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

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



31 October, 2009

Losing Ground: Hispanic children fall behind their peers quickly, a study finds

All the studies show that Hispanic illegals and their offspring have markedly lower average IQ scores than the white average. My orientation in psychometric research has however always been great caution about the validity of any tests used and I initially felt that the remarkable success of ancient Central Americans in building rather advanced civilizations despite being cut off from the major source of human progress (the Eurasian continent) implied a higher IQ for their descendants than the tests showed.

That is however a fairly arguable proposition and the findings reported below have changed my mind. I think that the findings below confirm what the IQ tests say. The results below show what I very "incorrectly" call the "chimpanzee effect". A month old chimpanzee is much smarter and more capable than a human infant of the same age but the human does of course far surpass the chimp eventually. In other words, low IQ is less evident in the early years and most evident in adulthood. We find a similar effect in blacks. Average black IQ is closer to average white IQ in childhood than in adulthood. Beyond the early teens, black IQ stops rising but white IQ does not. White IQ peaks at about age 16.

And what is reported below is precisely another example of the chimpanzee effect: Intellectual achievement gap smallest in early childhood but rapidly increasing with age. I must stress that I am NOT saying that either blacks or Hispanics are similar to chimpanzees. ALL human beings of any race are much smarter than chimps. I am just using chimps as a vivid demonstration of what seems a general truth: That real gaps in intellectual ability become evident later rather than sooner -- and the Hispanic developmental pattern is exactly what we expect of an average IQ that is indeed lower

A forthcoming study on Hispanic children’s cognitive skills underlines the challenges the country faces in aspiring to close the achievement gap between these children and their white and Asian counterparts. Hispanic “children fall behind their peers in mental development by the time they reach grade school, and the gap tends to widen as they get older,” reports the New York Times. “The drop-off in the cognitive scores of Hispanic toddlers, especially those from Mexican backgrounds, was steeper than for other [low-income] groups and could not be explained by economic status alone. . . . From 24 to 36 months, the Hispanic children fell about six months behind their white peers on measures like word comprehension, more complex speech and working with their mothers on simple tasks.”

This new study, from the University of California–Berkeley, may be unusually blunt in its assessment of Hispanic cognitive development, but it is hardly unprecedented. A 2004 study by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office found a similar decline in Hispanic students’ ability to keep up with their peers in learning English. Children from Mandarin- and Spanish-speaking households begin kindergarten with similar levels of English proficiency, but their paths quickly diverge. The Mandarin-speaking students make continuing progress in mastering English, while the Hispanic students’ advance stalls out in the second and third grades as the demands of California’s English-proficiency test grow more difficult. Mandarin kindergartners establish oral skills in English in one year, the legislative analyst found, and by the beginning of second grade, they have begun developing a mastery of reading and writing, unlike Hispanics. The widening English-proficiency gap between Asian and Hispanic students may reflect parental willingness to expose children to English at home, but the gap occurs in math as well.

This summer in Southern California, I observed Hispanic students who had been taught in English throughout their school careers, yet who possessed very weak formal language ability. An in-class reading assignment at Locke High School in Watts asked students to answer the question: “Why is it important to use all your skills during your teen years?” A ninth-grader wrote in response: “To make it better.” Another question, “What sudden insight came to the engineer?” elicited the answer: “How to put the little mirrors.” While diagnosing the student-written sentence, “The pigs squealed loudly because the’re [sic] bored at the barn,” a high-school English teacher in Santa Ana asked his class: “Why does the dependent clause need to be in the past tense?” A student answered: “Because you’re talking about a lot of people.”

The Berkeley researchers speculate that the early decline in Hispanic students’ language and reasoning skills may reflect inadequate maternal stimulation in the home. And indeed, a Santa Ana elementary-school principal recounted to me her largely unsuccessful efforts to get parents to teach their children such basic kindergarten-survival tools as cutting with scissors and the words for colors. “Kids come in not knowing the alphabet in Spanish or the sounds of Spanish,” she said. “They use three-word sentences; they come in without oral-language ability.”

The Berkeley study will inevitably be used to buttress the Obama administration’s plans to pour billions of federal taxpayer dollars into early-education programs. As a matter of education policy, such efforts represent wishful thinking. Head Start has been repeatedly shown to have no lasting effect on students’ academic performance. Even the most successful and lavishly-funded of such early-intervention programs — the iconic Perry Preschool Project from the early 1960s in Ypsilanti, Mich. — explained only 3 percent of the earnings of its participants at age 40, and about 4 percent of their educational-attainment levels, wrote John J. Miller in NR in 2007. Replicating the Perry Project’s services on a national scale for Hispanic children would be extraordinarily expensive and produce only modest results. Many children who receive early intervention provide inferior intellectual stimulation for their own children, whether for innate cognitive or for cultural reasons.

But the more interesting implications of the study and others like it are for immigration policy. Our de facto immigration policy is currently weighted to a population that appears to require massive additional government education spending — even before formal schooling begins — to be made academically competitive. This choice would not seem to be economically rational, at least so long as we aspire to universal college-going. If the country remains committed to sending a far greater number of students to college, as even many conservatives continue to be, we better get ourselves a different mix of immigrants if we don’t want to bankrupt our education budgets. Alternatively, if the open-borders lobby prevails and Latin American migration continues to dominate our immigration flows, it’s time to acknowledge that many students never will be college material, nor do they need to be to lead productive, fulfilling lives.

SOURCE



ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION TENSIONS HIGH IN AUSTRALIAN WATERS

Unauthorized immigrants from Afghanistan and Sri Lanka are at present frequently sailing towards Australia on small boats but most are detected by aerial surveillance, intercepted by the navy and initially taken to Christmas Island, a small and remote Australian territory in the Indian ocean. The sudden influx of "boat people" since the election of a Leftist government and its wishy-washy policies has created a big problem for the government concerned. A news report below followed by a commentary

A GROUP of agitated Sri Lankans facing deportation staged a tense standoff with police and immigration authorities yesterday when one scaled a pole in the Christmas Island detention centre and threatened to jump. The six men were among a large group of detainees due to be flown off the island last night on a government charter and sent back to Sri Lanka without visas. But they refused to leave voluntarily.

Emotions ran high inside the detention centre yesterday morning before the man shimmied up the tall, steel lightpole at about 9.30am, apparently urged on by others determined to stage a protest. Visiting guests and maintenance crews looked on in shock as detainees shouted and gestured to the man, who, almost eight hours later, was persuaded to come down.

Last night an immigration spokesman said all six men had agreed to end their protest and the detention centre was "calm". "Protest action at the Christmas Island immigration detention centre has been peacefully resolved without incident," a department spokesman said.

Refugee Action Coalition spokesman Ian Rintoul said the man who scaled the pole was one of three Sri Lankans who believed they were being tricked into signing forms agreeing to voluntary deportation. "Anxiety levels among detainees have risen since the forced deportation of Sinhalese men in early October," said Mr Rintoul, adding that yesterday's incident was one of the most serious at the centre.

Within minutes of the man climbing the pole, contractor Serco evacuated the area and locked down the communal recreation hub inside the centre. The Department of Immigration and Citizenship brought in a psychologist, police and other professionals to manage the situation.

During his high-level protest the detainee accepted water and ice and was offered food by officials who spoke to him from a cherrypicker. The five other men on the ground refused to co-operate.

On Wednesday the Rudd government deported 12 male Sri Lankan asylum-seekers, including a teenage boy, bringing the total number of asylum-seekers denied visas and sent home this year to 115. Last night the department intended to press on with the removal of other asylum-seekers by charter plane, as well as the removal of 12 Indonesian boat crewmen. The six Sri Lankans involved in yesterday's protest were not put on the flight.

Last night the Department of Immigration and Citizenship flew three Sri Lankans and a parent and child from Indonesia to immigration detention in Perth, from where they will be sent home. The removals left 1127 asylum-seekers and 11 Indonesian crew on Christmas Island, including 925 men inside the immigration detention centre. There were 131 in family groups at a converted construction workers' camp, 38 in demountables and 44 living in houses in what is termed community detention.

SOURCE



Prime Minister Rudd on the horns of a dilemma over illegal immigrants coming to Australia

Talking about a big Australia and waging a desperate struggle to salvage a tough border protection strategy may appear a contradiction, yet as Rudd knows and John Howard proved, border protection and Australia's high immigration program have always gone together. This compact, pivotal to Australia's progress, is at risk. An unpredictable mix of events on the water, in Indonesia, and worry about Rudd's hard line from within his own constituency has created a diabolical dilemma for Rudd and Stephen Smith. Faced with a limited array of unpalatable options the government's tough border protection stance is at risk. The political centre, it seems, may not hold with Rudd under aggressive assault from opposite positions on the Right and Left.

There are two boats in Indonesia with Sri Lankan asylum-seekers refusing to disembark, the first intercepted by the Indonesians within their own waters with 250 people aboard and the Oceanic Viking, an Australian boat that rescued 78 asylum-seekers at Indonesia's request in Indonesia's rescue zone.

Rudd and his Foreign Minister are standing firm. The plight of the Oceanic Viking has become the most difficult test of Rudd's resolution. The claim that he cannot take a hard decision offensive to his own side will now be determined. Does Rudd have the nerve and patience to prevail or will he crack before the political blackmail of the asylum-seekers and reluctance of local Indonesian authorities?

This week the Australian media seemed unable or unwilling to describe what was happening before its eyes: the Oceanic Viking asylum-seekers, by refusing to disembark in Indonesia, exploited their moral plight as a device to intimidate the Rudd government into a retreat and re-direction of the boat to Christmas Island where they could be processed.

As Smith signalled, this is a case of asylum-seekers trying to decide what country will process their claims and what country will become their new home if those claims are upheld. Asylum-seekers have no such rights under the 1951 Refugee Convention. The situation is exactly the reverse of the interpretation given wide currency this week. Far from Australia ignoring its obligations under the convention, the asylum-seekers are insisting on rights they do not possess under the convention. It is obvious what should happen: if the Sri Lankans are serious about being refugees they should leave the boat immediately and claim refugee status from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

Their real purpose, however, is different. It is to self-select Australia and to resist any effort to have the UNHCR process their claims outside Australia. "It's not their choice," Smith told the AM ABC radio program. "It's not a matter for the Sri Lankans on board to choose where they make their application for refugee status. We absolutely defend their right to make that application."

