The HRC will then “adopt” that document, at a session scheduled for Tuesday Nov. 9.

When the HRC was established in 2006 as part of a series of U.N. reforms, the UPR was held up as one of its most significant mechanisms – a means to ensure that every country, including the most egregious human rights violators, would periodically find itself in the spotlight and have to explain its policies to the rest of the international community.

In practice, however, the UPR has disappointed many human rights advocates. Countries with poor rights records, such as Iran and China, have eased through the process shrugging off criticism by Western countries and winning applause from their allies.

SOURCE






Latest from the CIS

See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.

1. The Hispanic Vote in the Upcoming 2010 Elections (Memorandum)

2. Panel: 'Hidden Cameras on the Arizona Border 2' (Video)

3. Remittance-Senders (Mostly Illegals) Ship $25 Billion a Year Out of the U.S. (Blog)

4. Hidden Good News: Both Judges and DHS (Silently) Zap Religious Worker Fraud (Blog)

5. Big Prison — Call Me! (Blog)

6. New Hispanic Poll on Immigration (Blog)

7. 'I Do' – Wink-Wink, Nudge-Nudge (Blog)

8. Shades of Richard Nixon: Obama to Latinos – 'Punish Our Enemies' (Blog)

9. Labor Department Takes Restrictionist Position, Gets Zapped by the Courts (Blog)

10. There They Go Again: Non-Citizen Voting Arguments: Round II – 'Fairness' (Blog)

11. Wonder of Wonders (Blog)

12. There They Go Again: Non-Citizen Voting Arguments: Round I (Blog)

13. Bureau of Land Management Covers Its Tracks (Blog)

14. An Immigration Policy Puzzle: Peruvians vs. Dominicans, Why So Different? (Blog)

15. Déjà Vu All Over Again: Non-Citizen Voting (Blog)

16. American Apparel Learns Breaking Immigration Law Is Bad for the Bottom Line (Blog)



2 November, 2010

New GOP class tougher on immigration?

The Republican class set to sweep into the House after Tuesday’s midterm elections could include several freshmen who have some real world experience cracking down on illegal immigration.

Candidates like Lou Barletta, mayor of Hazleton, Pa., promise to pressure Republicans already in Congress to make sure immigration doesn’t get lost among all the talk about creating jobs and otherwise bolstering the nation’s still sagging economy.

Barletta, who’s trying to unseat veteran Democratic Rep. Paul Kanjorski, got national attention with a 2006 ordinance that would revoke the licenses of businesses that employ illegal immigrants and fine landlords for renting to illegal immigrants. It was struck down in a federal court in September, though, and hasn’t been enforced.

“We can convince others, if we’re going to deal with the deficit and the budget, you can’t exclude the illegal immigration problem out of that equation because it has a direct effect on the budget,” Barletta told POLITICO. “Not dealing with it would be like having a car with three wheels.”

Then there’s State Sen. Jeff Perry, who’s running against Democrat William Keating for an open seat in a Massachusetts district that includes Cape Cod. For the past four years, Perry has introduced a bill that would ban illegal immigrants from accessing social services such as public housing.

If he wins, Perry plans to introduce federal legislation that would stop social services funding, just like the law he tried to get through in Massachusetts, and supports ideas such as a mandatory national verification program that isn’t popular with business groups and Republican House leaders.

“It impacts people who are trying to create jobs and people who are trying to find jobs,” Perry said. “We have a lot of small businesses here in this congressional district. There’s not a week that goes by that I don’t’ hear from them. They’re frustrated.”

“Especially in the blue collar trades,” he said, “they’re competing against illegal immigrants who don’t pay their taxes. They don’t play by the same rules and that needs to change.”

In Alabama, Montgomery City Council member Martha Roby, who shepherded an ordinance through the council that goes after businesses who hire illegal immigrants, has a shot at knocking off Democratic Rep. Bobby Bright.

In Florida, state Rep. Sandy Adams, who’s looking to oust Democratic Rep. Suzanne Kosmas, has repeatedly pushed legislation to stop illegal immigrants from getting drivers’ licenses or from being able to pay university tuition at in-state rates. She’s also introduced a bill to crack down on government contractors who hire illegal immigrants.

