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



31 October, 2008

Licence scheme for foreign students in Britain

Universities and colleges will need a licence to enrol foreign students as part of plans to clamp down on illegal migration, the Home Office said. Students from outside Europe will require sponsorship from licensed institutions before they can enter the country. The measures will come in to effect in March with licences given out by the UK Border Agency. Ministers hope they will cut the number of bogus colleges set up to allow foreigners to live and work in the UK. From March students will also have to prove they have the money and qualifications to take their course under the new points-based system.

Immigration minister Phil Woolas said: "International students contribute 2.5bn pounds to the UK economy in tuition fees alone. The student tier of the points system means Britain can continue to recruit good students from outside Europe. "Those who come to Britain must play by the rules and benefit the country. This new route for students will ensure we know exactly who is coming here to study and stamp out the bogus colleges which facilitate lawbreakers."

Universities warned the information was being released too late to be included in this year's prospectus. Diana Warwick, chief executive of Universities UK said she was "very concerned" about Home Office IT system that will run with the new system. [I would be concerned too. The British government and computers don't seem to get along well at all] She said: "We remain very concerned about the IT system that will support the new arrangements. Sufficient time needs to be allowed to enable universities to provide input to the IT specification and for testing to take place, both in the UK and overseas. "Students have a short period of time in which to make their visa applications and if the IT system does not work during this window, students will miss the start of their programmes and may decide not to come to the UK."

The Liberal Democrats said the system wouldn't work unless students were counted on their way out of the country. Home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said: "Without exit checks it is impossible to know who was here, who should be here or who actually is here. Unless they are reintroduced, any changes to the immigration system will be purely cosmetic."

Source



A legal immigrant speaks out on illegal immigration

She's not very keen on illegals at all

There is a fair amount of talk about illegal immigration, but many immigrants have done things the right way, waiting their turn and going through the entire process to become an American citizen, so what's their take on the influx of illegal immigrants? Newschannel 3 spoke to a legal immigrant on Thursday.

One year ago you might have thought that the issue of immigration could tip the balance in the 2008 election, but immigration's barely been mentioned on the campaign trail.

Christina Schumacher immigrated from Burma, she's in her thirties and she's never had the right to vote, until November 4th comes along. "Polls open by 6:00, I should be there by 6:30," Schumacher said. "When I left Burma when I was 18 I couldn't really vote, but when I came to the the U.S. I wasn't ready to be an American citizen but I couldn't vote in the last few elections." Schumacher is an immigrant from a war-torn country, she came here for a better opportunity when she was 18, and she says she didn't have to sneak in. "I feel very serious about being in this country, be able to vote, becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen, I can say it loud now that this is my country," Schumacher said.

Schumacher went through the long and expensive immigration process, being sponsored by her mother who came to the United States sponsored by her relatives. "Processing for the immigration part, it was quite a long period, but at the same time it's worth it, and quite expensive as well," said Schumacher.

Schumacher is a legal immigrant outraged that an estimated 12 million immigrants have come into this country illegally. "It's just a matter of time, they can get into the country legally," Schumacher said. "I don't support the illegal crossing the border or jumping out of the ship system, it's not right for residents here in the United States."

Illegal immigration is an issue that very likely will not go away, and a new president may have to deal with a new problem, one of increasing pressure to get something done as a weakening economy is making Americans feel uncomfortable about welcoming new people into the country. Whether a guest worker program is put in place or illegal immigrants receive recognition is anyones guess.

Schumacher says she's ready to vote for the first time in this country, but she's still undecided which candidate is best. "I just want to make sure the government will be fair to the people of the United States and also welcoming the new immigrants in a legal way, the right way," Schumacher said. Experts say both candidates will likely be pro-immigration presidents with differences about how low-wage workers should be treated.

Source





30 October, 2008

Quebec demands immigrants sign-off on 'shared values'

Future immigrants to Quebec will be required to sign a declaration promising to learn French and respect Quebec's "shared values," the government announced on Wednesday. In a document with echoes of the controversial code adopted last year by the rural town of Herouxville, immigrants will be informed that Quebec is a democracy where men and women are equal and violence is prohibited. "Quebecers have said yes to immigration, but they said yes to immigration on the condition that these immigrants integrate into our society," Immigration Minister Yolande James said as she announced the policy, which takes effect in January. She added that immigrating to Quebec "is a privilege not a right."

With Liberal Premier Jean Charest expected to call an election next week, critics denounced the initiative as an attempt to undermine the opposition Action Democratique du Quebec and Parti Quebecois, which have both made defence of "the Quebec identity" a battle cry. "There is a political calculation here that the Liberals want to make sure they have arguments to get PQ and ADQ support," said Daniel Weinstock, a professor of philosophy at Université de Montréal. It is aimed at voters in the Quebec hinterland who approved of Hérouxville's initiative, which among other things informed newcomers to the town northeast of Montreal that it is prohibited in Canada to stone women or throw acid on them.

While the content of the Quebec government declaration is banal enough to be rendered meaningless, Mr. Weinstock said, it sends a negative message to newcomers. "It's as if the Jews, the Muslims, the whatever who come here are all indisposed to the equality of men and women, and we have to tell them what's what," he said. "It's cheap symbolism, and I can't express how depressed it makes me."

The shared values spelled out in the declaration are: Quebec is a free and democratic society; church and state are separate; Quebec is a pluralist society based on the rule of law; men and women have equal rights; and rights and freedoms are exercised while respecting those of others and the general well-being. It also stresses that French is the official language of Quebec, as laid out in Bill 101. Signatories will declare their intention to learn French if they do not already speak it.

The Immigration Department plans to bombard potential and new immigrants with messages stressing Quebec values. There will be a section on values added to the immigration forms filled out overseas and an explanatory pamphlet will be distributed. Immigrants will also receive a DVD on shared values and be directed toward a new Web site whose name translates as "shared values of Quebec." Information sessions on shared values will be offered to immigrants after they arrive. "Once our new Quebecer has got off the plane at the airport, she will follow a course on how to live in Quebec, how things work here, what the socio-economic realities are," Ms. James explained.

Victor Armony, professor of sociology at Universite du Quebec a Montreal, said he is disgusted by the government's approach. Many immigrants to Quebec are successful businesspeople or professionals in their native countries. "They don't need Quebec society to patronize them," he said. He immigrated from Argentina in 1989. "When I came here, I valued democracy perhaps more than many Canadians, because I grew up in a dictatorship," he said.

Mr. Charest first raised the notion of forcing immigrants to sign a declaration last May when the Bouchard-Taylor commission released its report on reasonable accommodation. The issue of integrating cultural and religious minorities had been an emotional topic in Quebec since late 2006, and it gave the ADQ a boost in the March 2007 election. After a year of research and public hearings, the commissioners did not recommend such a declaration for immigrants.

Source



UK immigration reforms make visas easier to get for Australians

Young Australians wanting to work in the United Kingdom should find it easier under new visa rules being introduced by the British government. Britain is revamping its working holiday visa scheme to allow 18-to-30-year-old Australians to find jobs in their chosen profession for a full two years. They will also for the first time be able to line up jobs to go to in Britain before leaving Australia. Under the old scheme, Australians faced a host of restrictions before being granted a working holiday visa, including how long they could stay in the one job.

British high commissioner to Australia Helen Liddell said the changes would make working in the UK even more attractive for Australians. "Some of the old restrictions are going and the visas will be cheaper by half,'' she said. "Britain's immigration system rewards those who come, work hard, bring their skills and strengthen cultural ties and Australians fit the bill very well.''

The new youth mobility visa scheme will come into force on November 27 and cost STG99 ($255.85), down from STG200 ($516.86) price of the working holiday visa. Those applying for the new visa will also have to show they have the equivalent of STG1,600 ($4,134.9) to cover living expenses for the first few weeks in the UK. Australia is one of just four countries Britain is allowing to take part in the new visa scheme. The others are New Zealand, Canada and Japan.

During the last financial year, the British High Commission in Canberra issued 15,204 working holiday visas to Australians. "Because of the changes, we wouldn't be surprised if those numbers increase next year,'' a British High Commission spokesman said. The changes are part of wide-ranging alterations Britain has been making to its immigration policies, including introducing an Australian-style points system for would-be migrants.

Source





29 October, 2008

ACLU on the side of the crooks again

A U.S. citizen held at a border immigration center for 15 days has been released after an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer showed a birth certificate to federal authorities.

Guillermo Olivares Romero, who has robbery and forgery convictions and has been deported twice, was taken into custody at San Diego's Otay Mesa detention center on Sept. 25. The 25-year-old Los Angeles man was released Oct. 9 when an ACLU attorney presented birth, school and vaccination records. Olivares told the Los Angeles Times immigration authorities don't believe him when he shows his birth certificate.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Virginia Kice says Olivares has claimed in the past that he was born in Guadalajara, Mexico, and his criminal record shows he was born in Mexico.

Source



Trial run of huge new immigration database

The Harris County [Texas] Sheriff's Office today became the first local law enforcement agency in the nation to test an automated fingerprint check system that gives jailers full access to suspects' immigration history, officials said. The new program provides a seamless and simultaneous check of immigration and criminal history by linking the FBI's database with the Department of Homeland Security's database, known as IDENT (the Automated Biometric Identification System), officials said Monday.

Gregory Palmore, a spokesman with Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Houston, said the Sheriff's Office was selected to lead the pilot program in part because Houston has "one of the largest criminal alien populations in the United States." In February 2007, Harris County was selected as one of a handful of law enforcement agencies to test a more limited version of the integrated databases. That earlier version of the database contained records from ICE and information on people rejected for visas by the Department of State based on specific criteria.

Under the new system, Harris County jailers will have full access to millions of immigration records in the IDENT database, Palmore said. When a suspect is booked into the Harris County Jail, his fingerprints will be checked against the FBI system and the immigration database simultaneously.

Palmore said the Sheriff's Office will not require additional training to run the checks through IDENT since the process is automated. Any "hits" for non-citizens will be referred to ICE's Law Enforcement Support Center for more investigation, officials said.

Palmore said improving the link between the two databases is part of ICE's Secure Communities program, which aims to identify and remove immigrants convicted of crimes. ICE estimates that it screens foreign-born inmates in only about 10 percent of the nation's estimated 3,100 jails. ICE estimated that to identify and remove the most serious criminals - those convicted of crimes including murder, rape and drug trafficking - would take at least 3 1/2 years and cost up to $1 billion.

In August, nine Harris County jailers participated in ICE's 287 (g) program, which trains local law enforcement to help identify illegal immigrants. Through that program, the trained jailers already had the ability to check the DHS databases, but had to run fingerprints separately through the FBI and immigration systems.

Now, instead of checking only people referred to jailers with specialized immigration training or ICE agents, all inmates will be run against the database, officials said. "We have a full-court press on to make sure these violent criminal aliens don't step back into the community because we miss them in our identification process," said David Venturella, the executive director of ICE's Secure Communities program.

In a statement, Harris County Sheriff Tommy Thomas called illegal immigration "a complex issue," adding that "the best solutions to complex issues are found when law enforcement agencies at all levels work together, in cooperation with the community."

Source



28 October, 2008

Barletta back in court this week

A federal appeal for a 2006 case that put Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta in the spotlight will be held five days before he faces U.S. Rep. Paul Kanjorski in their race for Congress. Two years ago, Barletta gained national attention by supporting Hazleton's Illegal Immigration Relief Act. The law never took effect, and a federal judge in Scranton overturned it last summer. The U.S. Circuit Court in Philadelphia plans to hear an appeal in the case at 1:30 p.m. Thursday.

During the appeal, three judges selected by computer will listen to arguments and ask questions of attorneys representing the city and the law's opponents, led by the American Civil Liberties Union. Each side will have 30 minutes to present a case, and the judges aren't expected to decide the appeal for months.

Still, the hearing might revive an issue that initially attracted voters to Barletta. "It will allow Mayor Barletta to demonstrate yet again that he has been fighting for the people of Hazleton and by extension for the people of the district," political science Professor Thomas Baldino of Wilkes University, Wilkes-Barre, said. "Where there has been a lapse on the part of the federal government to take steps to remediate the problem, he took the initiative, passed the ordinance in Hazleton. It is his strongest issue."

In their stances on immigration, little separates Barletta, a Republican, from Kanjorski, a Democrat, who represented the 11th District in Congress for 24 years. Both favor strong enforcement of the nation's borders and sanctions for hiring illegal immigrants. They oppose amnesty for people who are in the country illegally.

Immigration, barely mentioned in the presidential campaign, factors significantly in the Kanjorski-Barletta race. In mid-September, 17 percent of voters said immigration was the most important issue driving their vote, according to a poll by the Center for Opinion Research and Floyd Institute for Public Policy at Franklin & Marshall College, Lancaster. "I was shocked that it polled as high as it did," said G. Terry Madonna, director of the center at Franklin & Marshall. In polls of other districts, immigration only hits single digits, Madonna said.

Immigration did drop in importance by the Oct. 15 poll when 12 percent of voters said it was driving their vote. Barletta's lead over Kanjorski fell to 5 percent from 9 percent between the two polls. Of those who say immigration drives their vote, 81 percent favored Barletta in the October poll.

Barletta said immigration isn't the most important issue in the race, but he thinks the way he responded to the issue gained him support. "That's why I believe I'm winning this election right now. It's not because of illegal immigration. It's because people see someone who had the courage and the guts to stand up and do something that was affecting his community," he said to the editorial boards of the Standard-Speaker and The Citizen's Voice, Wilkes-Barre, on Oct. 16.

Kanjorski, writing in the two newspapers on Oct. 19, said illegal immigration depresses wages and threatens national security. "Last November, I helped introduce the SAVE Act, which aims to halt illegal immigration in the United States through stronger worker verification. If enacted, this bill would mandate that employers check the status of potential employees through an online E-Verification system that would quickly assess a potential employee's eligibility to work in the United States," he wrote.

Hazleton's proposed Illegal Immigration Relief Act also would have made use of the system for verifying the immigration status of job applicants. Companies that hired illegal immigrants would have risked losing their Hazleton business licenses under the act. Landlords would have faced fines in Hazleton if they rented to illegal immigrants.

Dr. Agapito Lopez testified against the act during the federal trial in Scranton in March 2007 and said last week that Barletta used the act as a platform in his contest against Kanjorski. Lopez dislikes the law, in part, because it blurs the distinction between illegal immigrants and Latinos. "Undocumented immigrants are not the same as Latinos because there are Latinos doing some positive things in this town. Latinos have the same worries . We have common ground in trying to improve our houses, trying to improve security," Lopez said.

Groups that filed friend of the court briefs said they oppose Hazleton's law because it shows hatred toward immigrant groups, Wilkes Professor Kyle Kreider said. By enacting the law, Hazleton fell into conflict with court decisions that say only the federal government - not states, cities or counties - can regulate immigration, said Kreider, a political science professor who specializes in constitutional law. "There has been a long-standing tradition of courts striking down local ordinances, especially, but also state laws regarding immigration," he said.

Two recent decisions counter the trend. Federal circuit courts upheld an Arizona state law and a law in Valley Park, Mo. that punish businesses for hiring illegal immigrants. A federal judge last month issued a temporary restraining order against a law in Farmers Branch, Texas that restricted the lease of housing to illegal immigrants.

In the Hazleton appeal, Kreider thinks judges will concentrate questions about whether the law regulates immigration. He expects Hazleton will argue, instead, that the law regulates housing and businesses licenses, which cities have authority to do. In general, federal appeals courts only overturn rulings 12 percent of the time, Kreider said, "so statistically, it's not in Hazleton's favor."

Source



Palin cautious on immigration

In her first interview with the Spanish-language media, Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin answered questions about immigration for the first time. It's a subject the Alaska governor has never mentioned before. But listening to what she said didn't clarify much. Her answers were very cautious and were designed, like those of McCain, to take a middle road that leaves their specific immigration reform policy unclear.

Palin told Univision's Jorge Ramos that it would be impossible to deport 12 million undocumented immigrants, saying that "not only economically is that just an impossibility but that's not a humane way anyway to deal with the issue that we face with illegal immigration."

Asked whether she would support an "amnesty," she said, "Not total amnesty. You know, people have got to follow the rules. They've got to follow the bar, and we have got to make sure that there is equal opportunity and those who are here legally should be first in line for services being provided and those opportunities that this great country provides."

In another part of the interview, however, Palin said that she supports a path to citizenship for the undocumented. "I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here. It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country."

Palin lamented the fact that the raids separate parents and children but said she would not dare to say that the raids should be stopped. Rather, she said, it is best to review them on case by case basis and consider the ramifications of every action.

Given these responses, it is unclear whether Palin favors immigration reform, and how she would resolve the issue of the undocumented by first dealing with those who are here legally, since one issue has nothing to do with the other. I assume she meant those who are waiting to migrate legally, but I don't think her message came across clearly.

She did take a clear stand on the subject of driver's licenses for the undocumented, with a clear NO, which is similar to John McCain's position. McCain, curiously, has not used this issue against Barack Obama -- who did support licenses -- as other Republicans surely would have.

Source





27 October, 2008

Restaurant owner prison-bound in immigration case

It does happen -- sometimes

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - A Macoupin (muh-KOO'-pin) County restaurant owner who pleaded guilty to federal charges that he employed illegal immigrants is headed to prison. A federal judge in Springfield sentenced 34-year-old Besim Tabaku (bess-SEEM' tah-BAH'-coo) to a five-month sentence and $27,000 in fines.

Tabaku pleaded guilty in August to unlawfully employing undocumented workers found at his Toni's Family Restaurant in Mount Clare in May. The workers were paid in cash and lived at a home Tabaku owned.

All of the workers were later deported to Mexico. Tabaku told the judge he had come to the U.S. in 1999 as a political asylum seeker from Albania.

Source

Albanians do seem to be big on crookedness. In Australia at one time they were big on welfare fraud and crashing cars for the insurance money. Yes. I know that Mother Teresa was an Albanian. But I won't go into that here. Hitchens is a good start for those of a critical mind, however.



Ruben Navarette: McCain has long supported Latinos

Recently, I was on a Latino-themed radio show defending John McCain. The defendant was accused of abandoning comprehensive immigration reform, turning his back on Latino supporters, and associating with a bad crowd (read: Republicans). I didn't give an inch. I was the only person in the discussion who actually knew McCain - from my stint 10 years ago as a reporter at a newspaper in Arizona - and I could attest to the fact that the senator had always gone to bat for Latinos. At one point, another guest scolded me in frustration: "Look, it's not about John McCain. It's about the Republican Party!" Exactly.

McCain can defend himself. During a telephone interview the other day as he was traveling between campaign stops in Pennsylvania, he told me that he hopes Latinos will judge him on his own merits and not punish him for the sins of his party, which he readily acknowledges. "During the immigration debate," he said, "it's very clear that a lot of the language and rhetoric that was used (by Republicans) made Latino citizens believe that we were anti-Latino."

One of the chief culprits was Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado. I asked McCain if there was any truth to the story that Tancredo, who ran for the Republican nomination, taunted him during the primaries by implying that McCain was pandering to Latinos. "Yeah," McCain said, "we were in a restaurant and he just sent over a plate of nachos. What do you say to something like that? I just said, `Thanks very much."' McCain puts these things in context. "Throughout our history, we have had people who stoked nativist instincts," he said.

Still, McCain's following among Latinos is evaporating. A poll by Zogby International found that 21 percent of Latinos support McCain, compared to 70 percent for Barack Obama; the Pew Hispanic Center ranked it 23percent McCain and 66 percent Obama.

I asked McCain what in the world is going on. He blamed part of it on "heavy negative advertising" by his opponent. "(Obama) has portrayed my position on the immigration issue as completely false," McCain said, "when he supported and proposed amendments to kill a temporary-worker program at the bidding of the union leaders."

McCain hopes Latino voters focus on his support for small business, his pro-life position and his support of the military. And, of course, his record. In his 2004 Senate re-election, McCain earned more than 70 percent of the Latino vote. The National Council of La Raza has an award it gives to elected officials who show courage in defense of the Latino community. McCain has won it twice.

Meanwhile, the comprehensive immigration reform bill that McCain co-sponsored with Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy was attacked by members of his own party as "amnesty" for illegal immigrants. When I asked what he says to those who accuse him of flip-flopping on comprehensive reform in settling for an enforcement-only approach, I caught a glimpse of the famous McCain temper. "I say `Stop!' We failed twice, despite efforts of weeks on the floor of the Senate, on a bipartisan basis with incredible support," he said. "Americans want the border secured. So is that a flip-flop when you fail twice after weeks of debate and discussion and being harmed dramatically in my chances to gain the nomination of my party? It's baloney!"

Still, McCain pledged that comprehensive immigration reform would be something he would tackle in the first 100 days of his presidency. "Whether I have to go back to the United States Senate, which I don't believe I will, or go to the presidency, the whole issue of comprehensive immigration reform will be among my highest priorities," McCain said, "because we have to address this issue."

The candidate, reflecting on the support he has traditionally enjoyed with Latino voters, called it an honor to represent "so many patriotic and great, wonderful Americans who are the heart and soul of the country." "I'm confident that, as many more of those Latino voters focus in the next 14 days, we'll do well," he said.

Finally, I asked McCain if he had a message for those Latinos who have long been in his corner, as he has been in theirs. He simply expressed his hope that "they'll just examine my record and my knowledge and my background and the judgments that I have made." Whatever happens, he said, "I will respect their decision." For many years, and before it was popular, John McCain has stood beside the Latino community. Now it has a chance to return the favor.