The spectre of an ignominious retreat now overhangs Rudd and Smith that would see them forced to bring the asylum-seekers to this country. Such a move would destroy Rudd's credibility on border protection and represent an Australian submission to the campaign by boatpeople to self-select Australia as their home.

The government has no legal obligation to bring these people to Australia. As Rudd said, Australia took two decisions in relation to the Oceanic Viking asylum-seekers: it engaged in rescue when a vessel was in distress and, having collected the people and in consultation with Indonesian authorities, it decided to take the people for processing in Indonesia.

There is no credible case that Australia should have done otherwise. Rudd and Indonesia's President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono agreed that the people be processed in Indonesia. The problem is that Yudhoyono is struggling to enforce the agreement in the teeth of provincial hostility and resentment against Australia seems to be rising.

On Wednesday Smith was unequivocal about the result. "The President has already made that decision," he insisted. "Now that (going to Indonesia) is what will occur." He was confident the Rudd-Yudhoyono agreement would be honoured. On Thursday, Smith told radio station 2UE that Australia wasn't setting any timetable. "These things always take time," he said. Asked if the government would back down and bring them to Australia, Smith said: "We don't have that in contemplation."

Indonesia's Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa told ABC1's Lateline on Wednesday that Indonesia would not use force to remove the asylum-seekers and said: "We have an abundance of patience". Yet he intensified the pressure, saying if the people won't budge then the Rudd government must take that into account. The next day Rudd followed by saying that Australia also had an abundance of patience. It is a polite way of describing a stalemate in which Rudd and Smith hope they can prevail but have limited leverage and only marginal control over a situation vital to their policy.

It is a game of political poker for high stakes. The more the Sri Lankans believe that Rudd may retreat, the more they will stay the course. In the meantime, Rudd will be under growing criticism at home for his inhumanity and hypocrisy.

The deadlock highlights the agonising nature of asylum-seeker policy. There is little doubt the Sri Lankans are genuine refugees yet the Indonesian and Australian authorities have met their obligations and are fully entitled to insist the boatpeople disembark.

Rudd and Smith know they must ensure the one-off Oceanic Viking event does not disrupt the substantial and permanent regional co-operation they seek with Indonesia that will be canvassed at the next Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation meeting. In this sense the resilience of the Rudd-Yudhoyono concord is being tested. It must survive that test for Rudd to have any prospect of salvaging his asylum-seeker policy.

More HERE





30 October, 2009

Uncontrolled Muslim influx a threat

Comment from Australia:

A FEW weeks ago in London, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband told me that 75 per cent of the terrorist plots aimed at Britain originated in the federally administered tribal areas of Pakistan. Some 800,000 Pakistanis live in Britain. The vast majority, it goes without saying, are law-abiding citizens. But there is a link between uncontrolled Muslim immigration and terrorism.

The real historic significance of the illegal immigration crisis in our northern waters is that this could, if things go wrong, be the moment Australia loses control of our immigration program, and that would be a disaster.

It is extremely difficult to talk honestly about Muslim immigration. All generalisations about it are subject to countless exceptions. Muslims are very different from each other. Most are reasonably successful. But a much bigger minority end up with social, political, extremist or other problems resulting from a lack of integration than is the case with any other cohort of immigrants in Western societies. A lack of honest discussion about this results in bad policy.

The most enlightening book you could possibly read on this is by US journalist Christopher Caldwell, "Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West". It is by far the best book on public policy of any kind I have read for a long time. It is wittily written but attempts to be neither provocative nor politically correct. It is dense with data but its greatest strength lies in laying bare the intellectual, political and social dynamics that have led to the mess in Europe. The way the Australian debate is reprising what were profoundly destructive and misguided European debates, dominated by moral sanctimony and a failure to grasp reality, is eerie.

Caldwell is enlightening on the way asylum assessment processes are so easily scammed, and the sophisticated, intense exchange of information that means the slightest change in attitude by a receiving country is instantly relayed throughout illegal immigrant networks. He writes: "An easily game-able system was in place that made admissions automatic to prospective immigrants who understood it. Various immigrant advocacy NGOs in Europe made sure they understood it... migrants knew the best countries to claim to come from. They also knew the best countries to go to ... (There was an) incredible sensitivity of prospective migrants to shifts in immigration law, and to countries' moods towards immigrants."

Caldwell also shows that once an illegal immigrant route is established as reliable it becomes immensely popular. This is what the struggle in the waters to Australia's north now is really all about. He further demonstrates how completely subjective and plastic the asylum-seeker assessment procedures are. In 2001 Denmark approved a majority of asylum applicants. By 2004, when the mood had changed, it approved only one in 10, though of course in Europe rejected applicants basically don't go home.

At times Caldwell seems to be arguing against immigration in principle, although all the problems he adduces relate specifically to Muslim immigration, and he acknowledges the success of other immigrants in Europe. He frequently acknowledges the success of immigration in Canada, the US and Australia. In Canada and Australia, the governments choose the immigrants. In the US, most illegal immigrants come from Latin America and don't have the Muslim problems.

But in so far as he makes a general case against immigration, I strongly disagree with Caldwell. What he is really concerned with is uncontrolled Muslim immigration. The facts he produces are very disturbing. No European majority ever wanted this to happen. There are 20 million Muslims in western Europe and this number will double by 2025.

How did this mass immigration of people with few relevant job or language skills, and a culture deeply alien to Europe, come about? Caldwell argues that the post-World War II period saw a radical disjuncture in European attitudes. Europe had just been wrecked by an enemy, the Nazis, who were avowedly racist. The unimaginable disaster of the Holocaust haunted every discussion of morality or policy. Europe was in the throes of decolonisation and felt guilty about its relations with non-white people. This made an ideology of anti-racism - which itself became extreme and distorted, detached from reality and in many cases downright intolerant - the more or less official state religion of Europe. This had little to do with really combating racism.

In one of history's countless ironies, Muslim immigrants benefited from the legacy of the Jewish Holocaust. The determination initially to extirpate anti-Semitism didn't help many European Jews because they were almost all gone, but it offered a template for Muslim immigrants to find and exploit an ethnic victim status. This set up profoundly destructive dynamics and, in another irony, reintroduced serious anti-Semitism to Europe, carried with the Muslim arrivals.

Caldwell suggests a welfare state makes a bad marriage with mass, unskilled immigration. Welfare rather than opportunity becomes the attraction. More importantly, welfare becomes a lethal poverty trap. At the same time, satellite television, the internet and mass immigration from a few countries means the old culture is always on hand for Muslim migrants. They don't need to integrate if they don't want to or find it difficult. In many cases Caldwell cites, the second-generation of Muslim immigrants is less integrated than the first, and the third less than the second.

The demographic figures he cites are familiar but still shocking. Native Europeans won't have babies at anything like replacement level while the fertility of Muslim immigrants does not decline through time, as is the case with other immigrants. Religion is the strongest predictor of fertility in Europe. By mid-century Islam will be the majority religion of Austrians under the age of 15. In Brussels, most births are to Muslims and have been since 2006. In France, one in 10 people are Muslims, but they are one in three of those entering their child-bearing years, and Muslims have three times as many children as other French.

Caldwell writes: "Europe finds itself in a contest with Islam for the allegiance of its newcomers. For now, Islam is the stronger party in that contest ... when an insecure, malleable, relativistic culture meets a culture that is anchored, confident and strengthened by common doctrines, it is generally the former that changes to suit the latter."

Uncontrolled Muslim immigration is a change to Europe so great it makes all the treaties and bureaucratic falderol of the EU look footling and transitory by comparison.

SOURCE



Department of Homeland Security's Alternatives to Detention Fail to Detain

The Obama Administration recently introduced their plan to restructure the way in which illegal immigrants are detained while awaiting deportation. At the center of this new plan is what they call "alternatives to detention." The Houston Chronicle recently uncovered a report citing that nearly one in five suspected illegal immigrants absconded while under the supervision of a new intensive monitoring program. Immigrants enrolled in the program are expected to comply by checking in by phone, wearing ankle monitors and obeying a curfew. These measures sound more like parenting a teenager than detaining criminals. Illegal aliens show no regard for U.S. laws when they entered illegally, how can we expect them to respect the rule of law once here?

While ICE claims a 99 percent immigration court appearance rate for participants in the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP), records maintained by private contractors that administer the program show they were “unable to locate” 18 percent of 6,373 illegal immigrants who passed through the program over the last five years. Overlooking this poor performance record, Janet Napolitano stated her intention to expand these alternative programs. If the Obama Administration truly wanted to enforce immigration laws, they would detain illegal aliens in a manner that ensured 100 percent were at their deportation hearing.

The above is part of a press release dated October 27 from Federation for American Immigration Reform, 25 Massachusetts Avenue - Suite 330 Washington DC, 20001, Office 202-328-7004 www.fairus.org. Contact Dustin Carnevale on 202-328-7004 for details of the above. Email: media@fairus.org. Founded in 1979, FAIR is the oldest and largest immigration reform group in America. FAIR fights for immigration policies that enhance national security, improve the economy, protect jobs and wages and establish a rule of law that is recognized and enforced.





29 October, 2009

Immigration and Obamacare

Medicare is the single biggest spending commitment of the United States. As Obama stacks enormous new health care spending commitments atop the old, Medicare's already bleak future grows dimmer still.

Who wins as Medicare loses? The short answer is: the uninsured. The president will use the money squeezed from Medicare to extend some form of coverage to the 35 million to 40 million people estimated to lack health insurance. And who are these people?

About one-quarter of them are foreign-born. Recent immigrants to the United States -- unlike the immigrations who arrived between World War II and 1970 -- have tended to be very low-skilled. Their labor is just not worth enough to their employers to support the high cost of an American health insurance plan: $13,000 a year, on average, for a family of four.

So here's how the world looks to a Medicare enrollee: Over the opposition of some 80 percent of the American people, your government allowed millions of poor newcomers to enter the country, many of them illegally. (Over the past 10 years, half of all immigrants to the United States have arrived illegally.) These people cut the lawns of your more affluent neighbors, tended their babies, cleared their tables after their restaurant meals.

If you were not so affluent, they reduced your wages and crowded your schools, highways and hospital emergency rooms. Now you are being told that your old age will be made less comfortable to accommodate them. Unsurprisingly, you don't like it.

The debate about immigration and health care has centered on whether immigrants who are here illegally might qualify for coverage under the Democrats' reforms. Theoretically, they will not be eligible, but since Democrats have so far voted against enforcement measures, some illegal immigrants will no doubt slip through.