And several other candidates in Arizona and New Mexico, among other states – like Steve Pearce and Jesse Kelly – persistently have campaigned hard right on immigration.

Their support for measures that crack down on businesses could run into strong opposition from Republican congressional leaders, who avoided laying out a plan for comprehensive immigration reform in the GOP “Pledge to America.”

The national immigration debate trickled down to the state and local level in 2005 and 2006, prompting several local politicians who are now running for congressional seats to address the issue.

In 1994, few of the new Republicans had tackled immigration, and the pressure for reform came from incumbents such Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and a bipartisan congressional commission.

Should Republicans gain control of the House Tuesday, Smith and Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) would likely be leading investigations of the Obama administration’s enforcement of existing laws as the likely new chairmen of the House Judiciary Committee and its Immigration Subcommittee.

Smith has campaigned for Perry in his district, praising him for his work on immigration and saying wants to see Perry on the Judiciary Committee.

Smith and King lobbied to get leaders to promise to solve immigration earlier this year, when the party was drafting the Pledge to America, but weren’t successful. Now, they’re counting on pressure from conservative freshmen to help them bring immigration legislation to the floor. “I hope they are not easily led. I hope they are the leaders themselves,” King said.

SOURCE






Government of Canada Announces 2011 Immigration Plan

The Government of Canada will maintain high immigration levels to help sustain the economic recovery, Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney announced today upon tabling the annual immigration plan in Parliament.

It is estimated that Canada will welcome between 240,000 and 265,000 new permanent residents in 2011. Sixty percent of these immigrants will come through economic streams.

"Canada's post-recession economy demands a high level of legal immigration to keep our work force strong," he said. "At the same time, we are maintaining our commitment to family reunification and refugees."

Like many other countries with ageing populations and low birth rates, in the not too distant future Canada will not have enough people to keep our work force growing. While the majority of new entrants to our labour force will continue to come from within Canada, without immigration, the size of our work force will shrink. Within the next five years, all of our labour force growth will come from immigration.

Highlights of the 2011 immigration plan include a higher range of admissions for spouses and children in the family category. In keeping with recent reforms to Canada's refugee system, the 2011 plan also includes an additional 1,125 refugees resettled in Canada as part of the commitment to increase total refugee resettlement by 2,500 over three years. In 2008, the last year for which figures are available, Canada resettled more bona fide refugees than any country but the United States. Canada resettles over one in 10 of the world's refugees.

"These refugees are selected and screened by Canada, and come here legally," noted Minister Kenney. "We look forward to giving them a safe, new beginning."

Within the economic category, the 2011 plan balances projected admissions between federally and provincially selected workers to meet Canada's national and regional labour market needs. Provincial programs help distribute the benefits of immigrants across the entire country. Twenty-five percent of economic immigrants are now destined for provinces other than Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec, compared to 11 percent in 1997.

The Federal Skilled Worker Program remains a significant portion of the economic category. The program admits a range of workers, including technicians, skilled tradespersons, managers and professionals, who help to supplement the Canadian-born work force.

The annual immigration plan is part of Citizenship and Immigration Canada's annual report tabled in Parliament by November 1 each year.

SOURCE



1 November, 2010

Reid Promises Immigration Vote After Election

He's referring to the dreaded "lame duck" session when lots of defeated Democrats will have nothing left to lose. This announcement might help make him one of them

Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader fighting to hold his seat in Nevada, said on a taped television appearance on Sunday he planned to bring legislation that would create a path for some illegal immigrants to gain legal status to a vote in the post-election session of Congress.

The move may thrust the issue of immigration into the heart of the political debate in the hours leading to Tuesday’s midterm elections.

Mr. Reid announced his intentions on Univision’s “Al Punto,” a Spanish-language political talk show. His appearance was a pitch to Nevada’s Hispanic voters as he fights for re-election against Sharron Angle, a Tea Party-backed Republican with whom he is essentially tied in polls. Immigration is a dominant issue in the Nevada Senate race. And Hispanics, who turned out in droves to help elect President Obama in 2008, could give an edge to Mr. Reid.

The legislation, called the Dream Act, would grant conditional permanent residency to illegal immigrant students and illegal immigrants who agree to serve in the military.