Source





26 October, 2008

British immigration boss too outspoken

Phil Woolas, the immigration minister, was pulled from last night's BBC Question Time on the instruction of the home secretary after a series of controversial public performances in the past week. Jacqui Smith said Woolas should delay his appearance for a week and Labour tried to replace him with the former Home Office minister Tony McNulty. Smith thought Woolas had made enough controversial remarks, with some Home Office officials briefing he was gaffe prone. The BBC rejected the party's suggestion and asked Lord Hattersley, the former deputy leader of the party, to appear.

Being pulled has been difficult for Woolas, who feels he is being briefed against by Home Office officials angry at what they regard as his unwise remarks on immigration and criticism of previous Home Office practice. However, he is being allowed to appear on the World at One today and he is gathering support from Labour MPs who believe he is taking the right approach.

Woolas was appointed in the reshuffle by Gordon Brown to speak about immigration in ways in which the public could relate. But it has not been clear whether his appointment is bringing a change in policy or merely in rhetoric from his predecessor, Liam Byrne.

There are indications that Smith is considering tightening immigration policy. She told MPs this week: "Our proposals on earned citizenship mean that migrants understand very clearly that permission to come here to work or study does not give them the right to settle here indefinitely".

Labour MP Frank Field, in a joint paper with Tory MP Nicholas Soames, has proposed those granted permission to work in Britain through the new points system would be allowed to stay for four years and thereafter be expected to leave, or undertake a test to see if their skills are needed.

Field, in a letter sent to MPs reporting on his meeting with Smith last week, claims: "The home secretary questioned whether we were being robust enough in our criteria for allowing people to come here to work for up to four years."

Source



British migrant row: Minister hit by pie

The usual Leftist love of coercion



Immigration minister Phil Woolas has become the victim of a pie-throwing protester, angry at his call to limit UK immigration. A member of the No Borders group threw a cream pie into the minister's face while he was speaking at a debate at Manchester University. A spokeswoman for the group said Mr Woolas had been "spouting right-wing anti-immigration policies". A Home Office spokeswoman said the minister declined to comment.

The No Borders group, which campaigns against immigration controls, were angered by Mr Woolas' recent remarks, in which he said the government would not allow the UK's population to rise as high as 70 million.

The Oldham East and Saddleworth MP denied that he wanted a "numerical cap" on immigration. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith later said Mr Woolas had not been "gagged" after her department pulled him from BBC One's Question Time.

Mr Woolas was targeted when he attended an environmental debate held at Manchester University student union on Friday afternoon. As he arrived the minister was confronted with a mock "border control" and was asked for his passport. Then, shortly after he began to speak, a woman rose from the audience and threw a pie, believed to be made of Bourbon Creams biscuits and vegan cream, into his face at close range.

A spokeswoman for No Borders said: "The woman ran away. Mr Woolas was shocked and there was a bit of an awkward silence as he left the room to clean himself up. "We threw the pie because we didn't want to engage in debate [No surprise there] and legitimise what he was saying. "What he was spouting were right wing anti-immigration policies. The danger is that people like him are making such views mainstream."

Mr Woolas was unharmed and later rejoined the debate. It is not known whether he was accompanied by any security at the time of the incident.

Source





26 October, 2008

British immigration boss too outspoken

Phil Woolas, the immigration minister, was pulled from last night's BBC Question Time on the instruction of the home secretary after a series of controversial public performances in the past week. Jacqui Smith said Woolas should delay his appearance for a week and Labour tried to replace him with the former Home Office minister Tony McNulty. Smith thought Woolas had made enough controversial remarks, with some Home Office officials briefing he was gaffe prone. The BBC rejected the party's suggestion and asked Lord Hattersley, the former deputy leader of the party, to appear.

Being pulled has been difficult for Woolas, who feels he is being briefed against by Home Office officials angry at what they regard as his unwise remarks on immigration and criticism of previous Home Office practice. However, he is being allowed to appear on the World at One today and he is gathering support from Labour MPs who believe he is taking the right approach.

Woolas was appointed in the reshuffle by Gordon Brown to speak about immigration in ways in which the public could relate. But it has not been clear whether his appointment is bringing a change in policy or merely in rhetoric from his predecessor, Liam Byrne.

There are indications that Smith is considering tightening immigration policy. She told MPs this week: "Our proposals on earned citizenship mean that migrants understand very clearly that permission to come here to work or study does not give them the right to settle here indefinitely".

Labour MP Frank Field, in a joint paper with Tory MP Nicholas Soames, has proposed those granted permission to work in Britain through the new points system would be allowed to stay for four years and thereafter be expected to leave, or undertake a test to see if their skills are needed.

Field, in a letter sent to MPs reporting on his meeting with Smith last week, claims: "The home secretary questioned whether we were being robust enough in our criteria for allowing people to come here to work for up to four years."

Source



British migrant row: Minister hit by pie

The usual Leftist love of coercion



Immigration minister Phil Woolas has become the victim of a pie-throwing protester, angry at his call to limit UK immigration. A member of the No Borders group threw a cream pie into the minister's face while he was speaking at a debate at Manchester University. A spokeswoman for the group said Mr Woolas had been "spouting right-wing anti-immigration policies". A Home Office spokeswoman said the minister declined to comment.

The No Borders group, which campaigns against immigration controls, were angered by Mr Woolas' recent remarks, in which he said the government would not allow the UK's population to rise as high as 70 million.

The Oldham East and Saddleworth MP denied that he wanted a "numerical cap" on immigration. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith later said Mr Woolas had not been "gagged" after her department pulled him from BBC One's Question Time.

Mr Woolas was targeted when he attended an environmental debate held at Manchester University student union on Friday afternoon. As he arrived the minister was confronted with a mock "border control" and was asked for his passport. Then, shortly after he began to speak, a woman rose from the audience and threw a pie, believed to be made of Bourbon Creams biscuits and vegan cream, into his face at close range.

A spokeswoman for No Borders said: "The woman ran away. Mr Woolas was shocked and there was a bit of an awkward silence as he left the room to clean himself up. "We threw the pie because we didn't want to engage in debate [No surprise there] and legitimise what he was saying. "What he was spouting were right wing anti-immigration policies. The danger is that people like him are making such views mainstream."

Mr Woolas was unharmed and later rejoined the debate. It is not known whether he was accompanied by any security at the time of the incident.

Source





25 October, 2008

Illegal Immigration Costs Georgia $1.6 Billion Annually, Finds New Report by FAIR

A new report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) demonstrates why Georgia has taken a lead in adopting state-based policies to control the costs of illegal immigration. According to the new study, The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Georgians, the state currently spends about $1.6 billion a year to provide three basic services to illegal aliens and their dependents -- K-12 education, public health care, and incarceration of criminals. These costs associated with the estimated 495,000 illegal aliens residing in the state amount to a $523 a year burden for every Georgia household headed by a native-born American.

K-12 education for the children of illegal aliens constitutes the largest share of the Georgia's cost burden, finds the report. The annual price tag for schooling an estimated 64,100 children who are themselves illegal aliens, and an estimated 89,700 U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, runs to about $1.38 billion. Unreimbursed health care costs add an additional $210 million to the taxpayers' tab, while another $22.6 million is spent incarcerating illegal aliens who have committed other crimes in Georgia. All of these costs compound an already difficult fiscal situation, as state officials estimate a current budget shortfall of about $2 billion.

"At a time when governments at every level are struggling with huge deficits, slashing vital programs and services, and US-workers are losing their jobs, we see repeated examples of how illegal immigration is adding to already significant fiscal worries," said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "As Georgia businesses have padded their profit margins in recent years by using illegal aliens to undercut American workers, the true costs for this low wage labor force have been passed along to the taxpayers."

In response to the spiraling costs associated with illegal immigration, Georgia adopted workable state-based enforcement policies in 2007, which have begun to have a positive impact. "Georgia provides a case study in how a state can respond effectively to crushing cost burdens associated with illegal immigration, and provides a model for other state governments," said Stein.

The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Georgians is the latest in a series of studies FAIR has produced examining the impact of illegal immigration on state governments and local taxpayers. "Until fairly recently, regions like the South had been largely unaffected by the phenomenon of mass illegal immigration. The findings of this report, that illegal immigration now costs Georgia $1.6 billion a year, is evidence that mass illegal immigration is truly a national problem that demands real enforcement solutions at the federal, state and local level," concluded Stein.

The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Georgians is available on FAIR's website, www.fairus.org.

Source



Chertoff to pursue changes in hiring rules

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Thursday he'll try again to overcome a judge's objections to a proposal to force employers to get rid of workers whose Social Security numbers don't match their names. The proposal has been stymied for months by a U.S. district judge in California who blocked the rule after several groups sued. Chertoff said his agency has addressed the judge's concerns with some additions to the proposal, including providing an analysis of the economic costs of the rule.

Chertoff said he expects continued opposition from the groups who sued, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "Groups like the Chamber of Commerce have told us, they haven't been coy about it ... there are many businesses that rely on illegal migration in order to carry out their activities and it would hurt them if they had to carry out the rule," Chertoff said. "In my experience, making money is not a sufficient justification for violating the rule since most people break the rule in order to make money."

Chertoff spoke at a news conference held to list his agency's immigration enforcement achievements. He said the stepped-up enforcement has helped stall illegal immigration and possibly decrease it. But to control illegal immigration for the long term, enforcement must be part of comprehensive immigration reform, he said.

Angelo Amador, the chamber's director of immigration policy, dismissed Chertoff's comment, saying the need for illegal workers is not an argument in the lawsuit. "The bottom line is this case has never been about illegal workers, it has been about the cost of a badly thought out rule and the cost on legitimate businesses following all the rules and complying with it," Amador said. He said the department's own analysis, which it was forced to do after the judge blocked the rule, shows that 37,000 to 165,000 legitimate workers would not be able to work because of the rule.

The Social Security administration regularly sends "no match" letters to employers when a Social Security number provided by an employee does not match the name of the employee in their database. The problem can be a clerical error, perhaps the failure of a woman to update her last name after she marries or some other issue. But the no match also is used to identify workers who may be using someone else's Social Security number or a fake number.

The administration's plan is to penalize employers who do not fire workers unable to resolve the no match. "There are many instances where the reason for a no match is we have an unauthorized worker using phony documentation," Chertoff said. "What the regulation originally proposed is, in that instance, an employer cannot simply put his or her head in the sand, but must take steps to make sure they are brought into compliance."

But groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, AFL-CIO, National Immigration Law Center and the chamber say the plan could lead to discrimination, racial profiling and illegal firing of legitimate workers in the same way babies and Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., mistakenly ended up on the government's "no fly list."

Amador said the administration's requirement that employers fire workers with a no match does not protect them from prosecution for civil rights violations. "Instead of fixing the database, the Bush administration has turned a blind eye to reality by using the same fatally flawed information that will punish American workers and businesses in the middle of an economic meltdown," said Lucas Guttentag, the ACLU's immigration rights project director.

Source





24 October, 2008

SF "Sanctuary" policy ruled illegal

City Must Follow State Law Requiring Police Officers to Report Suspected Aliens Arrested on Drug Charges to Feds

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that the First District Court of Appeal for the State of California has ruled in a Judicial Watch taxpayer lawsuit that the San Francisco Police Department must comply with a state law requiring police officers to notify federal authorities when they arrest a person for various narcotics offenses whom they suspect to be an alien, legal or illegal [Fonseca v. Fong, Case No. A120206].

The appellate court reversed a lower court ruling that the SFPD was not required to obey the law because the law in question, Section 11369 of the California Health and Safety Code, invaded the federal government's exclusive power to regulate immigration. Rejecting this argument, the appellate court remanded the case back to the trial court to determine if the SFPD's policies comply with Section 11369. According to the appellate court ruling issued on October 22, 2008:

...Section 11369 does not require any state or local law enforcement agency to independently determine whether an arrestee is a citizen of the United States, let alone whether he or she is present in the United States lawfully or unlawfully. Nor does the statute create or authorize the creation of independent criteria by which to classify individuals based on immigration status... All of those determinations, as well as the duty to tell an arrestee who may be in this country unlawfully to either obtain legal status or leave, are left entirely to federal immigration authorities...the statute is therefore not an impermissible state regulation of immigration.

As a result of the appellate ruling, San Francisco must now end its sanctuary policy that protects aliens arrested for certain drug offenses from being reported to ICE.

Section 11369 of the Health and Safety Code (Section 11369) states: "[w]hen there is reason to believe that any person arrested for a violation [of any of 14 specified drug offenses] may not be a citizen of the United States, the arresting agency shall notify the appropriate agency of the United States having charge of deportation matters." However, as Judicial Watch argued on behalf of its taxpayer client, Charles Fonseca, the SFPD prohibited police officers from complying with this law. As evidence of the SFPD's illegal behavior, Judicial Watch quoted a statement from the San Francisco Field Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that noted a "bare minimum of cooperation" between administrators of the San Francisco County Jail and ICE.

"This landmark ruling strikes at the heart of the sanctuary movement for illegal aliens. San Francisco and other sanctuary cities are not above the law. This court ruling exposes the lie behind the argument that state and local law enforcement cannot help enforce immigration laws," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

To read the court ruling and to find out more about Judicial Watch's nationwide campaign against illegal alien sanctuary policies, visit www.judicialwatch.org.

Source



If only America had control of its borders, this would not have happened

Federal immigration officials are wondering how a man involved in a subway shootout with police officers had re-entered the U.S. after being deported a decade ago after a drug arrest. The man, Raul Nunez, illegally used a student's fare payment card to enter a subway station during Tuesday evening's rush hour, police said. Two plainclothes transit officers tried to arrest him, and in a struggle he grabbed one of their guns and shot them, police said. Nunez, who is from the Dominican Republic, reportedly told authorities he resisted because he was afraid he'd be deported again if he were arrested.

Nunez, 32, was deported June 24, 1998, by an immigration judge after a drug arrest in New York. He was charged in Manhattan with selling cocaine to an undercover officer in 1997. He also had a drug conviction in 1996. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents say they're not sure when he re-entered the country.

Officer Shane Farina, who was shot near his sternum and suffered a fractured rib, remained in critical but stable condition Wednesday after undergoing surgery. Officer Jason Maass, who was shot in the lower back, was released early Wednesday from a hospital. Both officers were wearing bulletproof vests, police said. Farina, 38, joined the police department four years ago. Maass, 28, has been an officer with the department since 2006.

Nunez was shot twice in the left leg and once in the torso and right leg by a nearby police lieutenant as he tried to run away, police said. He was hospitalized under police custody. It wasn't immediately clear what his condition was Wednesday. He is awaiting arraignment on charges of attempted murder. Federal immigration officials said Nunez also faces a charge of re-entering the country after deportation. Nunez would face 25 years to life in prison and deportation if convicted.

Source





23 October, 2008

Immigration to Britain continues unabated amid financial crisis

The growth of immigrant workers holding jobs in Britain has not been halted by the economic slowdown, according to official figures

The number of foreign workers rose by 10,000 between April and June according to the Department for Work and Pensions, despite a fall in the total UK workforce of 15,000 over the same period. The rise took place despite a new points-based immigration system, introduced at the beginning of March, which was supposed to make it harder for foreign nationals from outside the EU to obtain work permits. More than half of foreign workers have been given permission from the government because they are from outside the EU.

Tory MP James Clappison, a member of the Commons home affairs committee, said: "This is in no small part down to Labour's work permit policy."

A Home Office spokesman said: "Government and independent research continues to find no significant evidence of negative employment effects from migration. "The points system, plus our plans for newcomers to earn their citizenship, will reduce overall numbers of economic migrants and the numbers awarded permanent settlement. "It also ensures British jobseekers get the first crack of the whip and only those foreign workers we need - and no more - will be able to come to the UK."

The figures emerged as former minister Frank Field highlighted the issue in the House of Commons, claiming more than 20,000 new National Insurance numbers were issued to foreign nationals last year in the London borough housing the 2012 Olympic Village. He said: "When is the Government going to try and deliver on the Prime Minister's promise of British jobs for British workers?"

Source



Australian immigration boss flags lower migrant intake

The global financial crisis looks set to result in a cut to Australia's migrant intake, with the Rudd Government hinting strongly it will reduce next year's quota amid fears the economy will slow. Immigration Minister Chris Evans told a Senate estimates hearing yesterday that Australia's record high migrant intake should be cut. "I'd envisage certainly that the migration program for next year would be smaller than this year," Senator Evans told the hearing. "(But) no decision has been taken on that."

Senator Evans said cabinet would decide whether to cut the quota and, if so, by how much, in the lead-up to next year's budget. But he indicated that the global financial meltdown would force the Government to cut numbers. "What I'm saying to you is that it seems to me, given what the general economic forecasts of the world economy are, that your first starting point is that you'd think it would be lower," Senator Evans said.

Kevin Rudd first flagged the possibility of cutting the migrant quota two weeks ago, saying the decision would be driven by whatever economic circumstances prevailed at the time. "It's been this way since time immemorial and will be this way into the future as well," the Prime Minister said on October 9. "We adjust it according to economic circumstances."

In May, the Government added 31,000 skilled migrants to this year's migration program. The overall migration program will now be 190,300 for this year, and 133,500 of those places will be allocated to permanent skilled migrants.

The Government's rethink on migration comes as Britain announced it would cut migrant numbers, partly to offset racial tensions amid the possibility of rising unemployment. British Immigration Minister Phil Woolas said at the weekend that Britain needed a tougher immigration policy. "If people are being made unemployed, the question of immigration becomes extremely thorny," Mr Woolas told The Times.

Senator Evans said it was possible migrant numbers would shrink beyond whatever cuts the Government made. Employer-driven migration schemes, such as the 457 temporary skilled worker program, could start to slow in line with diminishing labour market demand, he said. "It stands to reason that if economic activity was to come off, demand from employers for temporary labour was to come off, then the numbers for the 457 scheme would come off," Senator Evans said. "You'd expect there'd be a direct relationship." He said a global economic downturn would affect people's ability to travel, resulting in a reduction in other forms of migration, such as the working holiday program.

Senator Evans also sought to allay fears that local workers might be laid off before temporary skilled workers, who in many cases were paid less. He said he had recently intervened after a business in Queensland planned to stand down Australian workers before foreign employees covered by the 457 scheme. "I made it very clear to the company ... that that was not acceptable," Senator Evans said. The 457 program was there to supplement the local labour force, not undercut it, he said.

Meanwhile, the Immigration Department may be forced to compensate 191 of the 247 people investigated by the Ombudsman for wrongful detention. The department has so far offered compensation in 40 of the cases and settlements have been reached in 17. In total, about $1.2million in compensation has been paid so far.

Source





22 October, 2008

Should UK immigration go Dutch?

Are the Dutch handling immigration more efficiently than the British? UK Immigration Minister Phil Woolas thinks so - he has condemned the UK's migration limits and asylum policy and praised Dutch measures. Here BBC News reporters Dominic Casciani and Laurence Peter look at the UK and Dutch systems, respectively

UK SYSTEM

The UK's immigration system has faced massive upheavals and change over the past decade - and it remains a touchy subject on voters' doorsteps. The old migration system was basically a mess - and an open invitation to abuse, chaos, haphazard decision-making and unfair treatment. There were too many entry routes, no proper system for counting who came and went - and no guaranteed means of working out what happened to people who stayed. What made matters politically far worse for the government was the huge surge in asylum applications in the late 1990s.

So it came as little surprise when the former UK Home Secretary, John Reid, described the system in 2006 as "not fit for purpose", after officials released 1,000 foreign prisoners without considering them for deportation. But from those low points, ministers argue that changes in three key areas are bringing benefits:

* Economic immigration for workers

* Access for asylum seekers and refugees

* Settlement, nationality and citizenship.

The multiple entry routes for workers are being progressively replaced with a simpler system. If you are a worker from within the European free market area, you can come and go as you please. If you are from anywhere else, you must score points to come in under one of a number of categories - a successful system used in Australia, among other countries.

Rules have been increasingly tightened for asylum seekers, spouses or dependents. Spouses will soon be expected to sign up to English lessons as a condition of settlement. The minimum age for someone coming into the UK to wed is also being raised to 21, partly to combat forced marriages of vulnerable women.

Critics say the asylum system has gone from chaotic to unfair because of the high rate of rejections. Supporters say it has simply exposed the high number of bogus applications. The new immigration minister concedes that rejected asylum seekers, who cannot work, have been destitute in the UK because of a failure to ensure they are deported in a timely fashion.

Ministers hope to underpin these reforms in two ways. The first is practical - the UK's borders are going electronic with ID cards, biometric applications and checks at airports as people come or go. The second element is about shifting perceptions and creating a sense belonging. The Home Office plans to use a carrot-and-stick approach to ensure migrants go on a "journey towards citizenship". They will have a choice to "earn citizenship" over a minimum of six years - or to go home.

Critics say it is daft and insulting to people who work hard in jobs that the British often do not want to do. But ministers think it is a good social contract that can help to ease the tensions that have built up over immigration. Public citizenship ceremonies have been taking place for some years now - and they were criticised as a bit silly and American. But for more migrants, they are an important moment, with barely a dry eye in the house.

DUTCH SYSTEM

Dutch immigration policy has shifted markedly away from multiculturalism and towards promoting integration and Dutch identity. The new rules for non-EU citizens contrast sharply with the liberal policy of the 1960s and early 1970s, which enabled many Moroccans and Turks to settle easily in the Netherlands as "guest workers", brought over to fill jobs in heavy industry. In March 2006 the Netherlands introduced a Civic Integration Examination for would-be permanent migrants, requiring them to take courses in the Dutch language and "social orientation". The latter includes scenes of nudity and homosexuality in a controversial video on Dutch liberal values. The examination can be taken at a Dutch embassy and has to be passed before the applicant can settle in the Netherlands.