But the debate over illegal immigrants is a proxy for something larger and more unsettling to older Americans. The problem is not illegal immigration, it is all low-skilled immigration, legal and illegal. By importing tens of millions of people who earn too little to pay for their own health insurance, we have made this supremely difficult social problem radically more difficult than it ever needed to be. With "Obamacare," the bill for four decades of permissive immigration has at last come due.

Since the 1930s, the United States has run two different kinds of government social programs. One kind of program is sustained by contributions from the very same people who will benefit from the program in future: Social Security, unemployment insurance, workers' compensation. These programs have never been controversial.

The other kind of program taxes some for the benefit of others: Medicaid, social housing, the old welfare programs for the poor. These programs have always been intensely resented. Medicare was the first kind of program: social insurance. Obama's public option will be the second kind of program: income transfer.

That's the explanation for the resistance the president is encountering.

Source



There are dangerous Tamil Tigers among illegals heading for Australia

By Sergei DeSilva-Ranasinghe

THE debate in Australia over the influx of Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka should take into consideration the nature of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the Sri Lankan conflict that ended on May 19.

Since the LTTE's defeat, the Sri Lankan government has been weeding out hardcore LTTE fighters to ensure that the group cannot regenerate. So far, according to Sri Lanka's Ministry of Defence, out of nearly 272,000 internally displaced persons, 9818 LTTE fighters have been identified and interned. Nonetheless, the government remains cautious, as suggested by Disaster Management and Human Rights Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe: "There are still some persons among the IDPs who have not disclosed their former affiliation with the LTTE."

In early August, the Sri Lankan government suspected that about 10,000 unidentified LTTE fighters were hiding in IDP camps, posing as civilians. However, in early October the leader of the Tamil United Liberation Front, Veerasingham Anandasangaree, claimed that most, if not all, of the remaining undetected LTTE fighters had fled overseas.

Sri Lankan military officials believe that two categories of refugees are fleeing: those who are fighters or who have collaborated with the LTTE; and those who are fleeing for economic reasons. Many of these civilians are known to have been strong supporters of the LTTE and constitute maveerar (war hero) families whose children fought in elite LTTE units.

In September, reports emerged that since May about 20,000 IDPs have escaped from dozens of these camps; many of them are suspected by the Sri Lankan government of being former LTTE fighters.

Conditions in these camps have been the subject of considerable media debate, but recent visits by senior foreign officials suggest that significant improvements have been made. For example, IRIN News quotes Walter Kaelin, the UN Secretary-General's representative on the human rights of internally displaced persons, as saying: "Certainly people do get food, they do get medical assistance and there is education in the camps. So from that perspective, the government and international community have done a lot."

The Indian daily The Hindu reports that 41,685 IDPs have been released and resettled and the government is engaged in the process of resettling another 58,000 in line with its target of releasing and resettling more than 70 per cent of the IDPs by January 31.

The LTTE in the diaspora is engaged in a process of reorganisation and there are no credible indications that it will move away from terrorism, a view affirmed by Canadian terrorism expert Tom Quiggin, who says: "The LTTE has not given up its program of an independent homeland, and they will continue their campaign of violence from wherever they can re-establish themselves."

It is beyond doubt that hardcore LTTE fighters have infiltrated the Tamil refugees who have arrived in Australia, as noted by Victor Rajakulendran, who represents the Australasian Federation of Tamil Associations: "There will ... definitely ... be (LTTE) in these boats. The ex-combatants are in danger in Sri Lanka so they will have to flee somewhere."

Australia needs to be aware that many LTTE combatants were involved in serious acts of terrorism against Sri Lanka and its citizens, including suicide bomb attacks, other forms of bombing, torture and murder. For instance, there was a sustained LTTE campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Sinhalese and Muslim populations of northern and eastern Sri Lanka, which from 1984 to this year involved an estimated 257 attacks that killed 4485 civilians, wounded 5897 and displaced close to 200,000 Sinhalese and Muslims. Furthermore, according to Dharmalingam Siddharthan, leader of the anti-LTTE People's Liberation Organisation of Tamil Eelam, at least 10,000 dissident Tamils were eliminated by the LTTE during the conflict.

Rajakulendran claims that LTTE combatants "are not going to be fighters here. They were fighting for a cause, even if some of the tactics are unacceptable ... They are not going to fight for a cause here. They are not like Islamic terrorists." However, evidence of LTTE activities in the West suggests otherwise. For instance, a 2006 Human Rights Watch report, Final War: LTTE Intimidation and Extortion in the Tamil Diaspora, reported serious LTTE infringements of law and order in the West, including extortion, wanton intimidation, violent repression of dissenting Tamil voices and even homicide.

Canadian-Tamil journalist D.B.S Jeyaraj has written that "the activities of pro-Tiger elements in the West have often been provocative and blatantly defiant of Western laws governing terrorism. In spite of the LTTE being banned under anti-terrorism laws, the diasporic Tiger supporters have flagrantly flouted them."

Examples of serious LTTE infractions of the law in the West include: the murder of a French policeman; suspected murder of dissident Tamil journalist Sabaratnam Sabalingam; death threats to the dissident Tamil Broadcasting Corporation in Britain; assault and intimidation of dissident Norwegian-Tamil journalist Nadaraja Sethurupan; and, according to the Asian Tribune, alleged death threats against Selliah Nagarajah, a political columnist and law lecturer at the University of Western Sydney. In addition, dissident liberal Sri Lankan Tamil group University Teachers for Human Rights-Jaffna claims that the LTTE was responsible for the murder of Subramaniam Muthulingam, an Australian citizen who was on holiday in Sri Lanka and was known to have refused to co-operate with LTTE attempts to streamline fundraising from a Hindu temple in Perth.

Hence, based on its actions in Sri Lanka and abroad, it is not surprising that the LTTE is outlawed in 31 countries. Indeed, the US FBI website states: "The Tamil Tigers are among the most dangerous and deadly extremists in the world (and their) ruthless tactics have inspired terrorist networks worldwide, including al-Qa'ida in Iraq."

The FBI goes on to say: "(The LTTE) perfected the use of suicide bombers, invented the suicide belt, pioneered the use of women in suicide attacks, murdered some 4000 people in the past two years alone and assassinated two world leaders (former Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi and Sri Lankan president Ranasinghe Premadasa), the only terrorist organisation to do so."

While the Australian government ponders whether to outlaw the LTTE, as practically every other Western country has done since 2006, it should take an uncompromising view of LTTE combatants and operatives and ensure that a thorough screening process is conducted.

Clearly, not all the Tamil refugees coming to Australia fit this category, but those found to be members of the LTTE should be treated no differently from the way Australia would expect other countries to treat operatives of Jemaah Islamiah and al-Qa'ida.

SOURCE



British Labour Party censored links between immigration and crime in report

Labour censored a hugely controversial report on immigration to remove details of its possible links to organised crime, street fights and begging, it emerged last night. The revelation prompted claims by Opposition MPs that the Government's handling of the Cabinet Office study was 'fast turning into the most scandalous political cover up in recent time'.

Ministers have come under fire over comments made by ex-Government advisor Andrew Neather, who claimed that early drafts of the report said mass immigration would make Britain more multicultural and enable Labour to portray the Tories as racists. Critics said it blew the lid off a 'secret Labour plot' to use mass immigration for political gain.

But yesterday the row took a twist when it emerged that key passages which may have harmed the case for Britain adopting an open-door immigration policy had also been airbrushed from the report. They included a section headed 'criminal behaviour', which warned of possible links between mass immigration and some crimes. The passages were allegedly removed when the report was being finalised in 2000 by the Cabinet Office's Performance and Innovation Unit, which has been described as a Blairite 'think tank' operating at the heart of Whitehall.

One of the sections missing from the final report, which was published in 2001, said: 'There is emerging evidence that the circumstances in which asylum seekers are living is leading to criminal offences, including fights and begging.' A second section warned: 'Migration has opened up new opportunities for organised crime.'

It stressed that migrants were not more likely to be criminals, despite more foreign nationals ending up in prison. The prison figures were down to foreign visitors being held at airports and ports for drug smuggling, and did not relate to migrants looking to settle in the UK, the report said. But Downing Street allegedly removed the section because it was 'nervous' about how it would be received. Other crimes linked to migration included 'marriage rackets', drug and people trafficking and fraud.

Another passage proposing a cross-government communications strategy on migration to inspire a more positive public attitude was also pulled.

The draft, leaked to London's Evening Standard, also claimed that racism towards black migrants had come 'not just from extremists or working class communities, but from politicians and policy-makers at the highest level'. This was not included in the final report.

Last night, Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is fast turning into the most scandalous political cover up in recent time. Ministers are clearly in a state of complete denial about what appears to have happened.'

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch, said: 'This is clear evidence of what many have long suspected, namely that the Government whitewashed many aspects of immigration while making exaggerated claims about the economic value.'

The leak overshadowed attempts by ministers to come out fighting and discredit Mr Neather's account of the draft report. In a newspaper article written last Friday, the former adviser to Tony Blair claimed the Government opened up Britain's borders in part to try to humiliate Right-wing opponents of immigration. Secret passages allegedly said the policy 'was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.'

Yesterday, immigration minister Phil Woolas denied any significant decision had been taken to loosen immigration controls. He added: 'The biggest reason for illegal immigration into the United Kingdom was not as Mr Neather said, it was the abandonment in 1994 by the John Major Government of border controls. 'I find Mr Neather's statements not credible, not stood up by the truth and the civil servant to whom he has referred has as I understand refuted these accusations.' 'The reason we have had increasing immigration under the Labour Government is Eastern European immigration and they have started to go home.'

Mr Woolas also claimed that Gordon Brown was tougher on migrants than Tony Blair, saying: 'This Prime Minister has a much more robust attitude to migration than the previous prime minister, and the changes we have been implementing have come straight from Gordon Brown.'

But shadow Immigration Minister Damian Green said: 'Mr Woolas is clearly in denial about his own Government's immigration policy. David Blunkett, as home secretary, said there was "no obvious upper limit" to immigration, and his policy reflected that. 'It would be more honest for ministers to admit they made a huge mistake and introduce new policies, such as the limit on work permits a Conservative Government would introduce.'

Tory leader David Cameron, speaking at his regular Westminster press conference, restated a pledge to return net immigration levels to those of the Major and Thatcher years. Figures of more than 200,000 recorded in recent years, he said, are 'too high'.