“I have the right to bring that up any time I want; that’s why I brought it up the first time. I am a believer in our needing to do something,” Mr. Reid said in the interview, which was taped Thursday in Las Vegas.

Mr. Reid said he would bring the measure to the floor in the lame-duck session regardless of the election’s outcomes.

To pass, the measure would require some Republican support, which seems unlikely. A previous version of the Dream Act failed to overcome a Republican-led filibuster in the Senate in 2007. The measure was attached to a defense authorization bill in September 2010 but Republicans (with one Democrat) blocked the legislation.

“I just need a handful of Republicans, Mr. Reid said. “I would settle for two or three Republicans to join with me on the Dream Act and comprehensive immigration reform, but they have not been willing to step forward.”

Mr. Reid echoed Mr. Obama in placing part of the responsibility over a stalled overhaul of immigration laws on Senator John McCain. Mr. McCain, the Arizona Republican, had been a leading proponent of an immigration overhaul with former Democratic Senator Edward M. Kennedy.

“As a result of his unwillingness to help, we have not had a single Republican offer to help us with comprehensive immigration reform,” Mr. Reid said of Mr. McCain. “The system is broken and all they want to do is demagogue the issue.”

Recently, an ad for Ms. Angle characterized Mr. Reid as “the best friend an illegal alien ever had,” a label Mr. Reid said was “totally without fact our foundation.”

Asked about his re-election campaign, Mr. Reid said it was “doing just fine.” He added that it was “pretty clear” that Democrats would hold on to the Senate after the election.

“How many the numbers will be, we’ll have to decide that on Nov. 3, but we feel comfortable,” Mr. Reid said.

Source






'More immigrants should work for the state': German Chancellor

Angela Merkel adds to the country's roaring immigration debate

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has risked causing further outrage by saying that more immigrants should work for the state.

The country has been in the grip of a tense debate about the integration of Muslims for several weeks. Fuelled by divisive comments about Turks and Arabs by central banker Thilo Sarrazin, Germany has been debating how to balance an economic need for more workers with growing public concern over integration of immigrants.

Merkel spakred controversy earlier this month when she said that multiculturalism had 'utterly failed' in Germany. Her latest comments are now likely to cause more anger among citizens who feel alienated by the influx of immigrants to the country.

Interviewed by a 31-year-old Berlin policeman of Turkish origin for her latest internet podcast four days ahead of an integration summit at her chancellery, Merkel said: 'Today, people with a migrant background are under- represented in the public sector, and that needs to change.'

However, Merkel conceded that this was not always easy. 'I've also noticed that if someone has a name that doesn't sound German they can often have trouble being taken on at all in some professions,' she said.

Since Sarrazin inflamed opinion by asserting Turks and Arabs sponged off the state and refused to integrate, some of Merkel's conservatives become more critical of Muslims, who make up an estimated 4 million of Germany's 82 million population.

Sarrazin was sacked from the board of the Bundesbank for his comments, but his book has been flying off the shelves. Just two months after publication, it is already the best-selling political book by a German author in the country in the past decade, market research firm media control said. Since 2000, only U.S. author and filmmaker Michael Moore's 'Stupid White Men' had sold more in Germany, the firm said.

Among the conservatives to antagonise Muslims were Bavarian state premier Horst Seehofer, who called for an end to immigration from 'alien cultures'. He heads the Christian Social Union, sister party to Merkel's Christian Democrats.

The centre-left and leading business lobbies have criticised such comments, saying they could scare off skilled foreign workers needed to fill growing gaps in the workforce due to Germany's ageing and declining population.

Seehofer's comments have tapped into fears also played upon by Sarrazin that Germany is under threat from foreigners. A survey published this month by the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, a foundation linked to the centre-left Social Democrats (SPD), said 36 percent of respondents believed the country was in danger of being overrun by foreigners. More than a third of those polled also felt foreigners came to Germany only to exploit the welfare system.

A leading demography expert said Germany was now failing to attract foreign workers in the way it used to. Reiner Klingholz, director of the Berlin Institute for Population and Development, said Germany long had an annual influx of 200,000 immigrants but in the last two years had seen a net exodus of 15,000 immigrants.

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.