Spouses wishing to join a partner in the Netherlands have to take it, regardless of how long the partner has been a Dutch resident. In addition, the partner has to be able to support their spouse by earning at least 120% of the minimum wage.

Permanent resident status depends on the migrant completing an integration programme, which involves more language tests and active engagement with wider Dutch society, for example through an internship or volunteer work. The programme lasts three-and-a-half years, but for asylum seekers and previously settled migrants it is five years. Spiritual leaders such as imams, whose visas are limited to three years, also have to take the integration course.

Pressure to tighten the rules came especially from the popular politician Pim Fortuyn, who took the political establishment by storm in 2002, tapping into widespread concern about growing numbers of poor migrants who spoke little or no Dutch. Attention focused on the marginalisation of young Muslims when in November 2004 the film-maker Theo van Gogh was murdered by a young Dutchman of Moroccan origin. Van Gogh had made a film about domestic abuse of Muslim women.

Migrants from outside the EU are particularly concentrated in Dutch cities, notably Amsterdam and Rotterdam, which was Pim Fortuyn's political stronghold. Morocco and Turkey are the main countries of origin by far. A Dutch-Moroccan pro-integration politician, Ahmed Aboutaleb, is poised to become mayor of Rotterdam.

Compulsory naturalisation ceremonies also feature in the new rules for would-be residents.

In 2006, immigrants formed 19% of the Netherlands' 16.3 million people. The unemployment rate among them was 12.2% - a full 8.5% higher than the rate for Dutch nationals. Family reunifications account for much of the increase in the immigrant population since the 1970s, according to Peter van Krieken, professor of international law at Webster University, Leiden. There was no obligation for these spouses to learn Dutch. He recalls a time when in town halls "you used to see lots of signs in other languages and a court would say 'you can't force people to learn Dutch'."

The Netherlands does not have a big backlog of asylum seekers to process, unlike the UK. Asylum cases have been accelerated through a 48-hour procedure, so that hopeless claims can be eliminated quickly. The number of asylum applications in 2007 was nearly 10,000, with Iraqis and Somalis forming the largest number.

Dutch procedures for illegal immigrants have also been accelerated, with cases now coming under employment law, rather than the penal code. Access to jobs has been targeted, rather than putting the emphasis on deportations. Inspections of work premises are more frequent now and "within 10 days employers can be served with a big fine," Prof Van Krieken says.

Source



The Open Borders Network: Illegal Access To America

By Frosty Wooldridge

Ever wonder how millions of illegal aliens maintain their ability to remain inside the United States without fear of lawful deportation? How do they remain lawless while they enjoy impunity from our laws? How can so many organizations, that support illegals, thrive above the laws of our country?

"In a less than perfect world, the allocation of rights based on territory must be defended if a ruinous breeding race is to be avoided. It is unlikely that civilization and dignity can survive everywhere; but better in a few places than in none. Fortunate minorities act as the trustees of a civilization that is threatened by uninformed good intentions." -- Garrett Hardin

In a brilliant expose', Kevin Lamb wrote, "The Open Borders Network" in TheSocialContract.com, Volume XVIII, No. 4, Summer 2008, which shows how philanthropic foundations fund immigrant ethnic lobbies.

"No matter how actively engaged grassroots, patriotic Middle Americans are trying to individually register their views by writing their congressman or publishing letters to the editor of their local newspaper or casting a vote, in a pluralistic representative democracy such activities are no match for well-organized, open-borders network and ethnic-immigrant lobbies," said Lamb. "Those who remain unorganized will eventually find themselves outmatched and politically outmaneuvered by well-organized adversaries."

Thus, as you look across the American landscape in 2008, you hear "Press 1 for English" and "Press 2 for Spanish" at most businesses across this nation. You see entire classrooms taken over by Spanish speaking children while their mothers birth more children at taxpayer expense in local hospitals. Those children devour tax dollars with free breakfast and lunch programs. You don't see it, but your tax dollars fund $436 billion annually for illegal alien migrants across 12 federal agencies.

William Hawkins and Erin Anderson, authors of "The Open Borders Lobby" said, "The concept of `open borders' has long been an agenda of the left. Since the 1960s, a vast network including hundreds of organizations and tens of thousands of grassroots activists, backed by hundreds of millions of dollars from left-wing foundations, has waged a sustained campaign to open America's borders to a mass migration from the Third World."

Multiculturalists use mass immigration as a beachhead for undermining America's sovereignty and usurp the assimilation process by breaking down traditional cultural barriers. In plain words, they expect to destroy America's culture by degrading it into a menagerie of competing cultures. We're watching a complete displacement of a successful culture by a plethora of failed cultures invading America's heartland.

Back in 1972, a mere 70 immigration lawyers aided a handful of illegal aliens in fighting their deportation orders. Today, over 8,000 immigration lawyers aid and abet aliens while obstructing U.S. immigration laws in order to keep their illegal clients within the United States.

La Raza, "the race", founded in 1968, and funded by the likes of the Ford Foundation founded by Edsel Ford, son of Henry Ford, advocates for separation by Hispanics in America. Its founding motto means, "For the Hispanic race, everything; for anyone outside the race, nothing!" Since its inception, American companies and even the U.S. government funded La Raza to the tune of $33,217,000.00 for their activities.

Those actions include reconquista or complete takeover of the four borders states neighboring Mexico. If not by outright revolution, they expect to repopulate Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California into Mexican dominance. One look at Texas and California shows their success appears imminent. While La Raza declares outright separation, MALDEF, LULAC, NLC and MECHA work for ways to dissolve the U.S.-Mexican border via more subtle means. They support dissolution of our borders deletetheborder.org.

In the meantime, Hungarian born multi-billionaire George Soros funds "The Open Society Institute" which proposes a borderless North America. He advocates for complete destruction of the United States Constitution and U.S. sovereignty. Worth over $9 billion, he backs up his plans with ample money.

If American citizens don't know why their borders suffer invasion, they might look to the $82,389,000.00 spent by Ford Foundation, Soros, Wells Fargo, AT&T, Anheuser-Busch, Rockefeller Foundation, Washington Mutual and other organizations that methodically work toward ultimate vanquishing of the United States of America as a free and independent nation.

The Ford Foundation, AT&T, Wells Fargo, George Soros, Professor Luis Gutierrez of "If necessary, we must kill the white man." fame, journalist Ruben Navarrette, Linda Chevez, Mayors Antonio Villaraigosa, John Hickenlooper, Bloomberg, Daly, Newsome and many other "Sanctuary City" advocates, Maine Governor Baldacci, House Representative Joe Baca, Chris Cannon, Senator John McCain, Senator Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, U.S. Senate leader Harry Reid, and the granddaddy of them all Senator Teddy Kennedy-all of them work toward the ultimate destruction of America's sovereignty.

And you know something; they most certainly succeed faster and faster as the American public stands around sucking its thumb.

Source





21 October, 2008

British immigration boss: Labour Party responsible for string of failures

Just days after sparking a row by apparently calling for a cap on the number of immigrants coming to the country, Phil Woolas said the Government had implemented policies that had damaged both those moving to the country and the existing population. He said too much money had been spent on translating signs and documents into other languages and not enough on teaching migrants to learn English, leading to segregated communities. Mr Woolas, who only began his new brief two weeks ago, suggested ministers had wrongly shied away from demanding that people coming to Britain speak the language, and accused the country of having an "old world" attitude.

He also criticised Labour's failure to fund asylum removals properly which he said had caused "untold human misery and division".

But last night he was forced to make another embarrassing "clarification" of his latest remarks. He insisted the Government was now making progress but conceded that UK policy on immigration was lagging a decade behind that of other countries. It is estimated that 2.3 million people have moved to Britain since Labour came to power, 84 per cent of them from outside Europe, and a further 7 million are expected by 2031, putting pressure on housing, transport and public services.

Mr Woolas's latest outspoken comments come after he appeared to agree that there should be a limit on the number of people moving to the country from overseas in an interview on Saturday. The following day he denied new schemes were being developed and claimed the new points-based system, allowing only highly skilled or desperately needed workers from outside the EU, would cut numbers.

In a debate with the Dutch justice secretary, Nebahat Albayrak, hosted by the think tank Demos on Monday, Mr Woolas said Britain had "taken great heed" of her country's tough policies but added: "We are about 10 years behind." He admitted British policy had always been centred on how easy it is for people to move to the country rather than how much they integrate later. "Because immigrants have suffered from discrimination, because we have not helped people to earn citizenship, to integrate, we have ended up isolating people to the mutual dissatisfaction of communities."

On the Government's priorities in recent years, he said: "We have put resources into translation in order that people can access their rights. "When you do that, you lessen the opportunity to learn English and you send a message to the exclusively English-speaking population that the migrant doesn't want to learn English."

Mr Woolas went on: "One doesn't have to try very hard to convince a migrant that it would be helpful to learn English. It seems to be a problem once you step into SW1 [the London postal district that covers Downing Street and Parliament] but that's SW1's problem."

On the issue of imposing a limit on migrant numbers, he said: "We are, in this country, completely screwed up because we are asked the question about the cap without understanding what the question means." He said it may be time to rethink the Geneva Convention on how countries deal with refugees but admitted: "Our failure to resource the asylum processes has caused untold human misery and division within our communities," Mr Woolas said.

He insisted his criticisms of immigration and asylum also applied to Conservative administrations but added: "I do accept that the Government didn't provide the framework of policy that anticipated the problems well enough. "The former Home Secretary did say the Home Office was not fit for purpose. I believe it is fit for purpose now but we have had to go through some changes."

The Shadow Home Secretary, Dominic Grieve, said: "We welcome this admission by the minister. But the public will be sceptical that the Government which spent 11 years building up this problem, is the right one to solve it."

Hours after the Demos event, the Home Office put out a statement from Mr Woolas saying: "Britain's borders are now stronger than ever with asylum applications at an historic low and an immigration offender removed every eight minutes. "We have ramped up performance in dealing with the asylum legacy cases and are now resolving several thousand every month. "My comments put the current successes into historical perspective - making it clear why we have brought in so many of the changes we have."

Source



More "boat people" headed for Australia

Australia's Opposition says the Government should re-examine changes to Australia's immigration laws after the arrest of 20 Sri Lankan and Indonesian nationals in East Timor.

East Timor authorities say the men were arrested as they prepared to board a fishing boat bound for Australia. They are said to have admitted they planned to travel to Australia without proper documentation.

The Opposition's Immigration spokeswoman Sharman Stone says she's concerned that immigration authorities have now intercepted four boats since the Government made changes to immigration regulations earlier this year. "I have got no doubt people smugglers have taken great comfort and they are having a good hard look at whether all of this is worth while making the quick short rush to Australia," she said.

Source





20 October, 2008

What a funny way to control immigration

A comment from Britain on the incoherent and kneejerk immigration policy of the British Labour Party government

A repentant sinner is one thing; a wilful bloody [For American readers: "Bloody" is a British expletive similar in force to "goddam"] amnesiac is quite another. It is into this latter category that the Government's new immigration minister, Phil Woolas, falls. He didn't take long to stick his head above the parapet after being appointed, did Mr W. A couple of days ago, he was telling us that he wanted to see strict limits on immigration. As a result of the economic downturn, he said: "The question of immigration becomes extremely thorny. it's been too easy to get into this country and it's going to get harder."

Oh, right. When migrants were granted citizenship or indefinite leave to remain, during the good times, was there no thought that things could, conceivably, one day, get worse? Funny basis on which to conduct a policy with lasting effects on people's lives. Anyway, Mr Woolas is emphatic that the population of Britain shouldn't exceed 70 million, as the present trajectory suggests it will.

It gets better. Mr Woolas, now well into his stride, says that employers shouldn't hire immigrants, in order to protect native Britons from unemployment. Employers who prefer to take on migrants because they are "ready, willing and able" to work need to hire the British jobless instead. Oh yes? I can tell Mr Woolas for free that, in the Knightsbridge hairdressing salon that I frequent, they're not going to be giving the lovely, hard-working Magda from Gdansk the push in order to bolster the Government's ability to service the social benefits bill for the unemployed.

And by way of showing how very fierce and tough he is, Mr Woolas is presiding over the closure of a programme that last year allowed 105,000 unskilled temporary workers to come to work here for up to a year. Employers will still be able to hire some migrants in the short term. But the effect of the Government's crackdown has been precisely to restrict the kind of migrants the country needs.

As those of us who get up early enough to listen to Farming Today, or who have friends in farming, can tell Mr Woolas, this crackdown on temporary migrants has actually cut the number of workers that the British economy really does need. Britons can't and won't do the hands-on seasonal work on farms that the Ukrainians can - and the reasons for that deserve scrutiny. But if there aren't the eastern Europeans, the fruit-picking and the rest of it doesn't get done.

However, it's the sheer, unvarnished nerve of Mr Woolas that stands out. The one unambiguous legacy of the 11 years since 2007 has been the increase in immigration and the liberal way in which citizenship, and indefinite leave to remain, have been granted. Some 2.3 million people have come here between 1991 and 2006; only 8 per cent from EU accession states. Well over a million of them have been granted citizenship. Those are the ones we know about.

If the population trajectory of Britain is heading for 70 million, it is not just because of some mass migration movement almost beyond our control, such as climate change or swallows moving south. It is because of the Government's conscious, wilful, light regulatory touch on immigration.

What's more, the realities of the immigration debate have been obscured by the fact that ministers talk about net immigration rather than the overall numbers coming here - in other words, the number of people arriving minus the number of Britons who are leaving. In one way, this makes sense. It's the people actually resident in the country who make calls on schools, benefits and the health service. In another way, it obscures the fact that the ethnic and religious make-up of London, in particular, has changed beyond recognition in a decade. And that has an effect on what is fashionably called social cohesion - in other words, how we all rub along together.

Much of this happened during David Blunkett's tenure as Home Secretary - yep, he who is waiting in the wings for a recall - when he declared that there was "no obvious upper limit" to the extent of immigration. Neither he nor his successors seemed to think that, one day, the sun might not shine, the economy might contract, and their policy of giving nearly everyone who comes here the indefinite right to remain, rather than just a work permit, might look a bit short-sighted.

If we were talking about historic errors that are now acknowledged, Mr Woolas's about-turn - curiously, one that has not been echoed by his boss, Jacqui Smith - would be welcome. But we're set to make things worse. One of Tony Blair's proudest achievements in office was that he bullied the EU into accepting Turkey's candidacy for membership. In this, he was supported by the Tories.

Yet Turkey is a country with only three per cent of its land mass in Europe and a population of more than 80 million and rising. Let me spell out the consequences. Any EU citizen has the automatic right to live and work in other member states. The upshot is that eventually, several million Turks will, if the Government gets its way, be perfectly entitled to come to Britain. Will anyone bet me they won't?

Source



Immigration roiling New Zealand too

NZ First leader Winston Peters had been suspiciously quiet on immigration until last week. The party's policy was on its website but scarcely a word was said about it, a stark contrast from previous elections when it was one of NZ First's main campaign planks. Just as Labour was beginning to think it had quietened the beast with its Immigration Bill - a promise to overhaul immigration processes and provide for tighter border security - Mr Peters popped up in Nelson demanding migrant numbers be cut. [Mr Peters is a brown man so is allowed to say "incorrect" things] The prompt was the grim economic outlook and forecasts of job losses, and the target was migrants.

Mr Peters called for dramatic cuts from 50,000 a year to 10,000 and for family reunification to be restricted to immediate family only, saying jobs had to be protected for Kiwis.

The Greens called for an increase in migrants, especially refugees, and for space to also be ensured for "climate change refugees" forced out of their countries by rising sea levels.

Despite the dog-whistle style of his politicking, Mr Peters did strike at the heart of what all parties will have to wrestle with in their immigration policies. In a recession, the challenge will lie in adapting immigration policies to suit an environment where jobs are much scarcer from catering to a time of record low unemployment and tight labour market.

All parties support some levels of migration, citing its critical role in growing the economy, filling gaps where New Zealand does not have enough workers and ensuring the population does not shrink. All also cite the need to ensure policies are targeted at areas where New Zealand is short of workers or skills and want some checks to ensure New Zealanders are not missing out on jobs.

Labour sees the current 50,000 migrants who get residency each year as about right. Helen Clark said last week that any changes to address growing unemployment would be made by cutting the approximately 116,000 short-term work permits issued each year, rather than residency. She notes New Zealand has never been able to produce all the skilled people it needs.

Immigration Minister Clayton Cosgrove has already taken some pre-emptive action in this regard. He split the temporary "general" work permit into two parts to make it easier for highly skilled people to get work permits but putting more checks in on those coming into low-skilled jobs. He also argues that weighting immigration policy to give preference to those coming into a specific list of jobs where New Zealand has a shortage of workers will ensure only the workers needed are allowed in.

National Party spokesman Lockwood Smith claims the list is too prescriptive, saying it is a "government knows best" approach to deciding which workers are needed rather than one driven by employers who know if they have a skills shortage. National wants employers to be more able to recruit from overseas if they show they have tried within New Zealand unsuccessfully. He says this will automatically mean immigration numbers will drop in a downturn, because it will be driven by demand rather than a fixed number.

Act [ACT is a libertarian-leaning N.Z. political party] wants migrant numbers to grow from net migration of 10,000 a year to 30,000, arguing the entrepreneurial skills of migrants will strengthen the economy. It notes policy should be targeted at "the ablest and most productive people" and lists their virtues as, among other things, "strengthening the All Blacks" [The national football team, none of whom are in fact black].

More here





19 October, 2008

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Raids Mesa City Hall

Wotta guy!

(Mesa, Arizona) After a Maricopa County Sheriff's undercover detective infiltrated a cleaning business and was instructed how to obtain fraudulent identification, Sheriff Joe Arpaio ordered a predawn raid. Early Thursday, about 30 deputies and 30 volunteer posse members stormed the Mesa City Hall and the library carrying semi-automatic weapons and wearing bullet-proof vests.

Deputies fanned out and arrested three people; 13 others, including a manager at Management Cleaning Controls, were arrested at residences later that morning, Arpaio said. Ten were arrested on suspicion of identity theft and six for potentially being in the country illegally. The 16 arrested included six people who were not named in the warrants. Arpaio said they are still looking for 15 more company employees. [...]

Joining Arpaio in an afternoon press conference, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas said the cleaning company had been under investigation for months. When asked why Mesa police could not handle the case, Arpaio said, "It's my jurisdiction, too. You seem to forget." Then he suggested that there was something in the Mesa police "culture" that "they do not want to enforce the immigration laws."

Mesa Mayor Scott Smith was distraught as he spoke to reporters. He said that Mesa City Hall was violated by another government agency and the workers were terrified.

Heh. It appears that there is less than general agreement within Maricopa County on how to enforce immigration laws.

Source



A view from the Left

Below is the introduction to a survey of the immigration debate by a Leftist writer -- writing for an organization founded by anti-Vietnam peaceniks. You will note that he does not even try to refute any of the arguments put up by immigration opponents but rather focuses on ways that anti-immigrant groups can be defamed. In the usual arrogant Leftist way, he just focuses on destruction and opposition, not rational policymaking.

In the latter part of his article, however, he does quote extensively from anti-immigration spokesmen such as Mark Krikorian. So he is better than most in at least presenting the other side. No doubt he does so with an assumption that his readers will automatically be horrified by what they read there. For most of his readers that might be true but he may underestimate the possibility that some of his readers may be open-minded.

He is presumptuous however in presenting Krikorian's position (Mark wants big cutbacks in legal immigration too) as being what all anti-illegal-immigration advocates secretly want.

Amusing is his attempt to slander FAIR by associating them with John Tanton and describing Tanton as a "nativist and white supremacist". Later on, however, he does admit that Tanton was in fact of the Green/Left. Like lots of Greenies, Tanton just didn't like people of any sort and the fewer of them the better.

The writer below also shows his lack of loyalty to any principles by his uncritical mentions of pro-immigration groups. The fact that La Raza is the only openly racist participant in the debate goes unmentioned, as does the far-Leftist identity of the innocuously-named "Southern Poverty Law Center"

The leading anti-immigration groups don't specially target illegal immigrants. For the restrictionist groups Federation for American Immigration Reform, Center for Immigration Studies, and NumbersUSA, the country's 11-12 million illegal immigrants are simply low-hanging fruit. Their long-range goal is to rid the nation of most all immigrants-both illegal and legal.

While many of the grassroots restrictionist groups that have sprung up in the last decade say upfront that they aren't against all immigrants, just the illegal ones, the country's most influential restrictionist institutes have long advocated shutting out all immigrants. For restrictionists, it's the sheer number of immigrants, most of them coming from Mexico and Central America, that is the issue.

In their view, illegal immigrants are particularly threatening since, as the restrictionists routinely assert, they undermine the "rule of law" in the United States by their illegal presence. They charge that all immigrants, whether legal or illegal, are a threat to the country's economic, cultural, and social stability.

Having suffered major setbacks at the hands of restrictionists, immigration advocates are attempting to regroup and plot new strategies to advance liberal immigration reform in the next administration.

America's Voice and National Council of La Raza, as well as some unions, are attempting to discredit the restrictionist institutes by citing their connections with nativist and white supremacist groups and individuals, including John Tanton, considered the godfather of restrictionism. Many immigration advocates call FAIR a "hate group," following the lead of the Southern Poverty Law Center. As part of its "We Can Stop the Hate" campaign, National Council of La Raza is calling the directors of FAIR and NumbersUSA-Dan Stein and Roy Beck-"suspect spokespeople," grouping them with the leaders of the Minuteman movement.