Last night the Cabinet Office denied the author of the PIU report, Jonathan Portes, had been pressurised by ministers. A spokesman said: 'We are confident that the principles of the code were applied in this case, and the lead author, a civil servant of some twenty years standing, is clear that he was under no political pressure at any point in the process.' He also denied Mr Portes, now a senior economic adviser to the Government, had ever worked as a speechwriter for Mr Brown.

WHAT THEY CUT OUT

* 'Migration has opened up new opportunities for organised crime.

* 'Data is necessarily tentative, but it is estimated that the global profit from trafficking illegal migrants is $5-7billion.

* 'We have no data on trafficking to the UK (the Home Office estimates 'thousands') but examples from abroad are illustrative.

* 'Some 750,000 migrants from the former U.S.SR entered Israel in the 90s and £2-5billion of Russian organised crime money is estimated by police to have been invested in Israel between 1991 and 1998.

* 'The illegal migration of 600,000 Fukienese Chinese to the U.S. yielded an estimated $3.2billion profit to the criminal gangs and was followed by 'institutionalised Fukienese crime with its services and predation'.

* 'In New Zealand, however, a study of Asian immigrants found lower levels of offending than for the resident population.'

Source





28 October, 2009

San Francisco Being San Francisco...Again

Recently, San Francisco has taken its status as the preeminent sanctuary city to a new low. A few weeks ago, the city's Board of Supervisors voted to stop the current practice of turning over illegal alien minors to ICE when arrested. Under the newly enacted policy, illegal alien minors will only be subject to deportation after being convicted of a felony. Even San Francisco’s own Mayor Newsom is opposed to the policy change, stating "the new law now makes it easier for illegal immigrants to commit crimes."

But wait, there’s even more!

Not only won't the San Francisco Police turn over illegal aliens they arrest, they won’t ticket or impound the vehicle of an illegal alien driving without a license or insurance either. Under yet another new illegal alien friendly policy, instead of impounding the vehicles of unlicensed and uninsured drivers, the city will release the car to another licensed driver and send the illegal alien on their way. Effectively, the official San Francisco police policy is that there is absolutely no negative consequence to driving without a license or insurance. This is not only bad immigration policy, but a major public safety concern.

The above is part of a press release dated October 27 from Federation for American Immigration Reform, 25 Massachusetts Avenue - Suite 330 Washington DC, 20001, Office 202-328-7004 www.fairus.org. Contact Dustin Carnevale on 202-328-7004 for details of the above. Email: media@fairus.org. Founded in 1979, FAIR is the oldest and largest immigration reform group in America. FAIR fights for immigration policies that enhance national security, improve the economy, protect jobs and wages and establish a rule of law that is recognized and enforced.



The growing rate of open-door migration into Britain: Number of new arrivals has surged by 50% under Labour

The rate at which foreigners are swelling the population has increased by 50 per cent since a secret Government immigration policy document was written. Critics said it was clear evidence that ministers had implemented the controversial Cabinet Office report. This allegedly claimed mass immigration would make Britain more multicultural and allow Labour to portray the Tories as racists.

Speaking in the Commons yesterday, Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said it would be 'utterly disgraceful' for ministers to base immigration policy on party politics. He asked Immigration Minister Phil Woolas: 'Can I invite you to put the record straight - what was the motivation behind the very rapid increase in immigration under this Government?'. Incredibly, Mr Woolas did not appear to know which report Mr Grayling was referring to - despite the widespread coverage it received over the weekend.

Yesterday, the Daily Mail told how ministers were facing calls for an inquiry into claims by former Labour adviser Andrew Neather that the Government opened up Britain's borders in part to try to humiliate Right-wing opponents of immigration.

His allegations referred to a 2001 report from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a think-tank based in the Cabinet Office, which made the case for mass immigration. Earlier drafts are said to have included the statement of 'a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural'.

Now an analysis of officials statistics has found that - from the date the report was published - the number of foreign nationals being allowed into the UK surged. Whitehall statistics show that in the year of the document's publication, 370,000 non-British nationals arrived. That rose to 416,000 the following year and, by 2006, had reached 510,000. In 2007, it fell back slightly to 502,000 - but this was still an increase of 30 per cent on 2001.

For net foreign immigration - the number of non-British citizens arriving, versus the number leaving - the figures are more dramatic. In 2001, it stood at 221,000 - but by 2007 it had reached 333,000 - up by 50 per cent. This is the size of the increase in the foreign-born population of the UK.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think-tank, said: 'Now it has been revealed that mass immigration under this government was a deliberate policy concealed from the public, and especially from the white working class whose lives and neighbourhoods have been most affected. Now immigration will add another seven million to our population over the next 25 years unless really serious measures are taken to cut immigration by at least 75 per cent.'

Opponents claim Labour's bungling of immigration policy has contributed to the growth of the BNP.

Mr Neather, who worked for Tony Blair and Jack Straw, said Labour's relaxation of immigration controls was a attempt to engineer a 'truly multicultural' country and plug gaps in the jobs market. He claimed the 2001 policy paper inspired the 'major shift' in immigration policy.

Justice Secretary Jack Straw, who was then Home Secretary, has dismissed Mr Neather's claims as ' complete rubbish'.

SOURCE



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

The 287(g) program was created by Congress in 1996 to enhance cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. The Obama administration has imposed new rules for the 287(g) program that unduly constrain the local partners and could allow more alien scofflaws identified by local agencies to remain here. But even with these changes, based on unsubstantiated criticism from ethnic and civil liberties groups, the 287(g) program remains an effective tool in immigration law enforcement and local crime-fighting.

A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies examines in detail the 287(g) program’s history, status, and results, concluding with a number of recommendations for improvement. The report, “The 287(g) Program: Protecting Home Towns and Homeland,” by Jessica Vaughan and James R. Edwards, Jr., is based on interviews with participating local law enforcement agencies (LEAs), statistics and reports provided by local LEAs, and data provided by ICE through a FOIA request. Among the findings:

* About 1,000 officers from 67 law enforcement agencies have been trained and participate in the program. With 9 new agencies joining and a handful of agencies dropping out in 2009, the total number of participating agencies as of October 2009 is 73.

* 287(g) officers lodged immigration charges on more than 81,000 illegal or criminal aliens between January 2006 and November 2008, according to data provided by ICE.

* In 2008, the number of 287(g) arrests (45,368) was equal to one-fifth of all criminal aliens identified by ICE in prisons and jails nationwide that year (221,085). The program has flagged a large number of known serious and/or violent offenders, as well as some low-level offenders still at the bottom of the criminal behavior escalator. Illegal aliens targeted by the program have been identified as a result of involvement in local law-breaking in addition to immigration law-breaking.

* While 287(g) agencies use the authority mainly to identify and process illegal aliens who have committed additional crimes, Congress never intended the program to be limited to that use. Lawmakers intended for local agency partners to use the authority for local law enforcement priorities and according to local needs, which may or may not be the same as federal priorities.

* Participating agencies credit the 287(g) program as a major factor in reduced local crime rates, smaller inmate populations, and lower criminal justice costs.

* 287(g) is cost-effective — much less expensive than other criminal alien identification programs such as Secure Communities and Fugitive Operations. For example, in 2008 ICE spent $219 million to remove 34,000 fugitive aliens (mostly criminals). In 2008, ICE was given $40 million for 287(g), which produced more than 45,000 arrests of aliens who were involved in state and local crimes. In Harris County, Texas, the billion-dollar ICE Secure Communities interoperability program found about 1,718 removable aliens in its first six months beginning late in 2008; meanwhile the locally paid 287(g) officers in the same jail system charged about 5,000 criminal aliens over the same time period.

* 287(g) is a force multiplier. In 2008, the Colorado state 287(g) unit alone made 777 immigration arrests. In that same year the entire ICE investigations office based in Denver, which covers all of Colorado and several other states, made a total of 1,594 arrests. In Maricopa County, Arizona, the local ICE detention and removal manager supervises five ICE deportation agents, who are supplemented by 64 additional locally paid county jail 287(g) officers who also identify and process criminal aliens.

* The largest number of agreements have been signed for 287(g) programs in correctional institutions, such as county jails or state prisons. These programs were responsible for 91 percent of the 287(g) arrests over the period we studied.

* The task force/investigative 287(g) programs provide equally important crime-fighting benefits and are a useful tool to address such illegal immigration-related crime problems as alien smuggling, drugs, street gangs, and identity theft.

* The Colorado, Arizona, and Alabama 287(g) programs have boosted ICE efforts to combat alien smuggling, which has been neglected since the agency’s formation.

* Notwithstanding allegations from immigrant and civil liberties advocates, there have been no confirmed instances of racial profiling, discrimination, or other abuse of authority under the 287(g) program. There is no evidence whatsoever of a “chilling effect” on crime reporting in the 287(g) jurisdictions.

* The waiting list for 287(g) is long — reportedly one to three years from the time of request to join until implementation.

* The biggest obstacle to improving and expanding the 287(g) program is the lack of funding for bed space to detain illegal aliens discovered by local agencies to have committed crimes. As a result, ICE currently is removing fewer than half of the criminal aliens identified under 287(g). Several states have submitted proposals to ICE to help alleviate this problem, but ICE has not acted to increase funding for bed space, even as it claims to prioritize the removal of criminal aliens.

The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: center@cis.org www.cis.org. Contact Jessica Vaughan, (508) 346-3380, jmv@cis.org for enquiries





27 October, 2009

Were millions of migrants let in by the British Labour Party government so that the Tories could be accused of racism?

Ministers face calls for an inquiry into claims that their open-door immigration policy was designed to make Britain more multicultural and allow Labour to portray the Tories as racists. A former Labour adviser alleged that the Government opened up Britain's borders in part to try to humiliate Right-wing opponents of immigration. The Conservatives said that if true, the claim demonstrated 'disgracefully irresponsible' decision-making and called for an investigation. Former Labour minister Frank Field said: 'I am speechless at the idea that people thought they could socially engineer a nation on this basis.'

The Daily Mail reported on Saturday the controversial claims by Andrew Neather, who worked for Tony Blair and Jack Straw. He said Labour's relaxation of immigration controls in 2000 was a deliberate attempt to engineer a 'truly multicultural' country and plug gaps in the jobs market. He said the 'major shift' in immigration policy was inspired by a 2001 policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think-tank based in the Cabinet Office. Civil servant Jonathan Portes, who wrote the immigration report, was a speechwriter for Gordon Brown and is now an aide to Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell.

The report painted a rosy picture of mass immigration, stating: 'There is little evidence that native workers are harmed by migration. The broader fiscal impact is likely to be positive because a greater proportion of migrants are of working age and migrants have higher average wages than natives.' It added: 'Most British regard immigration as having a positive effect on British culture.'

Mr Neather said the published version of the report focused on the labour market case for immigration. But he added: 'Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.' Ministers were reluctant to discuss the move publicly for fear that it would alienate Labour's core working-class vote, Mr Neather said. But they hoped it would allow them to paint the Conservatives as xenophobic and out of touch.

'I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date,' Mr Neather added.

Labour strategists went on to attack Tory leaders William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard as out of touch when they raised questions about immigration policy. Mr Hague was accused of 'playing the race card' in 2001 when he said Mr Blair was turning Britain into a 'foreign land'. Mr Howard was called a 'racist' in 2004 after he went to the BNP stronghold of Burnley to denounce Labour's stance on asylum seekers.

Mr Neather defended the open-door policy, saying mass immigration had 'enriched' Britain.

But Tory immigration spokesman Damian Green said: 'If this is true, then it would be a disgracefully irresponsible way for a government to run their immigration policy. 'To organise it on the basis of what might embarrass the Opposition would be shameful. I would urge the Home Affairs Select Committee to look at this whole episode. 'And ministers must now be honest with the British people. Do they still believe, as they did five years ago, that uncontrolled immigration is good for the country? 'If they don't, will they apologise for the mess they have made of the immigration system in the meantime?'

Jack Straw last night dismissed Mr Neather's claims as untrue. A spokesman for the Justice Secretary said: 'This is complete rubbish and the proof of that is the fact that Jack Straw introduced and was implementing the Immigration and Asylum Act at just this time, which tightened up controls and for which he was roundly condemned by all liberals.'

However, Labour's former welfare minister Mr Field, co-chairman of the cross-party Group for Balanced Migration, said a 'beam of truth' had been shone on the immigration issue. 'It is so dangerous that I cannot believe anybody even contemplated this course of action,' he said. 'I can't believe anybody could have been this stupid. All along anyone who raised questions was told they must be racist. 'Ministers used studies like the one saying only 13,000 people would come from the EU accession countries to say we had all got our figures wrong. 'Even now people are peddling the idea that it's all over-exaggerated. The truth is that, without any changes, we are headed for a population of 70million within 20 years.'

A Home Office spokesman said: 'Our new flexible points-based system gives us greater control of those coming to work or study from outside Europe, ensuring that only those that Britain needs can come. 'Britain's borders are stronger than ever before and we are rolling out ID cards for foreign nationals. 'We have introduced civil penalties for those employing illegal workers and from the end of next year our electronic border system will monitor 95 per cent of journeys in and out of the UK. 'The British people can be confident that immigration is under control.'

SOURCE



Australians now do not choose who comes to Australia

By Piers Akerman

PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd deserves some sort of an award for his histrionic and hypocritical outburst over serious concerns raised about the now-rushed process of checking the credentials of those who use people smugglers to thwart the authorities and seek asylum. Perhaps there is a Nobel Prize for theatricality.

Terrorist organisations, particularly the Tamil Tigers, do use boats to seek safe havens for their members, as the Canadian government has discovered. Forty-four boats have reached Australia since Rudd weakened border controls, 17 in the past eight weeks, three since Wednesday, with more reportedly on the way. Clearly the Rudd government has lost control of the flow of people-smuggling vessels making their way to Australian waters, no matter how it attempts to manipulate statistics.

It's also clear asylum seekers regard Australia as a soft touch, a view that has been enhanced by the Rudd government's softening of laws originally designed by the Keating Labor government to deter people from risking their lives and enriching people smugglers by undertaking the hazardous voyage.

Further, the Indonesian solution initiated by Rudd himself condemns asylum seekers to conditions behind barbed wire that are worse than anything offered under the Howard government's Pacific solution. For Rudd to hide behind the notion that "push" factors, in the form of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan or, recently, Sri Lanka, outweigh "pull" factors is wishful thinking.

Those with a half a mind to short-circuit the immigration process and avoid the UN-sanctioned, internationally-organised refugee process know the Rudd government has made it easier for would-be asylum seekers to access all the benefits available to Australians should they reach Australian territory. What has disappeared in the argument is the notion that Australia still attempts to maintain an orderly migration policy through careful selection of its new citizens.

People smugglers now determine who will come to Australia.

One of the greatest retreats from the effective policy of previous governments was the reversal of the onus of proof from the asylum seeker to the Department of Immigration. This effectively placed upon departmental officers the responsibility to prove why would-be asylum seekers should not be released into the community on arrival rather than being kept in detention until all checks had been completed.

As an embarrassing number of people-smuggler vessels breach Australia's maritime borders, Rudd's new deal with Indonesia merely sub-contracts Australian border protection to Indonesia, a nation not known for its human rights record. The last time the spotlight was focused on Indonesian efforts in this field, Labor was deeply suspicious of our nearest neighbour's ability to effectively deter people smuggling or disrupt efforts of asylum seekers to reach Australia.

Then Senator John Faulkner, now Defence Minister, went as far as writing his own minority report into such concerns as an appendix to the Senate Select Committee's October 2002 report into a certain maritime incident. He insisted in his report that the Howard government answer a number of questions about Indonesian engagement, including possible limits to the disruption policy, whether any disruption activities were undertaken at the request or even broad authorisation of the Australian government, whether any Australian ministers had any knowledge of any such activities, had authorised them or knew of any outcomes, and whether mechanisms were in place to ensure there was no breach of any laws.

Now the Rudd government has engaged the Indonesians in precisely the same role, but has not been prepared to release any of the sort of information that was sought by Faulkner. Rudd can't blame anyone else this time. He asked Indonesia to act against those who would attempt the perilous trip to Australia and he has promised to bankroll the operation. Home Affairs Minister Brendan O'Connor won't say how much the Indonesian solution will cost, and he probably doesn't know. Like so much of what passes for policy under the Rudd government, this strategy is being made up by Rudd along the way.

To distract public attention from this knee-jerk plan, the Prime Minister behaved like a spoilt superstar footballer over Liberal backbencher Wilson Tuckey's fairly straightforward concerns that possible terrorists could slip into the nation among the asylum seekers the RAN is busily ferrying to our shores. Yet Tuckey's remarks were much the same as those made by Melbourne Labor MP Michael Danby in June when he warned of the need to ensure criminals and potential terrorists did not slip through the security net.

Those who want to see Australia throw open its doors to all comers regardless of culture or education laugh at the notion that criminals and potential terrorists would come by boat when aircraft are available, though there is no evidence to support their belief that asylum seekers represent the innocent of the world.

Indeed, the British experience would indicate a healthy degree of criminality among those who claim asylum. A Home Office study reported by the BBC found that of those arrested under anti-terrorism laws from 2001 to 2005 almost a quarter - 232 out of 963 - had previously applied for asylum.

Australians have long supported a healthy and orderly migration program, but the Rudd government has wilfully removed the order from that program. Recognising this is neither racist nor divisive.

SOURCE





26 October, 2009

Former Archbishop of Canterbury calls for "clear caps on population growth"

Carey is a man of undoubted personal holiness. He won great respect in his time as Cantuar and is one of the few Archbishops of Canterbury in recent times who clearly believes in God

In what will be seen as a very unhelpful intervention to the debate on immigration by many church campaigners for the rights of migrants and refugees, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, has called for a "clear cap" on population growth.

In comments given to today's News of the World he blamed an “open door policy on immigration” for the rise of the British National Party. He also blamed a failure to "absorb" new communities and called for immigration to take centre stage at the next general election.

Many church campaigners have been deliberately pursing an alternative strategy that would avoid the issue becoming a political football at the time of the election.

Carey told the News of the World: “The cowardly failure of successive governments to address our open borders is the reason the BNP has gained admittance to the political mainstream. “With the latest estimate that our population will rise by nearly 10 million by 2030, politicians are ducking the unpalatable truth: we are now one of the most over-populated countries in the world.” “It is asking a huge amount of the British public to accept an open-door policy on immigration. They have seen a massive influx of newcomers, they have seen their jobs hit, and they feel ignored. There have not been adequate resources to help [the] community adapt to these massive changes.

"Yet it is not only a question of resources but the failure to absorb and integrate new communities. The discredited policy of multiculturalism must be abandoned once and for all. Now a controlled approach to immigration is needed with clear caps set on population growth. If the mainstream parties begin listening to the voters, the BNP can be consigned again to the fringes. "Make no mistake about it, immigration must be a major item on next year's General Election agenda."

His comments came as he also urged Christians to unite against the BNP's claims to be a Christian party defending "Christian Britain."

SOURCE



Tamil Tigers among the flood of "asylum seekers" sailing for Australia

This is very bad news. Tamils generally and the Tigers in particular have been an exceptionally aggressive and violent lot -- right down to assassinating an Indian Prime Minister. The Tigers are Marxists and it is they who invented suicide bombing. The Sri Lankan government tried to negotiate peace with them for 30 years but was in the end left no option but to crush them militarily. They are VERY undesirable as immigrants

A SENIOR member of the Australian Tamil community says former Tamil Tiger fighters are definitely among the influx of boatpeople to arrive on our shores. Australasian Federation of Tamil Associations secretary Victor Rajakulendran said the high proportion of young men on the boats, coupled with the risks faced by the Tigers in Sri Lanka, made it certain some arrivals were members of the defeated Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.

Dr Rajakulendran's remarks came as the Australian Customs vessel Oceanic Viking prepared, after a week at sea, to land today 78 Tamils at the Indonesian detention centre in Tanjung Pinan. Home Affairs Minister Brendan O'Connor on Saturday revealed 68 adult males on board had commenced a hunger strike in protest at being kept from Australia.

Late yesterday a meeting between Indonesian immigration, police and foreign affairs officials was co-ordinating the arrival of the Viking passengers, including a 12-year-old girl requiring medical assistance. A police source said the ship would arrive at 10am local time (2pm AEDT) in the port of Kijang, where the asylum-seekers would be loaded on to buses for the 30-minute drive to Tanjung Pinang.