While Senator Barack Obama and other Democratic Party leaders variously promise that they will push comprehensive immigration reform within the first year or first term of the new administration, the prospects for a liberal immigration reform that would include legalization are not auspicious. With an economy in a tailspin, restrictionist attempts to link an immigration crackdown with a populist economic message have more traction. And even those who reject the anti-immigrant campaign are less likely to stand behind a pro-immigration agenda or protest immigration raids when their own economic future is in jeopardy.

Meanwhile, the divisions within the pro-immigrant camp over such issues as border security, temporary worker programs, and the enforcement campaign of the Department of Homeland Security are still present. While the anti-immigration forces are united around "attrition through enforcement" and the government's ambitious "border security initiative," immigration advocates are still split, dispirited, and worn down by the unrelenting crackdown. Even the probable change of political parties in the White House is not likely to substantially change the political equation, as more Democrats in Congress have adopted the "rule of law" and "border security" policy frameworks of the restrictionists.

Source





18 October, 2008

California TV Ad Says Current and Future Immigration Exacerbates Global Warming

Immigrants Produce Four Times More Carbon Emissions in U.S. Than In Their Home Countries

Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) has launched an ad campaign in California TV markets. The TV spots point out that when immigrants settle in the U.S., their energy use quickly becomes Americanized. As a result their carbon emissions skyrocket. The result is a quadrupling of immigrants' carbon footprints compared to the amount of carbon emissions they produced in their home countries.

CAPS is launching the TV campaign as America faces the largest population increase in its history. According to 2008 U.S. Census Bureau projections, U.S. population will jump from 305 million today to more than 400 million by 2040. That's a 33 percent increase yielding an additional 100 million more people in just the next thirty years. It's an increase equivalent to adding another entire Western half of the country. According to Pew Research, 82 percent of that growth will be a result of immigration and births to immigrants.

Diana Hull, President of Californians for Population Stabilization commented, "Imagine taking close to 100 million people with a relatively small carbon footprint and quadrupling their carbon emissions overnight just by moving them to the U.S. That's going to significantly impact Global Warming. Cutting immigration to the U.S. isn't the only thing we should do to solve the global warming problem, but stopping mass immigration, especially from low carbon use nations will go a long way towards a solution because it is a significant contributor to the problems we face."

The CAPS TV spot is based on a recent Center for Immigrations Studies (CIS) report about U.S. immigration and carbon emissions. While the CAPS TV spot is focused more on future carbon emissions, the CIS study looks at current carbon emissions. Currently, US immigrants produce an estimated 637 million metric tons of CO2 annually or the same amount of carbon emissions currently produced by Great Britain and Sweden, combined. The spot concludes, "We've got some tough choices to make" and then invites viewers to visit CAPS website to "Tell us what you'd do."

For more information about CAPS, visit CAPSWEB.ORG

Source



British immigration boss says restrictions are anti-racist

Although a politician of the Left, his ideas about immigration seem to be thoroughly conservative -- ideas with which few Britons outside the political extremes would disagree

When Phil Woolas was growing up in Lancashire his grammar school was entirely white until the Ugandan Asians arrived. "The first Asian boy who joined my school was nicknamed Banana," says the new Minister for Borders and Immigration. "The teachers called him Banana, the boys called him Banana. He even called himself Banana. I thought it was appalling."

It was, he says, fighting racism that got him into politics. At sixth-form college he joined the Labour Party and ran a campaign against "Paki-bashing". He chose to stand for election as an MP in the Oldham East & Saddleworth constituency, which has a high Pakistani and Kashmiri population. "It's had a race riot, it's had a huge BNP [British National Party] presence and it's a marginal seat. It's a complete crucible," he says. "But we've never had a BNP councillor - I hope I've had something to do with that by getting in and getting dirty."

Mr Woolas describes dealing with immigration as "my lifelong purpose" but he is not going to be pandering to what he calls Hampstead liberals. "I've been brought in to be tougher and to change perceptions," he says. The Government must, he insists, face up to voters' concerns about the level of immigration - particularly as a recession looms. The economic downturn changes everything, he says. "Clearly if people are being made unemployed, then the question of immigration becomes extremely thorny."

Employers should, he believes, put British people first, or they will risk fuelling racism. "In times of economic difficulties, racial stereotyping becomes stronger but also if you've got skills shortages you should, as a government, attempt to fill those skills shortages with your indigenous population."

This is not about colour. He uses the example of the high level of unemployment among the Bangladeshi community in Britain, many of whom he believes could be retrained to fill a shortage of chefs. "Britain has to get working again. The easiest thing for an employer to do is to employ an immigrant. We need to help them to change that."

He adds: "We need a tougher immigration policy and we need to stop seeing it as a dilemma. It's not. It's easy. I'm going to do my best to help the British back to work. The message to them is, if you want less immigration you're going to have to respond with helping us get everyone working who can."

Mr Woolas admits that more and more people will want to come to Britain as a result of the global downturn. "We're the fourth-richest country. Even with a recession we're still going to be attractive to people from poorer countries. The urgency [to sort the system out] becomes greater."

It is clear that he wants to reduce the number of immigrants. "It's been too easy to get into this country in the past and it's going to get harder," he says. "As we stand we don't know how many foreign nationals there are. I want to end up in a situation where we know and the public know how many people are coming in and going out of our country."

Although he does not think it is practical to talk about a cap on the number of new arrivals, because the Government cannot predict how many people will be emigrating, he says: "We have to have a population policy and that means at some point we will be able to set a limit on migration. This Government isn't going to allow the population of this country to go up to 70 million. There has to be a balance between the number of people coming in and the number of people leaving."

Extremists such as the BNP exploit the perception that immigrants receive unfair benefits. Mr Woolas wants to tackle them head on. "I don't believe that we are a country of Alf Garnetts but there's a large element that is discriminatory in its attitude," he says. The problem, according to the minister, is that "the perception that immigrants jump the housing queue is very strong, even though the reality is very different. We must cut back on the few cases of abuse so people see that the system is fair."

He is appalled by stories of immigrants being given million-pound houses at taxpayers' expense. "These are council decisions. They shouldn't do that kind of thing. I just think it's wrong, even if it is rare."

Nor should the NHS accept health tourism. "If you're here legally you should have access to the NHS. If you are here illegally, or - what's the word we use? - clandestinely, you shouldn't. It's a national health service - it's not an international health service."

He opposes an amnesty for people who are already here illegally because he thinks it would encourage more to come. "An amnesty... starts with a discussion among politicians and ends with dead bodies in the back of a truck in Calais."

He believes passionately, however, that those who do become part of the British workforce should be treated with far more respect. "Since Windrush [the Empire Windrush - the ship that carried the first large group of West Indians to Britain in 1948] we have, compared to other rich countries, been liberal in our border controls, but when immigrants get here I think we're cruel to them as a society and I want to turn that around."

Rather than being segregated they should be encouraged to join in. "The immigrant community itself is the strongest advocate of fair and firm immigration rules and the strongest advocate of obeying the law - yet the perception is not that. We have allowed people in here and not helped them to help themselves. Translation [of official documents into other languages] ghettoises people. A Bangladeshi friend told me you can't get a good job in Bangladesh if you can't speak English. You don't need to convince them that they need to speak English - of course they do."

The hijab can, in his view, be divisive. "People wear veils for different reasons: some out of religious conviction. some because they're forced to. It should be up to them, but at school you shouldn't wear one. It's harder to get a good education if you wear a veil as you're more cut off." Women in Muslim communities should be encouraged to work, even if that goes against their culture. "My guiding light is that we have to talk about these things. It is important for everyone."

Mr Woolas wants to make it difficult for people to bring in very young girls from abroad for an arranged marriage. "I am about to increase the age limit of entry by a spouse from 18 to 21. The way in which our society treats some of these boys and girls is a crime. If someone so young from a rural area marries and is brought in to an area that is predominantly of one culture and never goes out, that doesn't help them or society."

He is also concerned about the number of marriages between first cousins in Indian and Pakistani families. "Anyone who knows my community knows there are higher proportions of physical disability amongst the children of first-cousin marriages. It's a cultural issue. The morally right thing is to raise awareness of that. The risk of disability is 4.7 per cent - that's double the average. If your grandparents were first cousins, too, it goes up to 52 per cent. I don't say you shouldn't marry your first cousin, I say if you do, be careful and be screened."

He supports the principle of Muslim faith schools, although he insists "you have to use schools to help break down segregation. They should learn about all faiths - there shouldn't be exclusive access. Children from other faiths should be allowed in." But he also warns Christians that they need to be more accepting of other faiths. The Church of England will, in his view, be disestablished in the end. "It will probably take 50 years but a modern society is multifaith."

His last words are inspired by his old classmate. "I think it [the immigration system] has been too lenient and I want to make it harder, but I also want to be nice to people who do come to settle here. That's what I have wanted to do all my life since the boy came to my school and was called Banana."

Source





17 October, 2008

Latinos don't like blacks -- again

Importing problems

Like many workers at the meatpacking plant here, Raul A. Garcia, a Mexican-American, has watched with some discomfort as hundreds of Somali immigrants have moved to town in the past couple of years, many of them to fill jobs once held by Latino workers taken away in immigration raids. Mr. Garcia has been particularly troubled by the Somalis’ demand that they be allowed special breaks for prayers that are obligatory for devout Muslims. The breaks, he said, would inconvenience everyone else. “The Latino is very humble,” said Mr. Garcia, 73, who has worked at the plant, owned by JBS U.S.A. Inc., since 1994. “But they are arrogant,” he said of the Somali workers. “They act like the United States owes them.”

Mr. Garcia was among more than 1,000 Latino and other workers who protested a decision last month by the plant’s management to cut their work day — and their pay — by 15 minutes to give scores of Somali workers time for evening prayers. After several days of strikes and disruptions, the plant’s management abandoned the plan.

But the dispute peeled back a layer of civility in this southern Nebraska city of 47,000, revealing slow-burning racial and ethnic tensions that have been an unexpected aftermath of the enforcement raids at workplaces by federal immigration authorities. Grand Island is among a half dozen or so cities where discord has arisen with the arrival of Somali workers, many of whom were recruited by employers from elsewhere in the United States after immigration raids sharply reduced their Latino work forces. The Somalis are by and large in this country legally as political refugees and therefore are not singled out by immigration authorities.

In some of these places, including Grand Island, this newest wave of immigrant workers has had the effect of unifying the other ethnic populations against the Somalis and has also diverted some of the longstanding hostility toward Latino immigrants among some native-born residents. “Every wave of immigrants has had to struggle to get assimilated,” said Margaret Hornady, the mayor of Grand Island and a longtime resident of Nebraska. “Right now, it’s so volatile.”

The federal immigration crackdown has hit meat- and poultry-packing plants particularly hard, with more than 2,000 immigrant workers in at least nine places detained since 2006 in major raids, most on immigration violations. Struggling to fill the grueling low-wage jobs that attract few American workers, the plants have placed advertisements in immigrant newspapers and circulated fliers in immigrant neighborhoods.

Some companies, like Swift & Company, which owned the plant in Grand Island until being bought up by the Brazilian conglomerate JBS last year, have made a particular pitch for Somalis because of their legal status. Tens of thousands of Somali refugees fleeing civil war have settled in the United States since the 1990s, with the largest concentration in Minnesota.

But the companies are learning that in trying to solve one problem they have created another. Early last month, about 220 Somali Muslims walked off the job at a JBS meatpacking plant in Greeley, Colo., saying the company had prevented them from observing their prayer schedule. (More than 100 of the workers were later fired.) Days later, a poultry company in Minnesota agreed to allow Muslim workers prayer breaks and the right to refuse handling pork products, settling a lawsuit filed by nine Somali workers.

In August, the management of a Tyson chicken plant in Shelbyville, Tenn., designated a Muslim holy day as a paid holiday, acceding to a demand by Somali workers. The plant had originally agreed to substitute the Muslim holy day for Labor Day, but reinstated Labor Day after a barrage of criticism from non-Muslims.

In some workplaces, newly arrived Somali Muslims have not protested their working conditions. That has been the case at Agriprocessors, a meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa. About 150 Somali Muslims have found jobs there, most of them recruited by a staffing company after the plant lost about half its work force in an immigration raid in May.

Jack Shandley, a senior vice president for JBS U.S.A., said in an e-mail message that “integrating persons of diverse backgrounds regularly presents new and different issues.” “Religious accommodation is only one workplace diversity issue that has been addressed,” Mr. Shandley said.

Nationwide, employment discrimination complaints by Muslim workers have more than doubled in the past decade, to 607 in the 2007 fiscal year, from 285 in the 1998 fiscal year, according to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which has sent representatives to Grand Island to interview Somali workers.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids employers to discriminate based on religion and says that employers must “reasonably accommodate” religious practices. But the act offers some exceptions, including instances when adjustments would cause “undue hardship” on the company’s business interests.

The new tensions here extend well beyond the walls of the plant. Scratch beneath Grand Island’s surface and there is resentment, discomfort and mistrust everywhere, some residents say — between the white community and the various immigrant communities; between the older immigrant communities, like the Latinos, and the newer ones, namely the Somalis and the Sudanese, another refugee community that has grown here in recent years; and between the Somalis, who are largely Muslim, and the Sudanese, who are largely Christian.

In dozens of interviews here, white, Latino and other residents seemed mostly bewildered, if not downright suspicious, of the Somalis, very few of whom speak English. “I kind of admire all the effort they make to follow that religion, but sometimes you have to adapt to the workplace,” said Fidencio Sandoval, a plant worker born in Mexico who has become an American citizen. “A new culture comes in with their demands and says, ‘This is what we want.’ This is kind of new for me.”

More here



Australia: Migration not helping skills shortage

The Immigration Department has admitted tertiary enrolments are failing to meet state and territory demands for graduates in mining, construction and nursing, despite an overhaul of the skilled migration system to meet the labour shortage. The surge in vocational education and training and intensive English-language courses for overseas students was in areas "which appear to be outside those demanded", senior Immigration official Peter Speldewinde told a Brisbane conference.

The skilled immigration category was revamped last year to give greater emphasis to speaking English and developing skills among the tens of thousands of overseas students who now go on to form a key plank of the permanent skilled migration program every year. Registered nurses, dentists, engineers, radiographers, urban planners, occupational therapists, electricians, bakers, bricklayers, mechanics, carpenters and chefs are among the top 20 occupational shortage areas identified by the states and territories.

But Immigration Department data shows overseas students under the skilled immigration category are flocking instead into hospitality management, welfare studies, hairdressing, accounting, cookery and computing. There were almost 11,000 course commencements in hospitality, almost 2000 in welfare studies and almost 1500 in hairdressing, all winning valuable points towards permanent residency.

Mr Speldewinde, the department's skilled-migration director, told educators at the conference last Friday that it was "clear there are not so much loopholes, but areas in which (earning) points probably stimulate people to go down certain paths". "Clearly the Migrant Occupation on Demand List (under which migrants get points toward permanent residency) is driving very, very strongly migrants' choices," he said.

Mr Speldewinde said the system was under review to conform with Immigration Minister Chris Evans's aim of ensuring the selection of high-quality skilled migrants who will more directly address labour market shortages. "The focus is on quality, not quantity," he said.

Two of the key architects of last year's reforms, Monash University demographer Bob Birrell, and National Institute of Labour Studies director Sue Richardson, yesterday described as a mixed success the effort to recruit skilled migrants instead of educating younger Australians. Dr Birrell told The Australian "the surge in skilled migration program is not delivering the skills needed in mining and construction industries, and that's the Government's main concern". "More than half the skilled immigrants are settling in Sydney and Melbourne," not in Queensland and Western Australia where they are needed, he said.

Dr Birrell -- a fierce critic of aspects of the migration program -- said that despite the sobering assessment from Mr Speldewinde, Australia was "likely to get better-equipped migrants and it's a good thing Labor has stuck by this initiative of former (Coalition) minister (Kevin) Andrews". "The acknowledgement the system is not serving the country is quite striking, as is vocational education overtaking higher education because it's an easier and cheaper route to permanent residency," he said.

Professor Richardson told The Australian she was concerned that more than half our population growth was now coming from migration rather than births.

Source





16 October, 2008

Incorporate Robust Safeguards and Enforcement for Immigration

The ideas below could come from many GOP people (GWB and McCain, for instance) but they in fact come from the "progressive" Center for American Progress. Nice to see some moderation from that side of politics

Comprehensive immigration reform must make enforcement-at our borders, ports of entry, and in the workplace-a priority. Reforms must ensure that our borders and ports of entry are protected against those who seek to do us harm. They must also establish mechanisms that, while respecting the rule of law, make clear to employers and employees alike that unauthorized employment will not be permitted.

Effective border security requires that we expand legal avenues for entry into the United States. Converting the migration flow demanded by the U.S. economy into a regulated flow would enhance enforcement efforts immeasurably by significantly reducing the number of people seeking to enter the country illegally.

Even with a reduced flow of immigrants, the expanse of our borders and the difficult terrain which they encompass demands that we facilitate the Border Patrol's security mission by deploying effective technology that make our border enforcement efforts "smarter."

Taking pressure off the borders also requires reforming workplace enforcement efforts because a majority of those in the country illegally are here to work. Until very recently, however, workplace enforcement was practically non-existent, eliminating any real deterrent to employers violating U.S. laws by hiring undocumented workers.

In a reformed system, to be effective, worksite enforcement must crack down on those who employ undocumented workers, not just the workers themselves. Focusing in isolation on unauthorized workers simply leads to churning within the undocumented population. Unless there are meaningful negative consequences for employers, such churning and slap-on-the-wrist fines will become costs of doing business and will not contribute to a reduction in undocumented immigration.

Source



Immigration Laws Counter Terror

Edward Schumacher-Matos's Oct. 2 book review of "The Closing of the American Border" by Edward Alden could more accurately have been called "How Quickly We Forget." While it may represent an accurate account of the written work, its conclusions portray an astonishing disregard for recent history, most notably the 9/11 terrorist attacks just seven years ago. To suggest that immigration enforcement and counterterrorism should be treated separately is simply wrong.

We know now that several of the 9/11 terrorists abused the nation's immigration laws. The fact is that if the immigration enforcement tools that exist today had been in place prior to 9/11, each of the hijackers would have received additional scrutiny by law enforcement authorities. Indeed, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission said, "For terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons." And there are numerous examples of threats that have been thwarted, thanks to enforcement of the nation's immigration laws; among them: the arrest and deportation of the leader of a northern California mosque who had ties to the Taliban and al Qaeda, and the conviction of a Lebanese man in Detroit for conspiracy to support Hezbollah.

Rather than criticize those who rightfully recognize the links between national security and immigration enforcement, perhaps next time the author will simply thank them for keeping him safe.

Source





15 October, 2008

Do we enforce the law only if we can do so cheaply?

Nearly 400 workers were detained by immigration officials at the Agriprocessors meatpacking plant on May 12. The enforcement operation and subsequent deporations have cost taxpayers at least $5 million, although all costs are not yet known.

U.S. Rep. Steve King, a Republican who represents Iowa's 5th District, said that government agencies must enforce immigration laws, regardless of expense to taxpayers. "If we start saying, `Well, it costs too much money to enforce the law,' then we will see more and more of these radical, pro-illegal immigration activists drive more wedges between us and make it harder to enforce the law," King told William Petroski of the Des Moines Register.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials responded to a freedom of information request from the Register, telling the newspaper that the agency's expenditures totaled $5,211,092 as of Aug. 21. Of the 389 people detained by federal authorities, 302 were quickly charged and convicted of criminal wrongdoing, primarily related to identity theft.

U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley, a Democrat representing Iowa's 1st District, has questioned various aspects related to the immigration raid since the enforcement took place. Like the media, his requests for detailed cost expenditures for the Postville and Marshalltown immigration raids have not been fully answered.

The $5.2 million figure quoted by the Register does not include costs associated with the U.S. Attorney's Office, local Postville authorities or the U.S. Department of Labor investigation into possible wage discrepencies at the plant.

Source



They may go hungry for quite a while

I found the following amusing post on a Leftist blog

The fast for immigrant rights is set to begin tomorrow. The goal is to get one million signatures in support of migrants. Please take a moment to sign the pledge.

On October 15th, over 100 people will begin one of the largest hunger strikes in American history to call on Latinos, immigrants, and people of conscience-the Immigrant Rights Movement-to rise out of our fear and vote for change. "The Fast for our Future" will be based in a permanent encampment at La Placita Olvera, the historic heart of Los Angeles, and will continue until at least 1 million people have signed this Pledge.

Source

All emotion and no reasoned discussion in the usual Leftist way. I am in fact all in favour of immigrant rights -- as long as the immigrants concerned are in the country legally. But I guess that is too nuanced for self-righteous Leftists.





14 October, 2008

The German system

Of course, just because there is a moral imperative to appear open to foreigners doesn't mean that Germans are genuinely comfortable with outsiders. Indeed, many Germans believe that ethnicity, rather than citizenship, culture, or a sense of allegiance, dictates whether someone is part of the deutsch community. The queasiness with diversity and vigorous political correctness coexist uneasily and can make for disjunctive state policies.

Consider how Germany grants asylum. Asylum seekers the world over have to demonstrate that they face persecution in their country of origin because of their race, religion, nationality, social group, or political opinions. (Immigrants, in contrast, can pick up stakes for the sake of work or love-for virtually any reason.) For decades after World War II, Germany had some of the most liberal asylum laws on the planet. After being deluged with applications from Eastern Europe and the Balkans in the 1990s, however, the government toughened up the requirements. Asylum seekers who passed through a "safe" third country-and all of Germany's neighbors were deemed safe-no longer qualified. (Click here for more on how asylum works.)

Men and women arriving from the former Yugoslavia were, for the most part, denied asylum and were instead granted "tolerated" status, or Duldung. This is essentially a temporary deportation waiver that must be renewed every six months. There were approximately 175,000 Duldungen in Germany in 2006; they were granted state assistance but could not work and were required to live in state-run housing complexes. In other words, they resided in Germany, but they were not by any measure members of German society.

In 2007, reforms allowed around 40,000 "tolerated" asylum seekers to change to temporary residency status. (Those who qualified had to have been living in the country for a minimum of eight years or at least six if they had kids.) They were given two years to find employment and learn German or face expulsion. Given that few speak the language and that none have been working legally during their years in Germany, it's safe to assume that many will eventually be shipped back home.

It's not just with asylum seekers that Germany displays a "yes-but" attitude. In 2004, when 10 countries-including Poland and the Czech Republic-joined the European Union, their residents were supposed to be granted the right to live and work in the 15 existing member states. (Click here to see the 12 countries that have joined the European Union since 2004.) That right had been granted to residents of the EU 15. But most of Old Europe pushed back and imposed curbs on Eastern bloc citizens' right to work. Germany, along with Austria, was one of the most vociferous in advocating for the work curbs and has announced it will keep them in place until 2011, the maximum period allowed.

Ostensibly, Germany has laid out the welcome mat for a specific kind of immigrant: highly skilled workers, generally in the sciences or high-tech fields. In 2005, in an effort to lure non-EU residents, the government announced that qualifying workers would be granted immediate permanent residency. The salary these men and women had to be offered was so high, though, that barely more than 1,000 non-EU workers took advantage of the offer.

Hundreds of thousands of foreigners pour into Germany every year, but nearly as many leave: In 2006, the so-called "net migration" was 75,000 people. Most of the newcomers arrive through family reunification. Turks received about one-quarter of those visas in 2006, and the majority of the permits go to young women (and some men) who are to be married to German Turkish residents. By some estimates, as many as half of German Turks have sought spouses abroad. This gets to the nub of Germany's most profound social problem: The guest workers who arrived in the country during the postwar boom years never really integrated. If they felt a sense of belonging, it is safe to assume that most would find their spouses in Germany rather than looking to their ancestral homeland.

The tradition of importing spouses perpetuates the community's isolation. It means that the growing pains of integration-learning a new language, adapting to a different culture-persist through successive generations. Kids from these homes oftentimes aren't exposed to German until they start kindergarten, by which time many are as old as 6. At the age of 10 (or 12 in Berlin), students of Turkish descent are often diverted into trade schools, or Hauptschulen, and train for jobs that are rapidly disappearing. Turkish unemployment rates are generally double the national average.

The German government has adopted policies to help Turks already living in Germany to integrate. (Turks account for 2.5 million of Germany's 82 million residents.) In 1999, the country scrapped its policy of awarding citizenship at birth only to people who had at least one German parent. This, of course, meant virtually no guest workers or their descendents could qualify. Now a child who is born to a mother or father who has lived legally in the country for a minimum of eight years is a German citizen until the age of 23. At that point, because Germany does not permit dual citizenship, the young people must choose which passport to carry. In part because of the restrictions, only one-third renounced German citizenship.

Germany also clamped down on the practice of importing spouses. Now foreigners wishing to emigrate from countries like Turkey and Morocco have to demonstrate some proficiency in German, and they must be over 16. This has already had an impact: Visa applications from Turkey dropped by about one-third after the law went into effect in 2007. Those would-be spouses who do make the cut will be helped to acclimatize to their new home: Since 2005, the German government has provided language and orientation classes, which are compulsory for immigrants who speak little German and come from countries that require visas for entry.

While some of these changes, like the citizenship provisions, are aimed at making Turks feel they have a stake in German society, a feeling of rejection is pervasive in the Muslim community. Partially in defiance, some younger Turks have become more religious. There are signs that pockets of Islamic radicalism have taken root. Three of the terrorists who participated in the 9/11 attacks-including one of the masterminds, Mohamed Atta-spent time in Germany.

The tensions on the other side of the Atlantic hold a cautionary tale for the United States. The comprehensive immigration bill that died in the Senate last year included a guest-worker program. Germany demonstrates the perils of that model. At the very least, countries should select workers they would be happy to have stick around after their contracts run out. Because many will. And as uncomfortable as it might be to acknowledge that these workers may become permanent members of society, it is much more difficult to grapple with a growing and alienated community decades after the program that brought them over "temporarily" has been scrapped.

More here



Mixed feelings among Hispanics in the USA

Time was when politicians tended to make their appeals to Latino voters with a one-issue-fits-all approach: immigration. But Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama are emphasizing a broad range of topics - jobs, the economy, health care, education - as well as immigration as they court Hispanic voters, who loom as a potential swing vote in November's presidential election. Their more expansive approach is pragmatic, for Latino concerns mirror those of voters at-large. "It's the same issues that are important to everybody," said Sylvia Camarillo, a longtime Travis County Democratic Party activist. "It's almost becoming not (about) racial or cultural issues anymore, it's just social issues in general."

At least once they're in the voting booth. But when it comes to getting Latino voters to the polls, immigration is still a potent motivator.Asked to rate their biggest concerns, Hispanic registered voters ranked education, the cost of living, jobs, health care and crime ahead of immigration in a nationwide survey by the Pew Hispanic Center.

Yet Pew also found that the immigration issue has become more importantto Latinos since the last presidential election. In that interim, federal authorities dramatically stepped up enforcement of immigration laws and Congress considered a comprehensive immigration reform bill as well as a separate measure to criminalize illegal immigrants. Both failed.

"Immigration matters in this election, in part, because we think it's driving a lot of energy on the part of Latino voters," said Cecilia Munoz, a senior vice president with the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights group.

With a few differences, Obama and McCain have taken similar stances on immigration. Both favor securing the borders and giving potentially millions of illegal immigrants already here conditional means of gaining legal residency. McCain bucked his own party when he co-sponsored comprehensive immigration reform legislation in 2006. He abandoned the proposal and now says the borders must be secured before he could consider such a bill again. Obama has vowed to press for reform his first year as president, if elected.

Munoz said that in the council's polling, Hispanics rarely say immigration is their top issue but do identify it as their biggest motivator to vote. "It operates as a threshold issue the way reproductive rights does with some women voters," explainedMunoz. "It determines who the good guys and the bad guys are."

Munoz says most Hispanics, like most Americans, support laws that allow illegal immigrants in good standing to become legal U.S. residents. But not all agree. "I know some Latinos that are very adamant about the folks who are here illegally and feel strongly that they shouldn't be," said Hector DeLeon, 61, of West Lake Hills, a leader in state Republican political circles who is supporting McCain and also supports immigration reform. Often, the feelings are linked to cultural and economic tensions between Mexican American citizens and illegal immigrants. For instance, a Pew Hispanic Center survey in 2007 found that while 82 percent of foreign-born Latinos think that illegal immigrants benefit the economy, only 64 percent of native-born Latinos do.

Protests led to registration

Hispanics are notoriously underrepresented at the polls. About 47 million strong, they make up about 15 percent of the U.S. population but only 9 percent of eligible voters. Many are ineligible either because they're not yet citizens or not yet 18 years old. And Latinos vote in smaller percentages than their Anglo and African American counterparts. But there are signs that registration of eligible Latinos is rising, boosted in large part by the wrenching immigration debate. An estimated 1.1 million Latinos ages 18 and older became naturalized U.S. citizens since the last presidential election, said Jeffrey Passel, an expert on immigration and a demographer with the Pew Hispanic Center.

What struck Passel is that 85 percent of that growth occurred after May 2006, a date that coincides with the end of nationwide protests advocating new immigration laws and pathways to citizenship for the country's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. "Today we march; tomorrow we vote," became the rallying cry as millions took to the streets.

A national alliance of community and voter mobilization groups that sprang from the demonstrations has been working for two years to register 500,000 new immigrant voters and to get 1 million immigrants to the polls this November. Last month, the alliance said it had registered 372,000 new Latino and Asian immigrant voters and was optimistic it would reach its goals. "We hear again and again that some of our newest voters feel passionately that they want their voice in this process," saidRafael Collazo with Democracia U.S.A., a Miami-based partner in the We Are America Alliance.

Immigrant advocates say that new citizens and first-time voters are driven by crackdowns against illegal immigrants - which they consider threatening even to family members with legal status - and the Republican-led attempts in 2006 to make illegal immigration a felony, which ignited the mass protests. "When the political pundits begin to assess what transpired in the 2008 elections, the role of immigration will be one of the most important explanations," said Paco Fabi n, communications director with the immigrant advocacy group America's Voice,referring to both the political issue and the infusion of new immigrant voters.

A turnaround

Two major questions for Hispanic voters are how to regard McCain's zigzag stance on immigration and whether he can bring his fellow Republicans around to views more in keeping with his own. "John McCain has always been a champion on this issue," said Hessy Fernandez, McCain's national Latino outreach director.

The bipartisan McCain-Kennedy bill, which Obama also supported, would have tightened enforcement at the borders and in the workplace, created a guest worker program and offered the hope of legalization for millions of illegal immigrants already in the U.S., if they paid fines and met other conditions. It competed for a time with Republican-led legislation in the House to criminalize illegal immigrants. The McCain bill engendered a backlash of its own - from GOP conservatives - and failed to pass the Senate in 2007.

"Many Americans did not believe us when we said we would secure our borders, and so we failed in our efforts," McCain says on his campaign Web site. Munoz said Latino voters appreciate McCain for having stood up to his party but added: "I think they want to see him stand up now ... Even if his heart is in the right place, can he deliver comprehensive immigration reform?"

More here





13 October, 2008

DISEASE and Immigration: Are We Killing Ourselves?

It's been reported by highly credible health and medical authorities that immigration (especially illegal immigration) has been causing the rates of harmful diseases to rise in the United States. In some areas, where illegal immigration is higher, the introduction of diseases which are unusual to us here in the USA are alarmingly high.

In testimony on behalf of the American Medical Association to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Laurence Nicker, director of the El Paso health district said : "Contagious diseases that are generally considered to have been controlled in the United States are readily evident along the border ... The incidence of tuberculosis in El Paso County is twice that of the U.S. rate. Dr. Nickey also states that leprosy, which is considered by most Americans to be a disease of the Third World, is readily evident along the U.S.-Mexico border and that dysentery is several times the U.S. rate ... People have come to the border for economic opportunities, but the necessary sewage treatment facilities, public water systems, environmental enforcement, and medical care have not been made available to them, causing a severe risk to health and well being of people on both sides of the border."

It was reported by the Houston Chronicle that "The pork tapeworm, which thrives in Latin America and Mexico, is showing up along the U.S. border, threatening to ravage victims with symptoms ranging from seizures to death. ... The same [Mexican] underclass has migrated north to find jobs on the border, bringing the parasite and the sickness-cystercicosis its eggs can cause[.] Cysts that form around the larvae usually lodge in the brain and destroy tissue, causing hallucinations, speech and vision problems, severe headaches, strokes, epileptic seizures, and in rare cases death".

These incidents haven't been only limited to the Mexican border areas. The Fairfax Journal (Virginia) reported "Typhoid struck Silver Spring, Maryland, in 1992 when an immigrant from the Third World (who had been working in food service in the United States for almost two years) transmitted the bacteria through food at the McDonald's where she worked. River Blindness (Onchocerciasis), malaria, and guinea worm have all been brought to Northern Virginia by immigration.

In articles by the Washington Post and LA Times it was reported "Contrary to common belief, tuberculosis (TB) has not been wiped out in the United States, mostly due to illegal migration. In 1995, there was an outbreak of TB in an Alexandria high school, when 36 high-school students caught the disease from a foreign student. The four greatest immigrant magnet states have over half the TB cases in the U.S.

Source



More Australians want migrant intake cut

Dissatisfaction with immigration is rising across the country, and NSW is the state most set on reducing migrant numbers. Between 2004 and 2007 the proportion of voters who wanted the migrant intake cut rose from 34 per cent to 46 per cent, a study by a Swinburne University of Technology academic, Katharine Betts, shows.

The paper, which appears in the journal People And Place today, found that NSW had the highest support for a pared back intake, half of the respondents saying migrant numbers should be "reduced a little or a lot".

In 2006-07 a third of all new migrants to Australia chose to live in NSW. "The effects of population change are more noticeable," said Dr Betts, an associate professor in sociology. "People are aware of the extra traffic on the road, and everyone knows someone that can't find a place to rent."

Voters' mutterings come as the Federal Government faces questions over its immigration program which, this year, swelled to record levels while the country teetered on the brink of a recession. The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has said next year's intake will take into account financial conditions before the federal budget next May..

Dr Betts said attitudes to immigration were influenced markedly by the economic climate and political rhetoric of the day. For instance, over the past 18 years of comparable statistics, taken from the Australian Election Studies, opposition to immigration policy was strongest in 1993. About this time, the Labor government, under Bob Hawke and then Paul Keating, was speaking enthusiastically about multiculturalism, the nation was emerging from recession and high unemployment was souring sentiment to new immigrants' easy access to welfare. "In such a setting, some voters could have believed that immigration was bringing in competitors for scarce jobs," Dr Betts said.

Conversely, support for increased immigration was highest in 2004. Under the Howard government the word multiculturalism all but disappeared from use, economic conditions had improved and changes to immigration policy reduced total numbers, limited family reunions and restricted new migrants' access to welfare. This, combined with tough border control, worked to calm the electorate, Dr Betts said. "Many voters may have come to believe the program was not only small, well-targeted and . in the national interest, but that it was also under close control. The idea that people are just streaming in gets people really upset."

And it is unlikely to surprise politicians that when they talk tough on immigration, voters feel more favourably disposed toward migrants. Immigration policies that appeared to benefit the people already in Australia were best received, Dr Betts said.

Source





12 October, 2008

Five Million Illegals Have Illegal Mortgages in U.S.A.

A single report by KFYI radio of Phoenix, Arizona highlights a shocking claim made by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD says that five million illegal aliens hold illegal mortgages. This is just one more example of the lax lending laws put into place by Democrats like Barney Frank that have contributed to this economic crisis. One would think this would be big news. But, so far we have only this one report to cover it.

There have been earlier stories of home flipping schemes that made liberal use of illegal aliens as straw buyers and the FBI has followed numerous cases to prosecution and conviction. But the Old Media have not done much with this story. KFYI reports that these fraudulent straw purchases of mortgages by illegal aliens has affected every state in the union.

One illegal alien was arrested this year in Tucson after allegedly using a stolen social security number to buy two homes and rack up over $780,000 in bad debt.

Some five million fraudulent home mortgages are in the hands of illegal aliens, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. It's not known how many of those have contributed to the subprime housing mortgage meltdown, but it has affected every state, including Arizona.

The problem began years ago when banks were forced to give mortgages without confirming social security numbers or borrower identification. As a result, illegal immigrants were able to obtain home mortgages which they could not afford.

Lax immigration laws have also helped make this crime easy to perpetrate. In 1965 a Democrat Controlled Congress under President Lyndon Johnson passed the concept of "chain" immigration into law. A later commission named the Hesburgh Commission convened during Ronald Reagan's first term, found that this concept statistically allowed each single immigrant to bring into this country 84 of his family members. Of course, all these people have to live somewhere making such fraudulent mortgages quite attractive.

What illegal struggling to survive is going to pass up a free house that he can move into without having to present any identification, proof of employment, financial history or even a down payment? It isn't impossible for a foreigner to get a mortgage in the U.S., of course. There is a way but it requires a lot of proof and paperwork.

"Known as ITIN mortgages because applicants must have an individual taxpayer identification number, the fixed-rate loans are designed for immigrants who can prove they are creditworthy and pay taxes even though they don't have legal permanent residency in the U.S.. The mortgages represent a fraction of the $2.8 trillion mortgage market. "

This story should be in every paper and on every TV news cast. Yet it isn't. I'll leave the guessing as to why with you, gentle reader. Notice: the link to the story above is a Google cached page link because KFYI has pulled down their report.

** UPDATE**

I found why KFYI pulled the original piece. It turns out that they mistook the opinion of a HUD official as an official HUD announcement. KFYI stands by the essence of their original report, but had to clarify that their source was talking on his own and not as an official of HUD.

HUD Mum on Illegal Mortgages

A retired agent from Immigration and Customs Enforcement says that five million illegal immigrants nationwide may hold home mortgages.

Earlier this week, we posted a story that said figures from the Department of Housing and Urban Development showed that home mortgages were held by 5 million illegal immigrants and that this may have contributed, in part, to the housing crisis that has led to the recent failure in the financial markets. Our source for that story, a retired agent from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, stands by those numbers.

A person from Housing and Urban Development contacted KFYI to tell us the number was inaccurate, that there were only 2.3 million mortgages held by immigrants, so there was no way that 5 million illegals could have mortgages.

When asked what HUD says the correct number is, the person (who identified himself only as `Brian' and who refused to give his last name), either would not or could not say how many illegal immigrants hold mortgages. He also said there was "no way" HUD would grant an interview on the subject.

Source



McCain's support for amnesty has not done him much good

The statistics offered below are believable but I am dubious about the explanations offered. Why would Hispanics want to distance themselves from GWB when GWB was as pro-amnesty as McCain? I think that Hispanics rightly see that Democrats are in favor of open borders. That such a policy would in the fullness of time turn the USA into just another Latin-American failed State is no problem to the destruction-loving Left

The man who once took a big political risk by joining with Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy to propose a comprehensive immigration reform bill that was embraced by Hispanics is now struggling to win these same voters, and falling perilously below the level of support that helped lift President Bush to the White House. The candidate who won nearly 70 percent of Hispanic voters in his last bid for Senate in border-state Arizona is watching a first-term Illinois senator run away with those voters. The pro-military, anti-abortion candidate is seeing Hispanics with similar views turn away en masse.

McCain's campaign is pushing back on each of these fronts in Spanish-language radio and television ads and on-the-ground contact in the markets, Hispanic neighborhoods, military bases and churches across the southwest. But polls show the candidate isn't finding it easy to shake his biggest liability with these voters: the R after his name.

"The Republican Party pretty much alienated that voting bloc with the debate over immigration," said Clarisa Arellano, a GOP activist in Colorado Springs, Colo., and a co-chair of McCain's Hispanic coalition in the state. "There's constant repetition that Sen. McCain is just another Republican, and negative campaigning works."

McCain's trouble is most evident in his own backyard - the swing states of Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada. Hispanics in these states are a growing and critical segment of the electorate. They are largely of Mexican descent and trend Democratic, but in recent elections Republicans have successfully carved out just enough of their support to win. Bush won 44 percent of Hispanic voters in New Mexico in 2004, when he eked out a win in the state by 6,000 votes, according to exit polling.

In a poll conducted last week, McCain was winning just 17 percent of Hispanic voters in the state. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama had 62 percent, and 21 percent were undecided, according to the survey conducted by Research & Polling Inc. for the Albuquerque Journal.

McCain is faring somewhat better in national polls. A Gallup poll conducted last week showed 26 percent of Hispanics favoring McCain, while 64 percent preferred Obama. McCain's advocates on the ground say there's no mistaking 2000 for 2008. "I think Bush identified himself," said Larry Trujillo, a former Colorado state legislator who is now pouring hours into McCain's campaign in the state. "I don't think (McCain's) story is getting out, I don't think it has resonated as loudly as I wish it would, as it should."

Trujillo and other McCain backers said they find Hispanics know little of the senator's record and lump him in with Republicans they have turned against. "The problem we have, many people, instead of being with Obama, they're anti-Bush. They want to vote against anything that represents Bush," said Xavier Rivas, a Republican activist working on McCain's Hispanic coalition in Las Vegas.

In conversation with voters, Rivas tries to highlight McCain's ties to the community. He notes McCain was born on a military base in Panama, has traveled to Latin America and advocates free trade. He doesn't see the campaign pushing these connections aggressively. McCain's campaign has been drawn into an television and radio advertising volley on immigration, an emotionally charged issue that isn't playing in his favor.

While embraced by the largely pro-immigration population of Hispanics, McCain's 2006 reform bill was pilloried by many conservatives. The debate left the senator caught between the right wing in his own party and the Hispanic voters he's trying to court.

McCain tacked to the right during the primary, saying he would not reintroduce his own reform bill until the borders are more secure. He's finding it difficult to tack back. "I do have to say that the primary departure from highlighting his positives on immigration, it lost some people," Arellano said. "It is muddled. There isn't enough time to go out there and talk to them about immigration with all these other issues to talk about."

More here





11 October, 2008

Scottish government soft on illegals

The policies advocated below come from the new Scottish Nationalist government and tend to show that even a Nationalist government is still to the Left of Britain as a whole. Overall, Scots are an immovable Leftist lump in Britain -- reminiscent of Jews in the USA

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill clashed with senior immigration officials yesterday over the impact that major reforms to UK asylum law would have in Scotland. Setting out the Scottish Government's "clear lines in the sand", Mr MacAskill said he was opposed to detaining children prior to removal from the country and wanted to see asylum seekers integrated into communities from "day one" of their arrival in the UK.

Speaking at a conference organised by the Scottish Refugee Council in Glasgow, the minister also backed the idea of allowing people to work while their asylum claim is being processed.

His stance is likely to inflame tensions between the devolved administration and Westminster, which has reserved power over asylum and immigration issues, ahead of an overhaul of legislation which is intended to simplify decades of separate laws covering both issues.