The news came as the Immigration Department prepared to extend the boundaries of Christmas Island's detention centre to cope with the influx of arrivals, including 32 Tamils believed to have sailed directly from Sri Lanka. Sources told The Australian that officials were concerned the arrival of the boat heralded a new tactic, with people-smugglers seeking to avoid the Indonesian archipelago due to the success of Australian and Indonesain authorities in interdicting asylum boats. Were such a tactic to become routine it would render the Rudd government's "Indonesia solution" virtually redundant.

Foreign Minister Stephen Smith yesterday provided fresh details about the types of co-operation Jakarta and Canberra were considering, citing increased intelligence sharing, greater Australian support for people-smuggling disruption efforts and more funding for Indonesian detention centres. It is understood Kevin Rudd also raised the issue of people-smuggling in the formal session of the East Asia Summit, held over the weekend in Thailand.

Dr Rajakulendran said many of the Tamils fleeing Sr Lanka had had their passage funded by sympathetic Tamil communities in the West. Most of those fleeing were young men, some of whom would be ex-fighters, Dr Rajakulendran said. "There will be definitely, definitely they will be in these boats," he said. "The ex-combatants are in danger in Sri Lanka so they will have to flee somewhere."

But Dr Rajakulendran said this did not make them a threat to the Australian community. "They have to be rehabilitated," he said. "They are not going to be fighters here. They were fighting for a cause, even if some of the tactics are unacceptable, they were fighting for a cause. They are not going to fight for a cause here. They are not like Islamic terrorists," he said.

In May the Sri Lankan government defeated the decades-old rebel movement, provoking a humanitarian catastrophe with hundreds of thousands of Tamils displaced and moved into concentration camps.

The Australian understands security agencies already suspect a number of Tamil detainees currently on Christmas Island are ex-fighters, citing the presence of battle-style wounds. But authorities stress this does not automatically make them a threat as the LTTE often press-ganged young men into military service.

Dr Rajakulendran said the high price of a people-smuggler's ticket meant it was likely those Tamil boatpeople were receiving funding from the Tamil diaspora. But he said the funding was not part of any over-arching Tamil campaign, a suggestion put by Sri Lanka's high commissioner to Australia Senaka Walgampaya. Rather it was concerned families seeking to help relatives at risk. "Only people who have people overseas can get the help, the financial help like this to come," he said. "Everybody is on the same boat but people who have help from overseas will be able to pay the smugglers and come. The others will have to struggle there."

Yesterday, four of the Sri Lankans on board the Jaya Lestari 5, the wooden cargo ship moored at Merak harbour in western Java, decided to leave the standoff and be processed by Indonesian immigration officials. The boat was intercepted following a personal request from Mr Rudd to Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. Spokesman "Alex" said there had been no pressure on the group to stay on the boat. "We have always insisted that if anyone wants to leave the boat, they are free to do so," he said.

The Immigration Department is preparing to extend the boundaries of Christmas Island's detention centre, which yesterday morning held 903 men, despite being designed to hold up to 800 with a surge capacity of 1200. The department is planning to place some or all 81 demountables shipped in from the Northern Territory outside the rear perimeter of the $396 million detention centre and erect fencing around them.

The arrival yesterday of 19 male asylum-seekers on Christmas, believed to be mostly Afghans, brought the number of people in immigration detention on the territory to 1148. Another 22 asylum-seekers are expected to arrive today, after being intercepted near Ashmore Reef on Tuesday.

SOURCE





25 October, 2009

British Labour Party let in migrants 'to engineer multicultural UK'

Nice to see it admitted. The usual Leftist hatred of their own society at work

Huge increases in immigration over the past decade were a deliberate attempt to engineer a more multicultural Britain, a former Government adviser said yesterday. Andrew Neather, a speechwriter who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, said Labour's relaxation of controls was a plan to 'open up the UK to mass migration'.

As well as bringing in hundreds of thousands to plug labour market gaps, there was also a 'driving political purpose' behind immigration policy, he claimed. Ministers hoped to change the country radically and 'rub the Right's nose in diversity'. But Mr Neather said senior Labour figures were reluctant to discuss the policy, fearing it would alienate its 'core working-class vote'.

On Question Time, Mr Straw was repeatedly quizzed about whether Labour's immigration policies had left the door open for the BNP.

Writing in the Evening Standard, Mr Neather revealed the 'major shift' in immigration policy came after the publication of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think tank based in the Cabinet Office. The published version promoted the labour-market case for immigration but Mr Neather said unpublished versions contained additional reasons. 'Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

'I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.' The 'deliberate policy', from late 2000 until 'at least February last year', when the new points-based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said. Mr Neather defended the policy, saying mass immigration has 'enriched' Britain and made London a more attractive and cosmopolitan place.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said: 'Now at least the truth is out, and it's dynamite. Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock-up but a conspiracy. They were right. 'This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons concealed by dodgy economic camouflage.'

The chairmen of the cross-party Group for Balanced Migration, MPs Frank Field and Nicholas Soames, said: 'We welcome this statement which the whole country knows to be true. 'It is the first beam of truth that has officially been shone on the immigration issue in Britain.'

SOURCE



Australia's African Muslim "refugees" at work again

But they get extremely lenient sentences for their outrageous and explicitly racist crimes

A gang of racist youths nearly killed a man during an armed rampage in an Indian grocery store in Melbourne's west for the "sheer thrill" of the attack, a judge said today. Drunk and carrying wooden planks ripped up from a nearby bus stop seat, the seven youths raided the Impex shop in Sunshine yelling "are you Indian?" as they randomly struck their victims on December 1 last year, the County Court heard today.

Indian student Sukhraj Singh, 28, was in a coma for 15 days and will suffer the effects of a severe acquired brain injury for the rest of his life after being beaten during the assault. Eight men were punched and hit with the weapons and most suffered minor injuries but Mr Singh was beaten unconscious and spent months in hospital and rehabilitation after being struck three times to the head and body.

In sentencing one of the attackers, Zakarie Hussein, 21, of Braybrook, Judge Pamela Jenkins said today the group had deliberately targeted victims of Indian ethnicity in the "unprovoked rampage". The youths had been drinking beer in a park for about four hours before they went to the store in City Place just after 6.30pm where two of the teens began a racist argument with two customers, the court heard.

About five minutes later, the pair returned with their friends, most armed with wooden bars and one with a fluorescent light tube, and began smashing up the store and indiscriminately striking customers and staff as they yelled "are you Indian?" and "bloody Indians, f--- off". The shop's cash register was stolen and the loot divided up among the offenders. Hussein received about $15.

In a victim impact statement tendered to the court, Mr Singh said metal plates had been inserted into his face, he had shed up to 15 kilograms and been left with lumps and scars on his head from the assault. "I am lucky to be alive, all my friends and family thought I was going to die," Mr Singh said in the statement. He said he suffered from dizzy spells and had undergone counselling after being plagued by nightmares and flashbacks. The court heard his injuries had been potentially life-threatening and meant he had been unable to work for five months, may not be able to complete his studies and was too frightened to live alone.

Hussein had pleaded guilty to armed robbery, recklessly causing serious injury, and six counts of recklessly causing injury. Judge Jenkins said Hussein had not used his wooden weapon but had planned to before being knocked out of the way by a co-offender.

She said the victims had tried to cower from their attackers and had done nothing to provoke the attack. "Your victims presented no threat to you or your co-offenders whatsoever. They did not provoke you, they did not fight back and indeed they made every effort to escape from the assaults," she said. "Notwithstanding these circumstances the victims were beaten apparently for the sheer thrill, Mr Singh being subjected to a particularly savage beating with the terrible consequences for him."

Judge Jenkins said the assault was among a number of racist attacks that had rightly provoked international and local community outrage and should be condemned. "Short of becoming prisoners in their own homes, there is little potential victims can do to prevent such attacks," she said.

Judge Jenkins sentenced Hussein to four-and-a-half years' jail with a minimum non-parole period of two years. Hussein, dressed in a black suit and white shirt and supported in court by family, bit his nails throughout the hearing and stood with his hands clasped while he was sentenced to serve his time in an adult prison. The court heard he had migrated to Australia from Somalia, aged about six, with his older brother and mother, who were both later diagnosed with bipolar disorder. [Africans do have an unusually high incidence of psychotic illness and the psychoses do have a strong hereditary component]

Hussein had prior convictions including, for robbery, assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest.

Four of Hussein's co-offenders, aged between 14 and 17 at the time of the attack, had already received 12-month sentences in a youth detention centre and a fifth teen received a 12-month youth supervision order. The Director of Public Prosecutions Jeremy Rapke has appealed against the sentences, arguing they are "manifestly inadequate". The Court of Appeal is yet to hand down its judgment. A sixth offender, who has pleaded guilty in the Children's Court, will be sentenced following the result of the appeal.

SOURCE





24 October, 2009

75% of Evangelical Member Denominations DON'T Sign NAE's Pro-Amnesty Document

By Roy Beck

Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D-N.Y.) attempt to claim overwhelming evangelical Christian support for his pending amnesty legislation has crumbled. His master plan was to use the staff and leadership of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) to give the impression of near unanimity. But now it turns out that 75% of the NAE's member denomination will not sign up for the pro-amnesty crusade.

Early this month, the NAE tried its best to help Schumer in its Senate testimony and press releases to give the appearance of evangelical unanimity. But after the members in the pews erupted, only 11 of the 42 NAE member denominations have been willing to sign on to endorse the NAE resolution that the NAE president presented in support of Schumer's "comprehensive immigration reform" agenda.

The NAE’s plunge into the amnesty debate stirred an immediate torrent of phone calls, faxes, emails and letters to the NAE member denominations. Many of the denominations have already posted disavowals on their websites, stating that they did not sign on to the NAE immigration document that was presented to the U.S. Senate by the NAE president, and that they have no intention of getting involved in the political amnesty debate.

However, some of the signers of the NAE document have come out swinging in defense of their actions.

* According to leaders of those denominations who have posted defenses of their actions on their websites, the Bible's commands to be welcoming and loving toward sojourners/aliens/foreigners/strangers is a requirement to provide U.S. citizenship to those illegal aliens who have not committed violent crimes and are willing to pay a fine.

* According to the leaders of those 11 denominations, the United States continues to suffer labor shortages throughout its economy, causing foreign workers to illegally enter this country to keep our economy humming.

* And they call for not only permanent work visas for the 7 million illegal foreign workers but also for great increases in the legal importation of foreign workers.