As part of the consultation on the Immigration and Citizenship Bill, due to be laid before parliament early next year, First Minister Alex Salmond has written to the Home Secretary to push for a "flexible" approach which would take account of Scotland's situation and ensure its effect on devolved areas of responsibility were highlighted, Mr MacAskill said. He added: "We welcome moves to speed up the immigration process and bring greater transparency. But we have to ensure that Scotland's particular needs, as well as values, are taken account of. "Asylum seekers and refugees who move to Scotland bring with them valuable skills and experiences and it makes sense for us and for them to utilise those."

The Justice Secretary also disclosed that the Borders and Immigration Agency (BIA) is working with the Scottish Government, SRC and councils to pilot an alternative system of removing families whose asylum claims have been rejected to avoid the need to lock them up in removal centres such as Dungavel, in Lanarkshire.

Lin Homer, BIA's chief executive who attended yesterday's conference in Glasgow, said she welcomed consultation and was open to the idea of regional variations in applying UK asylum policy - an approach which she said had already borne fruit with the establishment of the regional BIA covering Scotland and Northern Ireland. But she added: "We're not after a position where there are basic differences in how asylum applicants are treated in the system depending on where they enter. That seems to go against their human rights and the basic principle that you have to be consistent across the piece."

Ms Homer said the UK Government was opposed to allowing asylum seekers to work while their claim was being processed and wanted to ensure they integrated into communities only if they received approval to remain in the UK. But she claimed BIA has had notable success in bringing down the time it takes to process asylum claims and was now on target to finalise 60% of claims within six months by the end of the year.

Source



Australian government rethinks immigration boost amid global financial crisis

Australian Labor unionists have long been critical of immigration from low-wage countries so maybe the political party that ostensibly represents them is returning to its roots

Australia said on Friday it will re-think a large boost to immigration as the global financial crisis buffets the economy and places a brake against years of strong growth. With economic expansion tipped by the IMF to almost halve to just above two per cent, centre-left Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said his government would re-assess the need for a planned 19.8 per cent immigration increase, or 31,000 extra migrant places. "As with all previous governments, and mine's the same, whenever we set immigration targets we will adjust them according to the economic circumstances of the day," Rudd told local radio.

Australia is a nation of immigrants, with nearly one-in-four born overseas among the 21 million population. Only two months ago, before financial tumult spread around the world, Rudd's government agreed to a pilot scheme bringing 2,500 Pacific islanders to Australia to help fill 22,000 seasonal agriculture jobs which growers have been unable to fill with unemployment at 32-year lows. As well, the government planned to accept 190,300 new migrants before July next year, including 56,500 places for family members sponsored by people already in Australia and 133,500 places for those with highly skilled newcomers.

The booming economy, growing at more than four per cent annually during 16 years of expansion, has been facing shortages of skilled labour, pushing up wages and inflation.

But critics of migration now say economic chaos on international markets will erode the need for more workers, even in resource-rich states like Western Australia and Queensland.

Rudd said immigration was not a one-size-fits-all approach and the government would take advice on where workers were still needed. Unemployment increased by 21,700 last month, ticking up from 4.1 per cent to 4.3 per cent in seasonal terms.

Australia's peak union body, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, said there was no case yet to lift migration numbers as the threat of a US-led recession gripped world markets. "You would want to be convinced that immigration was not adding to employment growth and that it wasn't in fact necessary to fill medium- to long-term skills vacancies," ACTU president Sharan Burrow told the Australian newspaper.

Source





10 October, 2008

Texas conservatives pledge to lower taxes, toughen immigration laws

For the first time in several cycles, many conservative lawmakers will have a common platform to run on and enact in 2008-09. A town hall meeting at the Smith County Commissioners Courtroom in Tyler signaled the beginning of a movement that some conservative legislators hope will usher in a set of common policy goals in the next legislative session.

The Board of Directors of the Texas Conservative Coalition (TCC) released its "Renewed Pledge with Texans" on Wednesday, Oct. 1, hoping to build on what the group considers successes in policy since 2003. Members are working to get other conservative legislators to sign on to the pledge before the 81st Texas Legislature convenes in January 2009. "With the rest of the nation stuck in an economic and fiscal ditch, bold steps are necessary to keep Texas the best state in the nation to raise a family, start a business, or earn a degree," said Rep. Leo Berman (R-Tyler), in a press statement.

The pledge, Berman said, addresses illegal immigration, high property taxes, andhealth care costs. It's an ambitious program. Among other things, the group plans to "cut property taxes until they are eliminated." The TCC will issue a post-session scorecard on how individual legislators voted on the points of the pledge. "With Washington mired in an economic crisis and political stalemate, the time is right for us to stand up and take charge of our future," TCC President State Rep. Wayne Christian (R-Center) said in the press statement.

The 10-item "Renewed Pledge with Texans" touches on other major policy issues such as controlling illegal immigration, assuring election integrity, and improving public education. "Our Pledge is designed to refocus and reenergize our fellow conservative legislators to unite behind policy ideas to keep Texas strong, growing and prosperous," said TCC board member Dan Flynn (R-Van). Berman said the goals of the plan would not be accomplished overnight, "but we intend to remain vigilant, determined, and unrelenting in our drive to implement conservative initiatives." "Conservatives have made great strides in protecting traditional values, holding the line on the budget and protecting against lawsuit abuse. I am very proud of our record of achievement," said Rep. Linda Harper-Brown (R-Irving), vice president of the TCC.

The goals of the Renewed Pledge with Texans are as follows:

Reduce property taxes until they are eliminated by using surplus state tax revenues to bring relief to property owners; and freeze property taxes for military families.

Require voter identification at the polls during elections and proof of citizenship when one is registering to vote.

Curtail illegal immigration and resist Mexican drug cartels by training local law enforcement in federal immigration law and increase funding for border and homeland security; prohibit local government agencies from accepting the matricula consular as a form of identification; and, make tax credits available to employers who verify that their employees are legal.

Stop the Trans-Texas Corridor toll road project and assure that property owners are fully compensated for land taken for public use through eminent domain.

Cut the rates of the margins tax on business; require a two-thirds majority of both houses of the Legislature to raise the margin tax rate; and exempt more small businesses from paying the margins tax.

Improve and expand electric transmission infrastructure; implement fast-track permitting of new power facilities; invest in natural resource-based energy; and use System Benefit Fund revenues to help families with electric bills and the purchase of smart meters.

Make more community college credits transferable to universities; encourage adult education and promote other postsecondary educational opportunities at career colleges and schools for aspiring blue-collar workers.

Reduce health care costs through investment in electronic health records; require health plans, physicians, and hospitals to make cost and quality information available to the public; increase the availability of low-cost, mandate-free insurance; and offer optional health savings accounts to all public employees and high-deductible low-cost health plans to college students.

Impose strict constitutional spending restraints to further slow the growth of state government; ensure that dedicated funds are spent for their intended purpose or return the money to taxpayers; return to a true "zero-based" budgeting process to force agencies to justify all spending requests each legislative session; close loopholes in welfare programs; increase resources for child support collection to reduce reliance on government programs; and end double taxation on phone bills by eliminating the sales tax on telecommunications fees and surcharges.

The agenda contains items that conservative lawmakers have backed for several sessions. It could, however, put these lawmakers on a collision course with Gov. Rick Perry. The Trans-Texas Corridor is one of the governor's signature projects, and he vetoed the bill reforming eminent domain law largely at the behest of the Texas Department of Transportation.

On illegal immigration, the conservative lawmakers may also face challenges from their own party. Perry wants to change the subject from fighting illegal immigration to border security. Aggressive bills cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants have also run into procedural roadblocks in the Texas House of Representatives.

The agenda is quite noteworthy. First, it shows there are conservative lawmakers willing to run as such. Under the reign of George W. Bush and Karl Rove issues often took a back seat to fuzzy, poll-tested sound bites. And second, lawmakers are willing to make promises on issues and drive policy discussions in the State of Texas. Now the real fun begins: selling the agenda to Texas voters.

Source



Texas cracks down on illegal immigrants' drivers' licenses

Texas now requiring proof of legal status before issuing a driver's license

In a clampdown on illegal immigrants, the Texas Department of Public Safety has adopted a new policy requiring noncitizens to prove they are in this country legally before they can obtain or renew a driver's license. Gov. Rick Perry applauded the change, which went into effect Oct. 1, as a way to strengthen the state's security. "Texas is a great place to live and work, and while we welcome legally documented individuals to the Lone Star State, we must ensure that this privilege is not abused by those seeking to enter our country illegally," he said.

But Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, said the policy change is a bad idea because illegal immigrants are going to drive anyway. "People have to drive to get to work. You want people to get (auto) insurance. They can't get insurance if they don't have a driver's license," he said.

The immigrant driver's licenses will look different than regular licenses so that they are immediately recognizable to police, Perry said. The immigrant licenses will have a "temporary visitor" designation and the date the driver's legal U.S. admission expires. No driver's license will be issued for anyone whose legal entry into the country expires in less than six months. People with indefinite admission periods will get one-year licenses that will have to be renewed in person with proof that the applicant's lawful status has been extended.

Under the change, people who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents of the United States must present valid governmental documentation that they are in the country legally before they can obtain a driver's license or personal identification card. The documents must be issued by the Department of Justice, Department of State, Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Natu-ralization Service or Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. Border crossing cards won't be accepted.

Lawful permanent residents must present valid immigrant visas or U.S. resident alien cards before getting licenses. U.S. citizens seeking an initial application for a license have various options for proving citizenship, including a U.S. passport, citizenship certificate or a combination of other documents, including a birth certificate, military records and voter registration card.

State law also requires all applicants for driver's licenses to provide a Social Security number. But applicants can bypass that requirement by signing an affidavit that they have been deemed ineligible for coverage. The affidavit doesn't require applicants to state why they have been denied Social Security coverage, DPS spokeswoman Tela Mange said. And, she added, illegal immigrants could have obtained licenses by submitting fake Social Security cards.

She said the Public Safety Commission, the DPS' governing board, imposed the new restrictions for immigrants on its own. Similar changes in policy have been proposed by legislators, but none of those bills has ever become law. "The commission wanted to make sure the driver's licenses and identification cards were as secure documents as we could make them," she said.

The DPS estimates that as many as 2 million of Texas' 16 million licensed drivers - one in eight - may be immigrants, many in the country illegally, Mange said. "That's nonsense," Harrington said of the estimate. "I don't think anybody has any idea." Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, agreed. "The idea that there's a flood of people (illegal immigrants) going into DPS offices, signing a form saying they're not eligible for a Social Security card and then getting driver's licenses is unbelievable," he said. Coleman said the crackdown was election year "demagoguery" by Perry. "It (immigration) is the issue that galvanizes their (Republican) base," he said.

Public Safety Commission Chairman Allan Polunsky, of San Antonio, said he initiated the policy change after learning of a taxi driver in Dallas who had brought undocumented workers into Texas from other states so they could obtain Texas driver's licenses. Polunsky said he didn't know the taxi driver's motives but found it disconcerting that illegal immigrants could easily obtain driver's licenses in Texas. He said the new restrictions also bring Texas into closer compliance with the federal REAL ID Act, which requires states to create specially marked licenses for some immigrants.

Source





9 October, 2008

Their kids are no good too

Another confirmation -- from the Left!

John McCain and Barack Obama have largely avoided discussing immigration during the presidential campaign. But when it comes to the legal side of the issue, they both seem to support the status quo: an official policy centered around low-skilled, predominately Hispanic immigrants. A forthcoming book shows just how misguided that policy is, especially in light of the nation's current economic woes. The Latino Education Crisis: The Consequences of Failed Social Policies, by Patricia Gandara and Frances Contreras, offers an unflinching portrait of Hispanics' educational problems and reaches a scary conclusion about those problems' costs. The book's analysis is all the more surprising given that its authors are liberals committed to bilingual education, affirmative action, and the usual slate of left-wing social programs. Yet Gandara and Contreras, education professors at UCLA and the University of Washington, respectively, are more honest than many conservative open-borders advocates in acknowledging the bad news about Hispanic assimilation.

Hispanics are underachieving academically at an alarming rate, the authors report. Though second- and third-generation Hispanics make some progress over their first-generation parents, that progress starts from an extremely low base that stalls out at high school completion. High school drop-out rates-around 50 percent-remain steady across generations. Latinos' grades and test scores are at the bottom of the bell curve. The very low share of college degrees earned by Latinos has not changed for more than two decades. Currently only one in ten Latinos has a college degree.

One hundred years ago, when the U.S. still required a large industrial and agricultural labor force, Hispanics' lagging educational performance would not have been such a problem. Our current information-based economy is unforgiving to the less-educated, however. When you couple U.S. demographics with the Hispanic education crisis, things look worrisome indeed. By 2025, one in four students nationally will be Latino; in many Southwest cities, Latinos are already about 70 percent of the school population. For the first time in history, the authors observe, the ethnic group with the lowest academic achievement will become the majority in significant parts of the country.

California provides a glimpse of what such changes might mean for America's economic future. The Center for Public Policy and Higher Education predicts that unless the rate of college matriculation among "underrepresented" minorities (that is, Hispanics) immediately rises, the state will face an 11 percent drop in per capita income by 2020.

Federal, state, and local governments have already spent billions trying to overcome the Latino education gap, with little success. That gap persists in part because of the stigma against academic achievement among many Latino males. Contreras and Gandara recount a typical classroom episode: a boy correctly answered a math question, only to be greeted by chants of "schoolboy, schoolboy" from the other male children, followed by the comment: "Now you think you are smart."

The Latino Education Crisis pulls no punches in its conclusions: "With no evidence of an imminent turnaround in the rate at which Latino students are either graduating from high school or obtaining college degrees, it appears that both a regional and national catastrophe are at hand." The United States is well on its way to creating a "permanent underclass," the authors write. They even have the nerve to discuss the calamity of Latinos' rapidly rising illegitimacy rate-which now stands at 50 percent. Gandara and Contreras had better get used to being called racists from open-borders supporters, as anyone who dares to point out Hispanic family breakdown can attest.

Some readers may disagree with the book's policy recommendations-more benefits for illegal immigrants, more spending on social services and schools, more Section-8 housing vouchers, more bilingual education. Such programs have all been tried and have failed miserably. A more common-sensical solution is required. Certainly we should create more schools with an ethic of self discipline and hard work and continue doing everything we can to help Hispanic students succeed. But American immigration policy also needs to change. It should favor educated, skilled foreigners over low-skilled family members of existing immigrants. Law enforcement efforts against illegal immigration-targeting employers especially-must expand.

But however debatable some of the book's proposals, the evidence it presents for the "grave . . . economic and social consequences" of Hispanic educational failure is overwhelming. No matter who our next president is, The Latino Education Crisis should be required reading in the White House.

Source



Chicago immigration activists campaign to get out the vote

During the next four weeks, Immigration activists plan to swarm through nearly 700 Chicago-area neighborhoods, visiting some homes several times in a $1 million effort to pull at least 140,000 voters into the polls for the Nov. 4 elections, organizers announced Tuesday.

The campaign, involving about 2,500 volunteers, is part of an aggressive last push across the country to sway the result of the presidential race and several congressional contests in the direction of Immigration reforms. "This is a serious campaign," said Juan Salgado, president of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, which is coordinating the effort. "We have an agenda that's about democracy and living the best ideals of what this country is about."

As the period for registering to vote in Illinois came to an end Tuesday, activists at the news conference inside Daley Plaza displayed a 6-foot-high stack of about 25,000 registration forms signed in the last three months in what was the first phase of their plan to influence the elections.

The next phase will also feature nearly 350,000 live and automated phone calls, 172,000 pieces of mail and intensive lobbying of voters to make a stand for Immigration reform, Salgado said.

A newly created political arm that will operate separately from the non-profit coalition will target voters in the 10th Congressional District, where North Shore Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) faces a tight election, and the 11th Congressional District, where southwest suburban voters must decide on the successor to Rep. Jerry Weller (R-Ill.)

Other groups plan to hold candidates forums before the election in communities with large immigrant populations. "We're not going to just vote. We're going to commit and engage with our officials," said Inhe Choi, interim director of the Korean American Resource and Cultural Center in Chicago. "We need to. Things have to change."

Source





8 October, 2008

Australia's government-sponsored immigration flood is totally irrational

By Andrew Bolt

EVEN on the day it was announced, the Rudd Government's plan to import a million extra people in just three years seemed stupid. Now, as stock markets melt and shares shrivel, it's positively dangerous. Question: Why is the Government running the biggest immigration program in our history just as the economy may be careening into a wall? Why does it plan in its first term to import the equivalent of the population of Adelaide when even Prime Minister Kevin Rudd concedes unemployment is about to climb?

Oh, sorry - you didn't know Rudd had so ramped up immigration? Don't blame yourself. He never mentioned in his campaign launch last year that he had any such intention. Shhh. So it came almost out of the blue when - after the election - he quietly opened the gates. Rudd's May Budget set a new target for permanent migrants for this financial year: 190,300 places, or 20 per cent more than last year. And it didn't stop there. Add to those migrants some 110,000 workers brought out each year now on temporary visas, or almost triple the number of just four years ago. Add also 13,500 refugees and asylum-seekers, and some 20,000 New Zealanders, and you can see we have an immigration plan that's about to smash into some nasty realities.

How could it be otherwise? That makes more than 330,000 people we'll import each year under Rudd, for a net intake each year close to Britain's 191,000, even though we have just a third of its population. This seemed even in the relative sunlight of May to be hugely ambitious, to put it kindly.

Fact is, almost all the other policies of the federal and state governments leave us totally unprepared to deal with an intake that huge. For a start, most states have got out of the habit of laying on the essential infrastructure we need for ourselves, let alone for migrants as well.

These are now green times, so they hate building dams. They despise building power stations. They shy at building city freeways. They resent releasing farmland for houses. They even want less irrigation of crops, and not more. Result? They can't even give those here already enough water. They can't unclog our roads or unjam our trains. They can't make new houses affordable or food cheaper, and soon they'll struggle even to generate enough electricity. So how are they going to offer land, water, power and transport to more than 500,000 permanent newcomers Rudd hopes to settle here permanently in just three years?

No wonder Premier John Brumby two months ago cried enough on immigration: "I think we are probably at the limits of growth." Sure, eager-to-please Rudd thought turbo-charging the intake of migrants and temporary workers would please big business. After all, importing workers thrills companies that want to keep down wages. Importing migrants puts a glint in the eye of house builders and car makers salivating to sell the new arrivals homes and wheels.

But, as the Productivity Commission warned just two years ago, for the rest of us immigration just means more competition and not much gain. Even with a modest rise in immigration of some 40,000 skilled workers each year, the commission said in Economic Impacts of Migration and Population Growth, "the impact of migration is very small compared with other drivers of per capita income growth".

Britain's House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs this year found the same was true there: "Our general conclusion is that the economic benefits of positive net immigration are small or insignificant."

In fact, thanks to the Rudd Government's manic belief in man-made global warming, a lot of migrants could actually make us a lot worse off. That's because every new migrant, with his eating, burping, driving, computering and light-switching, adds to the greenhouse gases we pump out - just when the Government is determined to bring an emissions trading scheme in 2010 to make us cut those gases. Or pay. That means the more migrants we bring in, the more the rest of us will have to cut our own emissions to make up for them and meet the cap the Government eventually sets. So importing migrants is importing carbon pain.

And remember: all this was clear even before our economy started to slide. How much dumber does it seem now to amp up immigration when we could be on the brink of mass lay-offs? Even Rudd last week conceded: "The global financial crisis is having a greater impact on economies around the world, including in Australia, and that will mean unemployment in Australia could now increase more than forecast earlier in the year." So the plan is to bring in even more migrants to compete for jobs with Australians who are now losing their own? I don't think so.

But I said Rudd's plan was not just dumb but now dangerous. Here's why. We may hate to admit it, but we today struggle to assimilate some groups of migrants as well as we once did -- especially those with poor skills and worse English. In NSW, for instance, Lebanese-born citizens are twice more likely as the rest of us to be jailed. In Melbourne, police battle ethnic gangs of African refugees. So it's important that future immigrants have the background and the skills to fit in, and especially the education they need to land good jobs and make their own way.

But the Rudd Government, crazily enough, has skewed its immigration policies to allow in more poorly skilled immigrants who may not even speak English. Only 70 per cent of the expanded immigration intake is reserved for skilled workers, and Immigration Minister Chris Evans says he wants to bring in even more migrants with minimal skills. He told The Australian in May he wanted a "great national debate" about bringing in more semi-skilled and unskilled migrants, and said his plan to import 2500 South Pacific guest workers to pick fruit was a "stalking horse" for much more of the (permanent) same. "The demand is often for truck drivers, store managers, below tradesman-level jobs in the mining industry," he said. What's more, the Government would relax tough and "clunky" rules that migrants be able to speak English, because they "actually stopped business operating".

But how are unskilled immigrants with bad English going to get on if our economy sinks into recession? Think again, Prime Minister. I love migrants, coming from a migrant family myself. But a million newcomers in three years seems much too much of a good thing in these bad times. Or even in good times, to be frank.

Source



Message from a bird-lover

I bought a bird feeder. I hung it on my back porch and filled it with seed. What a beauty of a bird feeder it was, as I filled it lovingly with seed. Within a week we had hundreds of birds taking advantage of the continuous flow of free and easily accessible food.

But then the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio, above the table, and next to the barbecue. Then came the poop. It was everywhere: on the patio tile, the chairs, the table,everywhere!

Then some of the birds turned mean. They would dive bomb me and try to peck me even though I had fed them out of my own pocket.

And other birds were boisterous and loud. They sat on the feeder and squawked and screamed at all hours of the day and night and demanded that I fill it when it got low on food.

After a while, I couldn't even sit on my own back porch anymore. So I took down the bird feeder and in three days the birds were gone. I cleaned up their mess and took down the many nests they had built all over the patio.

Soon, the back yard was like it used to be.... quiet, serene and no one demanding their rights to a free meal.

Now let's see. Our government gives out free food, subsidized housing, free medical care, and free education and allows anyone born here to be an automatic citizen.

Then the illegals came by the tens of thousands. Suddenly our taxes went up to pay for free services; small apartments are housing 5 families; you have to wait 6 hours to be seen by an emergency room doctor; your child's 2nd grade class is behind other schools because over half the class doesn't speak English.

Corn Flakes now come in a bilingual box; I have to 'press one' to hear my bank talk to me in English, and people waving flags other than 'Old Glory' are squawking and screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free liberties.

Just my opinion, but maybe it's time for the government to take down the bird feeder



US court: Monitoring Muslims was constitutional

I understand that more than 140,000 Arabs and Muslims in the United States registered with the government under the program. Of those, 13,000 were found to be immigration violators, some of whom were then deported

A federal appeals court says it was constitutional for the United States to require visitors from two dozen Arab and Muslim countries and North Korea to register with immigration authorities. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan issued its ruling Wednesday in cases brought by several men who claimed their constitutional rights were violated.

The program was put in place after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It required males from 24 Arab and predominantly Muslim countries and North Korea to register. The requirement has since been phased out, but the database of information still exists.

The men involved in the court cases had been ordered deported because they did not have proper immigration status.

Source. Legal details here





8 October, 2008

Australia's government-sponsored immigration flood is totally irrational

By Andrew Bolt

EVEN on the day it was announced, the Rudd Government's plan to import a million extra people in just three years seemed stupid. Now, as stock markets melt and shares shrivel, it's positively dangerous. Question: Why is the Government running the biggest immigration program in our history just as the economy may be careening into a wall? Why does it plan in its first term to import the equivalent of the population of Adelaide when even Prime Minister Kevin Rudd concedes unemployment is about to climb?

Oh, sorry - you didn't know Rudd had so ramped up immigration? Don't blame yourself. He never mentioned in his campaign launch last year that he had any such intention. Shhh. So it came almost out of the blue when - after the election - he quietly opened the gates. Rudd's May Budget set a new target for permanent migrants for this financial year: 190,300 places, or 20 per cent more than last year. And it didn't stop there. Add to those migrants some 110,000 workers brought out each year now on temporary visas, or almost triple the number of just four years ago. Add also 13,500 refugees and asylum-seekers, and some 20,000 New Zealanders, and you can see we have an immigration plan that's about to smash into some nasty realities.

How could it be otherwise? That makes more than 330,000 people we'll import each year under Rudd, for a net intake each year close to Britain's 191,000, even though we have just a third of its population. This seemed even in the relative sunlight of May to be hugely ambitious, to put it kindly.

Fact is, almost all the other policies of the federal and state governments leave us totally unprepared to deal with an intake that huge. For a start, most states have got out of the habit of laying on the essential infrastructure we need for ourselves, let alone for migrants as well.

These are now green times, so they hate building dams. They despise building power stations. They shy at building city freeways. They resent releasing farmland for houses. They even want less irrigation of crops, and not more. Result? They can't even give those here already enough water. They can't unclog our roads or unjam our trains. They can't make new houses affordable or food cheaper, and soon they'll struggle even to generate enough electricity. So how are they going to offer land, water, power and transport to more than 500,000 permanent newcomers Rudd hopes to settle here permanently in just three years?

No wonder Premier John Brumby two months ago cried enough on immigration: "I think we are probably at the limits of growth." Sure, eager-to-please Rudd thought turbo-charging the intake of migrants and temporary workers would please big business. After all, importing workers thrills companies that want to keep down wages. Importing migrants puts a glint in the eye of house builders and car makers salivating to sell the new arrivals homes and wheels.

But, as the Productivity Commission warned just two years ago, for the rest of us immigration just means more competition and not much gain. Even with a modest rise in immigration of some 40,000 skilled workers each year, the commission said in Economic Impacts of Migration and Population Growth, "the impact of migration is very small compared with other drivers of per capita income growth".

Britain's House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs this year found the same was true there: "Our general conclusion is that the economic benefits of positive net immigration are small or insignificant."

In fact, thanks to the Rudd Government's manic belief in man-made global warming, a lot of migrants could actually make us a lot worse off. That's because every new migrant, with his eating, burping, driving, computering and light-switching, adds to the greenhouse gases we pump out - just when the Government is determined to bring an emissions trading scheme in 2010 to make us cut those gases. Or pay. That means the more migrants we bring in, the more the rest of us will have to cut our own emissions to make up for them and meet the cap the Government eventually sets. So importing migrants is importing carbon pain.

And remember: all this was clear even before our economy started to slide. How much dumber does it seem now to amp up immigration when we could be on the brink of mass lay-offs? Even Rudd last week conceded: "The global financial crisis is having a greater impact on economies around the world, including in Australia, and that will mean unemployment in Australia could now increase more than forecast earlier in the year." So the plan is to bring in even more migrants to compete for jobs with Australians who are now losing their own? I don't think so.

But I said Rudd's plan was not just dumb but now dangerous. Here's why. We may hate to admit it, but we today struggle to assimilate some groups of migrants as well as we once did -- especially those with poor skills and worse English. In NSW, for instance, Lebanese-born citizens are twice more likely as the rest of us to be jailed. In Melbourne, police battle ethnic gangs of African refugees. So it's important that future immigrants have the background and the skills to fit in, and especially the education they need to land good jobs and make their own way.

But the Rudd Government, crazily enough, has skewed its immigration policies to allow in more poorly skilled immigrants who may not even speak English. Only 70 per cent of the expanded immigration intake is reserved for skilled workers, and Immigration Minister Chris Evans says he wants to bring in even more migrants with minimal skills. He told The Australian in May he wanted a "great national debate" about bringing in more semi-skilled and unskilled migrants, and said his plan to import 2500 South Pacific guest workers to pick fruit was a "stalking horse" for much more of the (permanent) same. "The demand is often for truck drivers, store managers, below tradesman-level jobs in the mining industry," he said. What's more, the Government would relax tough and "clunky" rules that migrants be able to speak English, because they "actually stopped business operating".

But how are unskilled immigrants with bad English going to get on if our economy sinks into recession? Think again, Prime Minister. I love migrants, coming from a migrant family myself. But a million newcomers in three years seems much too much of a good thing in these bad times. Or even in good times, to be frank.

Source



Message from a bird-lover

I bought a bird feeder. I hung it on my back porch and filled it with seed. What a beauty of a bird feeder it was, as I filled it lovingly with seed. Within a week we had hundreds of birds taking advantage of the continuous flow of free and easily accessible food.

But then the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio, above the table, and next to the barbecue. Then came the poop. It was everywhere: on the patio tile, the chairs, the table,everywhere!

Then some of the birds turned mean. They would dive bomb me and try to peck me even though I had fed them out of my own pocket.

And other birds were boisterous and loud. They sat on the feeder and squawked and screamed at all hours of the day and night and demanded that I fill it when it got low on food.

After a while, I couldn't even sit on my own back porch anymore. So I took down the bird feeder and in three days the birds were gone. I cleaned up their mess and took down the many nests they had built all over the patio.

Soon, the back yard was like it used to be.... quiet, serene and no one demanding their rights to a free meal.

Now let's see. Our government gives out free food, subsidized housing, free medical care, and free education and allows anyone born here to be an automatic citizen.

Then the illegals came by the tens of thousands. Suddenly our taxes went up to pay for free services; small apartments are housing 5 families; you have to wait 6 hours to be seen by an emergency room doctor; your child's 2nd grade class is behind other schools because over half the class doesn't speak English.

Corn Flakes now come in a bilingual box; I have to 'press one' to hear my bank talk to me in English, and people waving flags other than 'Old Glory' are squawking and screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free liberties.

Just my opinion, but maybe it's time for the government to take down the bird feeder



US court: Monitoring Muslims was constitutional

I understand that more than 140,000 Arabs and Muslims in the United States registered with the government under the program. Of those, 13,000 were found to be immigration violators, some of whom were then deported

A federal appeals court says it was constitutional for the United States to require visitors from two dozen Arab and Muslim countries and North Korea to register with immigration authorities. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan issued its ruling Wednesday in cases brought by several men who claimed their constitutional rights were violated.

The program was put in place after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It required males from 24 Arab and predominantly Muslim countries and North Korea to register. The requirement has since been phased out, but the database of information still exists.

The men involved in the court cases had been ordered deported because they did not have proper immigration status.

Source. Legal details here





7 October, 2008

AZ: New Study Links Illegal Immigration and Crime

Note that these are NOT "cracked windshield" offenses. Many are serious crimes requiring careful examination in court. The finding regarding the children of illegals is a confirmation of earlier research and shows that, unlike legal immigrants, the children of illegals are NOT better assimilated into the host society than their parents were. That is of course a direct contradiction of smug liberal assertions about the matter and is a matter of grave concern to any thinking American. In addition to a large black criminal underclass, America is now acquiring a growing Hispanic criminal underclass. Relocating large numbers of Hispanics to Massachusetts might be the only way to get action on the problem, however

Based on 2007 AZ criminal conviction statistics:

Illegal immigrants account for 34% of the drug convictions; 44% of forgery; 96% of smuggling; 85% of false ID; 50% of crimes related to "chop shops"; 36% of kidnappings; 21% of crimes committed with weapons; 13% of aggravated assaults; 13% of robberies; 13% of stolen cars; 10% of sex crimes; 11% of murders and 20% of the felony DUI convictions in the Phoenix area. Illegal immigrants make up 19 percent of those convicted of crimes in Maricopa County and 21 percent of those in county jails.

Illegal immigrants only make up an estimated 9 percent of the county's population.

It is estimated that each violent crime cost citizens $20,000, and each property crime cost citizens $4363 per offense.

All the more a concern is research that finds the likelihood of an illegal immigrant being incarcerated grows with longer residence in the United States and that the U.S. born children (considered citizens) of illegal immigrants are dramatically more likely to be involved in crime than their illegal immigrant parents. For instance, native born Hispanic male high school dropouts are eleven times more likely to be incarcerated than their foreign born counterparts.

More details here and here

Source



Australia's new, "relaxed" illegal immigrant policy having the predictable effect already

The illegals have resumed coming. This is the second boatload in a week. The flood is resuming now that John Howard's conservative policies have been abandoned and replaced by incautious Leftist feelgood nonsense

A boatload of suspected Middle Eastern refugees has been discovered off Australia's north-western coast. A boat carrying 17 people pulled up alongside a floating gas facility and oil tanker owned by Australian Energy Development in the Timor Sea, about 200 kilometres off the Kimberley coast, about 10.30am yesterday.

The incident comes after 14 people, including nine Afghans, were intercepted by the Royal Australian Navy off the Kimberley coast last Thursday and has fuelled concerns that changes to immigration policy by the Rudd Government will trigger a wave of people smuggling.

The Immigration and Citizenship Minister, Chris Evans, said the people had been moved onto a navy vessel and would be taken to Christmas Island, where they would be placed in immigration detention and undergo health, security and identity checks. He said the nationalities of the group and the reason for the voyage was unknown at this stage. It is understood those on the vessel were mainly Afghans but included three Indonesian crew, a woman and a teenage boy.

Senator Evans said it was the second unauthorised boat arrival in Australian waters this year; there were five cases last year. But the Opposition immigration spokeswoman, Sharman Stone, said the Government's approach to abolish temporary protection visas had encouraged asylum seekers to "test the waters".

Yesterday's arrival came hours before the Red Cross warned that more than 200,000 people in the north of Afghanistan could be forced to flee their homes this winter because of drought, insecurity and rising food prices.

A crew member from the tanker, who did not wish to be named, said one of the Afghans said the boat had been at sea for 10 days. "They had a little flag which had 'help' written on it. They were in distress . they were very glad; they had smiles from ear to ear when they come alongside us." The crew member said the wooden boat was about 10 metres long with little room for everyone. It was leaking, and those on board were bailing water out he said.

Source





6 October, 2008

Arpaio and "profiling"

The article excerpted below strives to portray Sheriff Joe as practicing illegal racial profiling. It admits that it has no conclusive proof but points to the large disparity in arrest rates for whites and Hispanics. That is of course just another example of the tired and absurd old argument that everything that happens should reflect the percentage of groups in the community at large.

To be specific, the article says that Hispanics are often pulled over for minor things like cracked windshields and portrays that as a deliberate targeting of Hispanics. It fails to give any weight to the fact that Hispanics tend to be poor and therefore often drive substandard vehicles. So even a race-blind robot would still pick up disproportionate numbers of Hispanics

Arrest records from crime sweeps conducted by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office add substantial weight to claims that deputies used racial profiling to pull Latino motorists over to search for illegal immigrants.

The records show that most people arrested were Latinos, even when the sweeps were held in predominantly White areas. The sweeps frequently targeted heavily Latino areas or day-labor corridors, and most of those arrested during highly discretionary stops for reasons such as cracked windshields were Latinos, the records show. Immigration enforcement also seemed to be a main goal of the operations, which is prohibited: In five of the eight sweeps, immigration arrests outnumbered other types of arrests, the records show. The Arizona Republic examined arrest records released by the Sheriff's Office for eight crime-suppression patrols held between March and July.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio has vehemently denied that deputies were profiling. While he has trumpeted the arrests of illegal immigrants during the sweeps, he also has argued that the main purpose was to suppress crime, not go after immigrants.

The arrest records do not prove racial profiling. One reason is the lack of records on drivers who were ticketed or given a warning and allowed to drive on. But some experts say the arrest records raise strong suspicions that racial profiling was prevalent. The records could give momentum to civil-rights groups and community leaders who have sued or condemned the Sheriff's Office alleging deputies in the sweeps targeted Latinos while looking for illegal immigrants.

Federal officials have said they have found no violations of the agreement that allows deputies to enforce immigration law.

One driver who believes he and his passengers were targeted because of ethnicity is Jose Romero of Phoenix. On June 26, Romero and two other landscapers had just finished their last job of the day as they drove through Mesa in a beat-up pickup truck hauling a trailer filled with lawn equipment. Romero, 27, said he noticed an unmarked SUV with colored headlights come up behind. He said the SUV zoomed up alongside until the two vehicles were window to window, with the deputy looking over, and then the SUV drove on ahead. The SUV's siren didn't come on until Romero turned left at the next intersection.

The Maricopa County deputy in the SUV told Romero he was being stopped for a faulty brake light. One of the trailer's brake lights was burned out, Romero said, but he thinks the landscapers were pulled over for another reason: They looked Mexican. "We are all brown-skinned, and that seemed to be the first thing he looked at," said Romero, a U.S. citizen who, along with the other landscapers, was handcuffed while the deputy searched the pickup.

The landscapers were stopped as part of a two-day crime-suppression patrol the Sheriff's Office launched in late June in Mesa. Romero's two passengers, one of whom was 17, were taken into custody on open-container violations. [So Joe's men may have seen the drinking violation when they pulled alongside and taken that into account when they decided to pull the Hispanics over] The adult was later deported.

Capt. Paul Chagolla, a spokesman for the Sheriff's Office, disputed Romero's allegation that the landscapers were pulled over because the deputy was looking for illegal immigrants based on their skin color. Officers have the right to pull over vehicles for broken taillights.

Arpaio's sweeps typically last two days and usually involve dozens of deputies in marked and unmarked vehicles saturating an area of the Valley to conduct traffic stops. An agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that permits the Sheriff's Office to enforce federal immigration laws prohibits racial profiling, which violates constitutional rights.

The arrest logs show that deputies arrested more Latinos than non-Latinos during each of the eight crime sweeps. Several of the patrols were conducted in largely Hispanic areas of the Valley or in areas where Latino day laborers congregate, such as 32nd Street and Thomas Road, Bell and Cave Creek roads in Phoenix and the town of Guadalupe. But even when the patrols were held in mostly White areas such as Fountain Hills and Cave Creek, deputies arrested more Latinos than non-Latinos, the records show. In fact, deputies arrested among the highest percentage of Latinos when patrols were conducted in mostly White areas. On the arrest records, deputies frequently cited minor traffic violations such as cracked windshields and non-working taillights as the reason to stop drivers.

More here



Assuaging the Sam's Club set

A simple first step in the direction advocated by Prof. Stelzer below would be to require employers to provide ALL their "non documented" workers with health insurance. That would spark great employer interest in "documents", if nothing else. Unless "documents" were on file, the employer would be held liable for all medical costs incurred by his illegal employees

Conservative intellectuals and pundits who are overcome with enthusiasm for wooing "Sam's Club Republicans," as opposed to the more traditional country club Republicans, might want to stop off at a Sam's Club to chat with the customers. If they did, they might find that this sought-after constituency is not quite in agreement with the relaxed immigration policy that John McCain and President Bush favor. At least not with the rules as they now are.

The resentment of illegal immigration is more than a mere under-the-breath mumble and isn't assuaged with talk of eventual assimilation, of adding to the cultural richness of America, of how hardworking the newcomers are (as, indeed, many of them are). So, what would a pro-Sam's Club policy look like? The broad outline is easy to articulate but more difficult to implement.

Immigration confers benefits on employers and costs on native workers, mostly workers at the lower end of the income scale. It is no surprise that The Wall Street Journal and employer groups favor few restrictions on immigration; the employer class benefits from a docile workforce that does not demand higher wages. But employers do not bear all the costs created by their decision to hire immigrants, and consumers pay less than they would if labor costs were higher.

There is a solution. Employers can be prevented from fobbing off the costs of their hiring practices onto others by laws forcing them to internalize these costs, just as we force polluters to pay for permits that reimburse society for the costs their manufacturing activity creates.

Such cost internalization can be accomplished by requiring employers to purchase import permits for immigrant workers they choose to hire. The funds can follow the worker and go to the hospitals, schools and other facilities that must bear the burden of caring for and educating the newcomers. That also means paying the costs of assimilation: funding language and other courses necessary to get immigrants to buy into the society they are joining. If the employer chooses to hire illegals, when he is found out - and enforcement must be stepped up - whatever monetary penalties are imposed on him should include reimbursement to the community for the costs his workers have imposed on the hardworking Sam's Clubbers.

This proposal, I know, will upset some conservatives. It might not be a call for mandatory, employer-purchased insurance, but it does require employers to reimburse the affected community for, among other things, the health care costs of immigrant employees. The justification is clear: Otherwise, those nontrivial costs come out of the pockets of the Sam's Clubbers, who Republicans know are tempted to defect to the Democrats in search of the tax cuts that Barack Obama is promising.

America needs immigration. We need the young workers who are daring enough to try to make their way in a foreign country. We need the infusion of cultures different from our own, so long as they come along with the desire to assimilate. Most of all, we need to regain our pride as a haven for the hardworking and the persecuted.

John McCain once asked a small group, in response to a hostile question about his views on immigration, "What is America about if it is not a place that welcomes hardworking people?" Now, if only he would match an economically sophisticated immigration policy to the grandeur of that vision of what this country is all about, he might indeed be able to garner votes in the aisles of Sam's Clubs.

Source





5 October, 2008

Federal probe into S.F. sanctuary city policy

A federal grand jury is investigating whether San Francisco's policy of offering sanctuary to undocumented immigrants violates U.S. laws against harboring people who are in the country illegally, city officials say. City Attorney Dennis Herrera said his office has hired a criminal defense lawyer to represent employees who might be questioned or asked for documents. He and Mayor Gavin Newsom said they would cooperate with the investigation.

San Francisco, like about 80 other U.S. cities and five states, has a law prohibiting the use of its funds to help enforce federal immigration law or to question individuals about their immigration status. The San Francisco ordinance, originally prompted by arrivals of refugees from Central American wars of the 1980s, specifies that police can report jailed felons to federal immigration authorities.

The Chronicle reported earlier this year that San Francisco juvenile justice authorities, interpreting the sanctuary policy, had flown some illegal immigrant youths to their home countries after Juvenile Court judges found they had committed felonies. Other youths were sent to unlocked group homes in this country and escaped. The policy of not referring juvenile offenders to federal immigration authorities had been in place for at least a decade. Newsom announced in July, after the first Chronicle articles appeared, that he had halted the flights in May and told city officials to start turning over youthful felons as well as adults to immigration officers for deportation.

Herrera's office was notified of the investigation several weeks ago when the grand jury issued a subpoena for documents. It's not clear whether prosecutors are seeking evidence of possible criminal violations by city officials. Herrera issued a prepared statement but did not answer questions about the investigation, and U.S. Attorney Joseph Russoniello - who has been a vocal critic of the city's policy - had no comment, said spokesman Joshua Eaton. Herrera's statement said his office would "cooperate fully with the U.S. attorney's inquiry involving individuals in city custody who may be undocumented." "Given that a federal grand jury subpoena has been issued," the city attorney said, he has hired a private lawyer to advise the city on its response to the subpoena and to represent city employees whose actions "may be the subject of federal inquiry."

Newsom issued a statement Friday saying he is "aware that federal authorities are in the process of obtaining records from city departments related to the treatment of undocumented immigrants under our sanctuary city policy." "After the federal government completes its review, I am optimistic that it will conclude that city government has followed the law in every respect," the mayor said. "But in the meantime, I pledge our city government's full cooperation with federal authorities." Newsom has not been issued a subpoena, said spokesman Nathan Ballard.