It is as if the leaders of these 11 denominations have not heard of the jobs depression that has swept the United States, or as if the people in their churches have been untouched by it. The federal U-6 Unemployment Rate is nearly 20% (people actively looking for jobs, discouraged workers who recently gave up looking, and people seeking full-time jobs who have had to settle for part-time work).

This business about what evangelical denominations are doing is far bigger than just a religion story. This is about Sen. Schumer's master plan to pass an amnesty.

When Sen. Schumer took over as Senate leader of the pro-amnesty movement from the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, he made it clear he was going to do some things differently. After all, Kennedy -- after winning 7 amnesties from 1986 through 2000 -- had failed every year from 2001 to 2009 to pass the amnesty he was seeking. Schumer this summer made clear three ways he was going to be different and attempt to win on amnesty:

* He would convince the public that he saw illegal immigration like they did -- as a problem. He started calling the "undocumented workers" by the name of "illegal aliens."

* He would in some ways appear to want to be tougher for enforcement than most of us in the anti-amnesty groups. He started talking about a national bio-metric ID card.

* And he began talking about bringing on an entirely new group of amnesty promoters as pro-amnesty partners -- evangelical Christians.

When I testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last summer, Schumer surprised me by using his time for questions talking about all the support he was getting from major evangelical leaders. He clearly has been putting a lot of hope in what the evangelicals could do for passing amnesty this time.

So, we all owe a huge debt of gratitude to all the NumbersUSA members who happen to be evangelical who have helped their denominations to avoid being used by Schumer for such destructive purposes.

SOURCE



British anti-immigrant party finally allowed on BBC TV



The tyranny of political correctness is so strong in Britain that only someone from the political margins is game to express publicly views that are almost certainly widely held among ordinary British people. There is of course a heavy "spin" put on all media reports of the occasion. See the actual video here, here and here

Mr Griffin said Islam was not compatible with life in Britain, while describing homosexuals as "creepy". However, he admitted sharing a platform with the Ku Klux Klan, which has carried out racist attacks across America's Deep South, and defended leaders in the organisation as "non-violent". The remarks provoked indignation from other members of the BBC panel and hostile parts of the audience, some of whom booed, calling him "a disgrace".

The BNP leader could not explain why he had previously sought to play down the Holocaust and defended his use of Sir Winston Churchill on BNP literature on the basis that his father had fought in the Second World War. He claimed that Churchill would have been a member of the BNP and was "Islamaphobic" by "today's standard". Asked whether he denied that millions of Jews and other minorities had been killed by the Nazis, Mr Griffin would only reply: "I do not have a conviction for Holocaust denial."

He was then chastised by David Dimbleby, the host of the programme, for smiling. The controversial statements were made in response to intense questioning by members of the audience from ethnic minorities. BBC Television Centre in west London came under siege as filming took place, with MPs joining hundreds of protesters behind lines of police. There were six arrests as dozens of protesters attempted to storm the studio. BBC studios in Hull, Scotland and Wales were also targeted by demonstrators. The cost of the police operation was estimated to be more than 100,000 pounds.

The BBC was certain to be questioned over why it allowed Mr Griffin to air such controversial views but executives were hoping that the intensive questioning that he faced would justify their decision to invite him on the Question Time panel for the first time. The BBC, which Mr Griffin denounced on the programme as "ultra-Leftist", had claimed that impartiality rules meant that it had little choice but to invite him on to the programme after the BNP won seats in the European Parliament in elections earlier this year.

He was joined on the panel by Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, Baroness Warsi, the Tory spokesman on community cohesion, Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokesman, and Bonnie Greer, a black American playwright. Mr Griffin was seated next to Miss Greer.

One of the most controversial moments came when Mr Dimbleby asked the BNP leader why he had been pictured with David Duke, the former leader of the Klan. Mr Griffin claimed that parts of the racist group, officially classed as a "hate organisation" in America, were "non-violent". However, he insisted: "I'm not a Nazi and never have been." He claimed that he was "the most loathed man in Britain" among British fascists.

He was questioned over his views on Islam and said it had "good points" but "does not fit in with the fundamental values of British society". He was also attacked for describing white Britons as the "indigenous" population who faced "genocide". We are the Aborigines here, he said.

Amid angry scenes, one Asian member of the audience asked Mr Griffin where he would like him to be sent and then suggested that he himself might find the South Pole a good destination because it was "a colourless landscape".

Mr Griffin boasted to BNP supporters before the programme that he was "relishing" the prospect of "political blood sport". "I will, no doubt, be interrupted, shouted down, slandered, put on the spot, and subjected to a scrutiny that would be a thousand times more intense than anything directed at other panellists," he said. "It will, in other words, be political blood sport. But I am relishing this opportunity." Speaking after filming had finished, Mr Griffin claimed that he had been able to "land some punches".

About one million people voted for the BNP at the European elections, leading to Mr Griffin taking up one of its two seats in the European Parliament. As a result, BBC executives said strict impartiality rules effectively forced them to include the party in Question Time. Mark Thompson, the director-general of the BBC, said the Government should ban the BNP if it felt that Mr Griffin should not have been allowed to take part in the broadcast. "If there is a case for censorship, it should be debated and decided in Parliament," he said. "Political censorship cannot be outsourced to the BBC or anyone else." He said the BNP had "demonstrated a level of support that would normally lead to an occasional invitation to join the panel on Question Time". Politicians from minor parties, including George Galloway, the Respect MP, and Caroline Lucas, the leader of the Green party, regularly appeared on Question Time. Mr Thompson insisted that Mr Griffin had been invited so that the public could challenge his views, rather than any "misguided desire to be controversial".

Speaking before the programme, Gordon Brown said the BNP's appearance was a matter for the BBC and that he was confident that Mr Griffin would be exposed for his "unacceptable" views. "I hope that the exposure of the BNP will make people see what they are really like," the Prime Minister said.

However, there were fears that Mr Griffin's appearance would lead to an increase in support. He had said he was hopeful his party would be propelled into "the big time" as a result of the broadcast and described his appearance on the show as "a milestone in the indomitable march of the British National Party towards saving our country".

Ken Livingstone, the former mayor of London and the chairman of Unite Against Fascism, claimed that the broadcast could lead to an increase in racist attacks and views. "For the angry racist it's a trigger that turns into an attack," he said. "We first saw this when Enoch Powell made his Rivers of Blood speech. There was a huge surge of attacks on black conductors on our buses, and that is why I think you apply a different standard to the BNP to those parties that do not legitimise this sort of violence against minorities."

SOURCE





23 October, 2009

How migrant total jumped by three million under Britain's Labour Party government

The number of migrants who have come to Britain over the past eight years has reached 2.3million, according to a Whitehall estimate. This brings the total to around three million since Labour came to power in 1997. Estimates of the level of immigration were produced to 'fill the gap' left by the Government's unreliable statistics of the past dozen years. The findings were slipped out without notice last month and only revealed yesterday after academics discovered them and reported them to an immigration think-tank.

The figures dwarf ministers' past admissions of migrant numbers and bear out the forecasts of critics who warned that immigration was running dangerously out of control. The report for the Communities and Local Government Department by consultants Oxford Economics said there were 4.3million foreign-born people living in the UK in 2001. That number had risen to 6.6million by last year - just under 11 per cent of the population. Of the 3.5million working migrants, just over two million were in the country before 2004.

Among the 1.5million people who have arrived since 2004, 620,000 are from Poland and other Eastern European countries who joined the EU that year, the report added. Home Office projections issued before the borders were opened said numbers arriving from Eastern Europe would be 13,000 a year. On top of the 2.3million migrants said to have arrived since 2001, it is thought around 700,000 arrived between 1997 and 2000.

Migration information collected by the Office for National Statistics has been discredited since the disastrous national census of 2001 missed a million people. The figures have been based on a small-scale survey of people arriving at air and sea ports. Notes to the latest study say it is 'one of several aiming to fill the gap in migration data'. The Government is currently involved in an expensive effort to find a way to produce accurate figures.

The Migrationwatch think-tank, which drew attention to the Oxford Economics report, said the Government's contempt for public concerns about immigration had boosted the political fortunes of the far Right. Its chairman Sir Andrew Green said: 'It is ironic that this is the week in which the BNP will be represented on Question Time and is an appalling indictment of the way the present Government has handled this sensitive issue. 'Not only have they totally failed to be honest with the British people but have treated their legitimate concerns with ill-concealed contempt. The success of the BNP can be laid firmly at their door.'

Sir Andrew said Migrationwatch predictions in 2002 that immigration was running at the rate of at least two million each decade had been dismissed on the political Left as nasty, muddled, duplicitous and scaremongering. He added: 'It is absolutely essential that the main parties now commit themselves to a very sharp cut in immigration.'

Current projections say numbers in Britain, currently around 61million, will reach 70million by 2029 thanks to continued immigration and high birthrates among migrants. Immigration minister Phil Woolas has said he will not allow migration to push the population that high.

SOURCE



U.S. immigration control is bass ackwards

It only keeps out the talented

Of the nine people who shared this year's Nobel Prizes in chemistry, physics and medicine, eight are American citizens, a testament to this country's support for pioneering research. But those numbers disguise a more important story. Four of the American winners were born outside of the United States and only came here as graduate or post-doctoral students or as scientists. They came because our system of higher education and advanced research has been a magnet for creative talent.

Unfortunately, we cannot count on that magnetism to last. Culturally, we remain a very open society. But that openness stands in sharp contrast to arcane U.S. immigration policies that discourage young scholars from settling in the U.S.

Those policies come at a high price. Graduate and postgraduate student immigrants are essential to creating new, well-paid jobs in our economy. Of the 35 young innovators recognized this year by Technology Review magazine for their exceptional new ideas, only six went to high school in the United States. From MIT alone, foreign graduates have founded an estimated 2,340 active U.S. companies that employ over 100,000 people.

Amazingly, if as incoming students they had told U.S. immigration authorities that they hoped to stay on as entrepreneurs after graduation, they would have been turned back at the border. Our immigration laws specifically require that students return to their home countries after earning their degrees and then apply for a visa if they want to return and work in the U.S. It would be hard to invent a policy more counterproductive to our national interest.

If the U.S. was the only country in the world that offered scholars scientific freedom, a cumbersome immigration process might not be that harmful. But the world today is teeming with well-funded opportunities to do first-class science. To be competitive, the U.S. needs to send the unmistakable message that we want scholars to stay.