Meanwhile, state Attorney General Jerry Brown's office said it has been asked by the city to investigate leaks to The Chronicle of confidential court filings in juvenile cases. The paper reported on the contents of the filings in articles about youths who were protected from deportation. Public Defender Jeff Adachi first asked for the investigation after papers filed by one of the office's lawyers were quoted in Chronicle articles. Juvenile court hearings and filings are confidential by law.

Brown's press secretary, Christine Gasparac, said the San Francisco Superior Court had asked the attorney general to look into the leaks. "We are reviewing the request for an investigation," she said.

Adachi said he wrote to a Superior Court judge in early September seeking the investigation. "What we have here is a consistent pattern of somebody who is leaking confidential information, protected information, from juvenile hall," the public defender said. "It's a misdemeanor to disclose confidential filings in a juvenile case," Adachi said. "The Legislature has enacted these laws to protect children because juvenile proceedings are not considered criminal proceedings. The laws prohibit disclosure of the identities of juveniles or the circumstances of their cases to the press or anyone else."

Source



New British immigration boss may cap numbers

The new immigration minister has hinted that Labour may take the political risk of adopting a “balanced migration” policy to restrict population growth in Britain. In his first interview since being given the job yesterday, Phil Woolas vowed to toughen the current legislation, claiming that it was vital to “provide confidence to the indigenous population that migration is under control”.

Woolas expressed sympathy with a campaign led by Frank Field, the Labour rebel, who has called for a statutory limit on the number of foreigners allowed to settle in Britain. “On a common sense level there has to be a limit to the population,” said Woolas. “You have to have a policy that thinks about the population implication as well as the immigration implications.”

The government is introducing an Australian-style points system. This is aimed at ensuring that high-skilled migrants are welcomed while nonEuropean Union nationals with no useful job skills are barred.

Woolas said the government should be ready to go further in limiting migration: “On the one hand is the rationale that we have got to strengthen our economy. But we have got to provide reassurance to communities that the numbers coming in are not bad for us. “Community cohesion is crucial. After the economy, this is probably the biggest concern facing the population.” He also signalled that there would be new restrictions on people coming from overseas to get married.

Field has argued that successive ministers have failed to consider the way immigration has boosted population levels. According to one estimate, within 50 years Britain could become the most densely populated country in the EU except Malta. England recently overtook the population density of Holland. In the long term Field wants to see a “balanced” policy with annual immigration levels directly linked to birth rates and the numbers of Britons emmigrating.

Until now Labour ministers have tended to duck any discussions of “population policy”, preferring to empha-sise the economic benefits of “controlled migration”. Woolas’s appointment in the ministerial reshuffle heralds a change in direction.

Source





4 October, 2008

Drivers licences for illegals vetoed again in CA

With State Senator Gilbert Cedillo of Los Angeles, the old proverb should be: "If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try, try, try, try, again." The Democrat from Los Angeles saw his proposal to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants vetoed this week for the fifth time since 1999. It was also repealed once after passing the Legislature.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in his veto message that he could not sign such a bill until Congress adopts a comprehensive immigration reform plan and a method is found to validate the identity of undocumented immigrants.

But showing the persistence that have some calling him "One Bill Gil," Cedillo vows to be back with the legislation next year as well. "After almost ten years of debating this issue there is one thing we all have consensus on -- all drivers should be trained, tested, licensed, and insured,'' Cedillo said.

At least one of Cedillo's colleagues has decided to drop efforts to pass legislation that was vetoed for a second time this week. Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) was crushed after the governor vetoed legislation to create a cargo container fee to reduce air pollution in the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

"Lowenthal has no intention of reintroducing the legislation next year," his office said in a statement. Perhaps Lowenthal is taking a cue from the late comedian W.C. Fields, who famously said, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damn fool about it."

Source



AZ: Border Patrol teaches citizens how to track illegal immigrants

Students who attended this year's Border Patrol Citizen's Academy were shown the skill of "sign cutting," on the second day of the two days of classes. "The students learned about the most rudimentary, yet essential technique utilized on a daily basis by Border Patrol agents in our sector," said Supervisory Border Patrol Agent Ben Vik. "Each student used their newly learned skill to detect an entry and follow it until they found a group of simulated illegal aliens."

A biannual event now, the first day of the Yuma Sector's Citizen's Academy was held on Sept. 5. Day two, which was held on Friday, featured agents teaching those in attendance how to track illegal aliens using "sign cutting" techniques. Sign cutting is a method of tracking the Border Patrol utilizes to detect and follow human beings and vehicles that have entered the U.S. illegally.

They were also shown some other, more technologically advanced tools of the trade that agents use to detect illegal entries, such as "scope trucks" and "skyboxes." "The use of sign cutting and these two technologies helps cut down the time it takes to track down a group of illegal aliens," Vik said.

A scope truck is a vehicle that has a mast attached to it and a telescopic day/night camera mounted atop it. "Usually we set the scope truck up ahead of illegal aliens in the direction they are suspected of going and use it to guide agents to the group," Vik said. A skybox is a high-tech watchtower equipped with sophisticated surveillance equipment. The skybox is air conditioned and can be set up in various locations. "It is a really good deterrent because a would-be crosser knows there is an agent inside them," Vik said.

The attendees also went out on a mock patrol near the Yuma Sector headquarters building and located a simulated illegal entry and followed sets of footprints until they located the group of simulated illegal aliens. The mock group of illegal aliens was played by Border Patrol trainee agents.

Source





3 October, 2008

Study: Immigration Law Enforcement Helps Check Criminal Street Gangs

A new Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder finds that immigration law enforcement has been highly effective in fighting gang activity around the country. Local law enforcement agencies that shun involvement with immigration law enforcement are missing an opportunity to protect their communities, according to the authors. Since 2005, ICE has arrested more than 8,000 immigrant gangsters from more than 700 different gangs under an initiative known as Operation Community Shield.

The Backgrounder,'Taking Back the Streets: ICE and Local Law Enforcement Target Immigrant Gangs,' by Jessica M. Vaughan and Jon D. Feere, was funded by the Department of Justice and describes the unique public safety problems posed by immigrant gangs. The authors present previously unpublished statistics on gang arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), describe how immigration law enforcement authorities are used to combat gang activity, and offer policy recommendations to improve federal-local cooperation, and without damaging relations with immigrant communities.

The authors can provide statistics for 99 different cities upon request. The full report is available online here. An introductory video has also been produced and is available online here .

Among the findings:

# Transnational immigrant gangs have been spreading rapidly and sprouting in suburban and rural areas where communities are not always equipped to deal with them.

# A very large share of immigrant gang members are illegal aliens and removable aliens. Federal sources estimate that 60 to 90 percent of the members of MS-13, the most notorious immigrant gang, are illegal aliens. In one jurisdiction studied, Northern Virginia, 30 to 40 percent of the gang task force case load were removable aliens.

# MS-13 activity was found in 48 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

# The immigrant gangsters arrested were a significant menace to the public. About 80 percent had committed serious crimes in addition to their immigration violations and 40 percent were violent criminals.

# The ICE offices logging the largest number of immigrant gang arrests were San Diego, Atlanta, San Francisco, and Dallas. Some cities with significant gang problems, such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Houston, had few arrests. These cities had sanctuary, or "don't ask, don't tell," immigration policies in place over the time period studied.

# While many of the immigrant gangs targeted were neighborhood operations, others were ethnic-based, such as Armenian Power, Kurdish Pride, or Oriental Killer Boys. But nearly half of the aliens arrested over the period studied were affiliated with MS-13 and Surenos-13, two of the largest and most notorious transnational gangs with largely immigrant membership.

# Nearly 60 percent of immigrant gangsters arrested by ICE were Mexican citizens, 17 percent were Salvadoran, and 5 percent were Honduran. In all, 53 different countries were represented.

# Immigrant gang members rarely make a living as gangsters. They typaically work by day in construction, auto repair, farming, landscaping and other low-skill occupations, often using false documents. Some gangs are involved in the production and sale of false documents.

# The research found no "chilling effect" on the reporting of crime as a result of local law enforcement partnerships with ICE. Instead of spreading this misconception, immigrant advocacy groups should help reinforce the message that crime victims and witnesses are not targets of immigration law enforcement.

# All gang task forces should include either an ICE agent or local officers with formal immigration law training, such as 287(g). Programs aimed solely at removing incarcerated aliens, while helpful, are not as effective in addressing gang activity as investigative programs.

# While immigration law enforcement is a federal responsibility, ICE cannot do the job effectively without assistance from state and local law enforcement, particularly when it comes to immigrant gangs.

# Failure to adequately control the U.S.-Mexico border and to deter illegal settlement in general undermines the progress ICE and local law enforcement agencies have made in disrupting criminal immigrant street gangs.

The above is a press release from CIS



Bigotry against Indians from British immigration officials

There have been a lot of reports like this. Brits are getting tired of the constant influx of foreigners and it shows at times. There is a lot of resentment of Indians because they work hard and do well economically as a result. So they become a convenient outlet for frustration

Overly zealous British home ministry officials are "humiliating, harassing and abusing" legal Indian and other migrants at airports across the country, a campaigning group said today. "Though migrants are used to discrimination and harassment, these new revelations show how the treatment of legal immigrants by border control now has stooped to the lowest of levels," the Highly Skilled Migrants Programme (HSMP) Forum said in a statement.

The British home ministry was unable to offer a comment immediately, but said it was looking into the complaint.

The group, which won a high-profile case against the government this year, said migrants who were in Britain under the HSMP visa were suffering at the hands of "overly zealous immigration officers" at some of Britain's busiest airports like Heathrow, Manchester and Belfast. "Our members complain that upon their and their families' return from trips abroad, they are harshly discriminated against by the immigration authorities, though they are fully legally entitled to re-enter the country to continue contributing to the British economy," said Mr Amit Kapadia, executive director of the forum.

It said immigration officers not only lecture migrants, and offer unsolicited advice, but have also detained and threatened to deport without reason. It gave the example of Pooja Tandon, who was detained at Heathrow airport while returning from a holiday in Switzerland with her husband, child and parents. It quoted her as saying the immigration officer lectured them about "finding alternative employment" and about "the shifts we work and child care arrangements." "He then said he is detaining us for further enquiry and if he is not satisfied with it, then he will deport us," although the family was let off with a verbal warning.

Pooja Tandon added: "We are really shaken by this incident. We felt being treated like criminals. We pay our taxes and national insurance and all other bills, and are being threatened this way."

In a second instance, a doctor who has been in Britain for a decade was questioned by an airport immigration officer about his using the state health service for the delivery of their son, when all tax-paying foreigners are entitled to the National Health Service. "The immigration official had no legal position to threaten, abuse and intrusively demand information about the sensitive and private medical care of a legal migrant worker," the HSMP Forum said.

In a third case, an HSMP migrant was detained for a few days and was about to be deported to his country of origin because he was not working in his field of expertise, "when in reality HSMP visas do not have any such restrictions."

"It is clear from these cases that Immigration Officers have tried to take the law in their own hand," the forum said

Source





2 October, 2008

Italians don't take immigrant crime lying down

And African immigrants protest perceptions of them as being violent and destructive by being violent and destructive! Way to go!

For the past two weeks, groups of teenagers have mourned in front of "Shining," a snack bar not far from Milan's Central Station. Many leave flowers and cards. But some leave cookies and two euros, a provocative gesture referencing the killing of Abdul Guibre: the 19-year-old African-Italian youth who was allegedly beaten to death Sept. 14 by two shop owners for having stolen some cookies, worth a few euros.

This death comes on the heels of a recent wave of racially motivated attacks in Italy that are raising concerns about violence against minorities, and a potential backlash from those who feel they are unfairly treated as second-class citizens. "This is the poisoned fruit of a process that began in the early 1990s, when the first boats of migrants came from Albania," says Jean Leonard Touadi, a lawmaker in Parliament and an African-Italian born in Congo. "Since then, a syndrome of invasion, fueled by extremists, has been spreading in the broader public, even though until recently Italy [had] a lower migration rate than the rest of Europe."

Tensions between Italians and immigrants have run high this year. On Aug. 18, the son of an Angolan diplomat was beaten in Rome by a neo-Nazi group. Earlier in the summer, Roma (gypsy) camps were set on fire near Naples. Six African immigrants were killed in September in a small town in central Italy, though some reports say it was a Mafia killing. "Unfortunately the life of someone who is perceived as different is not worth much these days" says Mr. Touadi, who adds he is deeply troubled by what he calls "a climate of growing xenophobia."

Touadi accuses parts of the right-wing government, which includes the anti-immigration party Northern League, of appealing to Italians' economic and social concerns by scapegoating foreigners. Some 12,000 illegal immigrants have been apprehended here in 2008. Recently, the government passed a series of anticrime measures that seem designed to target migrants and minorities.

In July, Italian authorities began a gypsy census, creating files on the Roma living in some 700 camps across the country. The measure was seen as discriminatory by some human rights organizations, as many Roma hold Italian citizenship. But 60 percent of Italians supported the census, according to one poll.

This summer, the military began monitoring Italy's 16 detention centers for migrants waiting either for asylum or expulsion, in response to a declared "state of emergency" on immigration. The government also introduced a law allowing illegal immigrants convicted of crimes to be held up to one-third longer than Italians convicted of the same offense.

The shop owners have admitted beat ing Guibre, who was born in Burkina Faso, but deny any racial motivations, saying that they chased him intending only to get their money back. The men were charged with voluntary manslaughter, but were not charged with participating in a racially motivated attack, which would have come with a harsher sentence.

Milan's African community, which includes both immigrants and Italian citizens, met the prosecutor's decision with anger. Some 7,000 attended a protest on Sept. 20 in the city center. While the protest was mostly peaceful, several black youths damaged motorcycles and garbage bins. Riots were reported in Cernusco, a Milan suburb with a significant black population, where Guibre used to live.

"The risk of racial riots is high. Nowadays Milan reminds me of Paris during the [2005] Banlieue revolt, or London at the time of the [1981] Brixton riots," says writer Nicoletta Vallorani, referring to the hostilities between authorities and alienated minority youth that other European cities began experiencing decades ago.

Italy is relatively new to racial clashes. But that's changing, especially in the industrialized north, where a solid economy since the early 1990s has drawn foreign workers, mostly from North Africa and Eastern Europe. Today immigrants and their families make up about 5 percent of the country's population. In Milan, immigrants make up more than 12 percent.

Source



New Australian Leftist government faces first test on asylum-seekers

The boatpeople intercepted by the navy near Ashmore Reef early on Monday will be the first test of the Rudd Government's softened approach to processing asylum claims. The 14 illegal arrivals will be given access to taxpayer-funded lawyers before lodging any asylum claim as well as the right of appeal, should their claims fail. Immigration Minister Chris Evans said yesterday the Government would fund the initial legal costs of the 14 people after they have been questioned by officials, should they decide to apply for asylum. "We are supporting the principle that people ought to be able to get proper advice before making a claim for asylum and we will facilitate that," Senator Evans said. "So we will make lawyers available to them."

The group of 14 -- two crew and 12 passengers -- were intercepted 320km off Australia's north-west coast. Senator Evans said it was highly unlikely the boat, which appeared to have departed from within the Indonesian archipelago, contained illegal fishermen. However, he said it would not be possible to positively identify the group until they arrived at Christmas Island for processing, expected some time tomorrow. He said the boatpeople appeared to be in reasonable health and that Australian authorities had no advance warning of the boat's arrival.

Senator Evans said the first step would be to ascertain who the arrivals were, where they had come from and to run health checks. He said that as part of the new approach to dealing with asylum claims, the group would also be able to appeal any unsuccessful asylum claims. Under the old arrangements, asylum-seekers who made unsuccessful claims on Christmas Island would have had no recourse to Australian authorities as the island has been excised by the Howard government from the migration zone. Despite the changes the group will still be unable to appeal any unsuccessful claims in Australian courts.

In May, the Government announced the abolition of temporary protection visas for successful asylum-seekers. In late July, Senator Evans announced a "risk-based" approach to managing asylum claims, allowing claimaints greater appeal rights and using detention facilities only as a last resort.

Yesterday, Opposition Immigration spokeswoman Sharman Stone said the Coalition was concerned the arrival of Monday's boat was a sign people smugglers were "testing the waters", in light of these changes. "The message has been this is a new regime and we're going to have a different attitude to border protection. Now, you never quite know how that translates in Indonesia," Dr Stone told The Australian. "I'm concerned that the message has got through to those operators that, "look, new regime, it's a simpler business now, give it a go."

Source





1 October, 2008

The nightmare of the U.S. immigration bureaucracy again

It's bad enough to encourage illegal immigration

Preaching in a Lutheran church in Franklin Square on Sundays, the Rev. Haiko Behrens speaks in English and German about the importance of love, mercy and compassion. Now he's asking others to show him love, mercy and compassion. Behrens, 38, is caught in a bureaucratic tangle. A German citizen, he's waiting for permission from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service to stay in the country after his temporary visa expires in 4« weeks.

Lawyers say that the government almost always gives quick permission for religious leaders to stay and apply for a green card. But Behrens has been seeking a response from the immigration service since the Ascension Lutheran Church put in its request 15 months ago. The immigration service doesn't comment on specific cases, but anyone with a problem should contact an agent, said spokeswoman Chris Rhatigan in Washington. "We don't want anyone to sit out there in limbo." Behrens said he keeps getting put on hold or transferred to clerks who say they can't help him.

If he doesn't get the government's OK, he must abandon his job and start packing his bags by Saturday because his contract at the church requires him to give a month's notice before quitting. "I love the people here, I love New York, I love the country -- otherwise I wouldn't do all this to stay," Behrens said Friday, after another frustrating day of waiting. As he does every few hours, he tapped a few keys on his computer to check the progress of his request. "Received and pending," the response said. Again.

Conflicting information

After Behrens graduated from a seminary in Germany four years ago, he moved to a church in Michigan with his wife, Rie, who is Japanese. They had a temporary visa for religious workers that was valid until the fall of 2008 -- or so they thought. On their return from a visit to relatives in Germany in 2006, a U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement officer told them they needed to apply for an extension of their visa, even though it still had two years left. After getting conflicting advice from immigration lawyers and government agencies, they flew to Germany to ask the U.S. Consulate in Berlin for help. There, they were told their visas were fine.

"He's got a lot of energy, deep dedication to proclaiming the gospel of Jesus, and he's tremendously compassionate and present with his people," said the Rev. Robert Rimbo, bishop of the Metropolitan New York Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. He ordained Behrens when they both served in Michigan.

Richard Gerbe, president of the congregation in Franklin Square, said Behrens was hired in 2007 in part because he connected with congregation members who are European immigrants. "He's a perfect fit, and he relates well to young and old alike."

Paperwork and threats

Behrens tells of a continuing bureaucratic nightmare, with the immigration service demanding more papers and accusing him and his wife of illegally leaving Michigan, even though they had copies of certified letters they'd sent to inform the immigration service that they were moving to Long Island. At one point, the immigration service sent a letter to Michigan threatening to deport Rie, who has a visa issued to spouses of religious workers. By the time the letter was forwarded to Long Island, Rie had 10 days to leave the country.

It took calls from the office of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton before the immigration service agreed that Rie Behrens had properly informed the government of her move from Michigan to New York. She was allowed to stay.

If his visa expires on Nov. 5, he and his wife and their beagle, Mona, will reluctantly leave to look for a ministry in another country, he said. He doesn't want to stay illegally, though he does take some consolation from the Bible. "According to Matthew," he said, "Jesus was an illegal immigrant to Egypt."

Source



Who do you call? In AZ it's Sheriff Joe

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is seeing an upswing in calls regarding businesses allegedly hiring illegal immigrants. The Sheriff's Office has tip lines for the public to call about unlawful employment of illegal immigrants; drop houses where migrants are kept after entering the U.S. from Mexico; and day laborers looking for work.

Arpaio said his office has received 904 calls so far this year regarding claims of illegal immigrant hiring. That's up from 647 such calls for all of 2007. "And the year isn't over yet," Arpaio said.

Source



Group Seeking Immigration Curbs Launches Web Ads

Immigration has largely disappeared as a campaign issue. But to make sure it's not forgotten, the immigration-restrictionist group NumbersUSA is launching a $1 million Web-based ad campaign targeting voters worried more about population growth and competition for resources than illegal border crossers. The group says it will spend another $1.5 million raised from its members for other election-related activities this fall, including promoting the scorecards it keeps on the immigration positions of the presidential candidates and the immigration votes cast by every member of Congress.

On those scorecards, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his Republican rival, John McCain, get grades ranging from "poor" to "abysmal" on most of 12 measures. Obama gets his only "good" for his votes to punish employers who hire illegal immigrants and McCain gets his only "good" for promoting tougher border-security plans.

NumbersUSA mobilized the telephone barrage that flooded the Senate switchboard and derailed an immigration overhaul bill last year. Since then, politicians have been wary of the group, which sends its members almost daily updates on immigration legislation, their congressman's position, and suggestions on what they can do to influence him or her.

The ads, which are running on national internet news sites, use the tagline "Let's talk about numbers, let's talk about immigration" and focus on projections that the U.S. will add another 100 million people by mid-century. Roy Beck, founder of the group, predicted in an interview that that message will resonate with moderate voters, aged 25 to 45, who are concerned about pressures put on the health-care system, the jobs market and the environment by rapid population growth.

Beck says his supporters see little difference between McCain and Obama on immigration. Both favored a White House-backed bill that would have offered a path to citizenship to most of the 12 million immigrants thought to be in the U.S. illegally.

Beck said the group's focus instead is on Congress, which could stop an immigration overhaul bill that the new president, whoever he is, is widely expected to bring up. "It's a matter of people pushing Congress, and Congress standing up to the president," Beck said.

Source