To do that we need the kind of broad new immigration policy that would allow foreign students who earn advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering and math to easily become legal permanent residents. President Barack Obama and many others are already calling for such a policy.

We also need to aggressively develop more homegrown talent. A recent report from the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shows that we have lost our lead in education. In the 1960s, the U.S. had the highest high-school completion rate in the developed world; by 2005, we ranked 21st. In college completion, as recently as 1995 we ranked second. In 2005, we ranked 15th.

The OECD's report explains that we slipped in the rankings "not because U.S. college graduation rates declined, but because they rose so much faster" elsewhere. The U.S. now trails more than 16 nations in Europe and Asia in the proportion of 24-year-olds with bachelor's degrees in the natural sciences and engineering.

What we need is not just college graduates. We also need Ph.D.s in the sciences. Unfortunately, in the fields that spawn world-changing research and innovation, American graduate output has stagnated. From 1989 to 2003, despite a growing population, the number of American science and engineering Ph.D.s remained constant: an average of 26,600 a year. Over the same period and in the same fields, Ph.D.s awarded in China shot up to 12,000 from just 1,000.

In education, the world is accelerating while we are standing still, which is why Mr. Obama is pressing to revive our Sputnik-era commitment to science and math education.

Today, discovery and innovation increasingly spring from a creative network of the finest talent everywhere across the globe. From new advances in medicine to scientific breakthroughs that spawn new industries and sustainable jobs, the work of science and engineering is being done by individuals who can live almost anywhere.

To be part of that global creative network we must inspire more young Americans to pursue scientific careers, and we must rapidly reform U.S. immigration policies that drive away talented young scholars who would otherwise decide to live, work and innovate here. We should be proud of our Nobel Prize winners. But we should also craft policies that make it more likely that future Nobel laureates will do their work inside the U.S.

SOURCE





22 October, 2009

British authorities have lost track of 40,000 rejected migrants

The Home Office has lost track of tens of thousands of migrants who were refused extensions to their visas more than six years ago, it emerged yesterday. Officials have no idea whether the immigrants left the country as required or are still in Britain as illegal migrants. Lin Homer, chief executive of the Border and Immigration Agency, disclosed the latest backlog of immigration cases in a letter to the Commons Home Affairs select committee.

The revelation comes three years after John Reid, then Home Secretary, described the Home Office’s immigration department as “not fit for purpose”. His made his attack over the failure to deport foreign national prisoners after they had served a jail sentence and the backlog of failed ayslum cases. The Agency is currently working its way through a backlog of between 400,000 - 450,000 old asylum cases and is now preparing to start work on the 40,000 backlog of old immigration cases.

“We are also increasingly giving attentions to our older, archived, non asylum cases, where we have dealt with the application, but we have not formal record that the individual has left the country”, Ms Homer said in the letter. Officials in the Agency have started to look through the 40,000 case files to see if the immigrants are still in the country and can be removed.

Ms Homer said most of the files related to cases dating back before 2003 and were immigrants who have been refused an extension to their visa allowing them to remain in the UK. In the letter to Keith Vaz, chairman of the Home Affairs select committee, Ms Homer said that the names are to be checked against police records and the anti-terror watchlist to see if any individual is “harmful” to the public.

Critics of the Home Office said the figures disclosed the “utter chaos” in the immigration system.

Ms Homer said in her letter that in some of the old immigration cases further action against the individuals might be possible. “In the last few months we have begun the process of reviewing these files to consider if any further action is necessary or possible. Where further action is required it will be taken and any cases which may be considered as harmful to the public will be prioritised.”

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch UK said: “Yet another skeleton in the Home Office cupboard. “Tens of thousands of case files lying around and the true situation covered up for years on end. This is symptomatic of the utter chaos in the asylum and immigration system during the past ten years. “Nobody in the private sector would get away with such a performance.”

A Home Office spokesman said the department believed many of the individuals had returned home, been removed or had been allowed to stay in Britain after applying through in another category. The spokesman added: “We expect those that are here illegally to return home. Where they refuse to do so, we will seek to enforce their return.”

SOURCE



THE LATEST FROM AUSTRALIA

Two articles below

Boat was scuttled by "asylum-seekers" to force a rescue

A BOAT carrying 78 asylum-seekers whose case was personally taken up by Kevin Rudd with the Indonesian President was rescued by the Australian navy only after those on board deliberately sabotaged it.

As Indonesian officials yesterday expressed irritation at the face-saving deal struck by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Kevin Rudd, Border Protection Command intercepted another boat in Australian waters carrying 24 people. The boat with 22 passengers and two crew was stopped 10 nautical miles north of Ashmore Reef. The interception was the 34th this year.

The debate over asylum-seekers continued to gather heat yesterday, with the Uniting Church writing to the Prime Minister urging Australia to lead on the issue. The intervention of the church into the already charged debate came as sources told The Australian those on board the vessel rescued off the coast of Sumatra on Sunday sabotaged the boat. Sources said the boat had been deliberately disabled, by punching or drilling holes into the hull, effectively forcing the navy to take the passengers on board.

The revelation gives credence to claims by the opposition's immigration spokeswoman, Sharman Stone, that asylum-seekers were manipulating Australian goodwill to ensure their passage to Australia, a suggestion angrily rejected by a succession of Rudd government ministers.

On Tuesday, SBY announced Indonesia would take the asylum-seekers after Mr Rudd personally raised their plight. It followed an hour-long meeting between the two leaders at the presidential palace on Tuesday night after Dr Yudhoyono's inauguration, and was a historic first step in a new Canberra-driven "Indonesia solution" to the boatpeople crisis. Mr Rudd confirmed Australia and Indonesia would work together to resolve the issue. "That will mean providing additional assistance to our friends in Indonesia to help with the resettlement task," he said. "There is nothing remarkable in that."

While Foreign Minister Stephen Smith and presidential spokesman Dino Patti Djalal talked up the resolution as a "humanitarian" one based on the poor health of a girl on board the Customs vessel the Oceanic Viking somewhere off Sumatra, there was little urgency in Jakarta or Merak yesterday about receiving the group. "The news is still extremely unclear," a senior operations officer in the Indonesian navy's western fleet said. "If it was Australia that helped (the asylum-seekers), Australia that answered the distress call, why should they be brought to Indonesia? It's strange." The navy colonel, who asked not to be identified, pointed out that his role in any operation to transport the Sri Lankans to the port at Merak would be a major one. "But so far I have been given no information from headquarters," he said.

Immigration Minister Chris Evans said he had not been privy to discussions between Mr Rudd and SBY. "I think it's just a sign of the broadening regional co-operation with Indonesia, Malaysia and other partners," Senator Evans said of the deal.

But international law experts said Indonesia was obliged to allow the asylum-seekers to land anyway. International law expert Don Rothwell of the Australian National University said once it was clear that HMAS Armidale had rescued the 78 Sri Lankans from a vessel in distress in the Sunda Strait, international law permitted them to land at the nearest port.

Senator Evans was also forced to defend Mr Rudd over his use of the term "illegal" migrants in relation to asylum seekers. "The PM is a very effective communicator," Senator Evans told the ABC. "He was very keen to send a strong message about our attitude to border security and he did that."

Senator Evans's remarks came in the wake of growing criticism of Mr Rudd's rhetoric on asylum seekers, with the Australian Workers Union, the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union, and Victorian Labor MP Michael Danby rebuking the Prime Minister for his language. Yesterday, the Uniting Church president Alistair Macrae added the church's voice to those concerned about Mr Rudd's toughened stance. "While we acknowledge the importance of appropriate national security policies, we do not believe these should adversely affect the fulfilment of our international obligations to people in genuine need of our protection from persecution," he said. "As a stable and wealthy country in the region, Australia has a responsibility to lead by example in providing protection to refugees."

Senator Evans also lashed out at suggestions by Dr Stone that the rescue on Sunday represented a new tactic by people-smugglers. "I think the opposition was suggesting yesterday somehow that we shouldn't respond to these crises," he said. "I think that's just reprehensible."

Yesterday, a spokesman for Mr Rudd denied the Indonesians had been offered any inducements to take the 78 asylum-seekers, who according to Senator Evans were expected to arrive in Merak today....

SOURCE

Immigrants 'who can't adapt should leave'

A MAN harassed by anti-war mail after his son was killed in Afghanistan says immigrants who can't adapt to Australian life and values should live elsewhere. Private Gregory Michael Sher, 30, was killed in a rocket attack in Oruzgan Province, in southern Afghanistan, in January. He was the eighth Australian Defence Force soldier to be killed in Afghanistan since 2002, but the first to die as a result of indirect fire.

Mr Sher's father Felix received a phone call and letters, allegedly from self-styled Muslim cleric Sheikh Haron, just before his son's funeral. "I feel bad that you have lost your son but I don't feel bad that a murderer of innocent civilians has lost his life," a line in one of the letters reportedly said. Other Australian families of men killed in Afghanistan have allegedly received similar letters in the past two years.

On Tuesday Sheikh Haron was charged with seven counts of "using a postal service or similar service to menace, harass, or cause offence". He was granted bail to appear in court on November 10.

Mr Sher says he's now waiting for justice to take its course. "There is no point in getting angry or upset, nothing is going to be achieved by it," he told Fairfax Radio Network today.

Asked if he had something to say to Sheikh Haron, Mr Sher called on immigrants whose values were not in line with the general community to live elsewhere. "What I would like to say (is) that when people immigrate to Australia, when they actually do so with the intention of integrating with the general community and living in peace and harmony, rather than confronting it, and causing tension and conflict, and irrespective of what one's religious beliefs are, one can still live happily with the community but not dissolve," he said. "If people don't like what's happening in Australia, live elsewhere."

SOURCE





21 October, 2009

CIS roundup

1. Raul Grijalva: From Chicano Radical to Congressman

Excerpt: In 2006, Esquire magazine wrote that Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) represented a “brand of Latino populism [that] will likely become commonplace in decades to come.” The observation was an acknowledgement of the growing demographic and political power of Latinos and a prediction about the politicians it will produce. Grijalva, 61, remains committed to many of the ideals he pursued as a young radical in Tucson, even as he has developed a talent for building coalitions among fellow liberals, often across ethnic lines. This profile is a study of Grijalva’s political origins and evolution.

********

2. Public Opinion in Mexico on U.S. Immigration: Zogby Poll Examines Attitudes

Excerpt: A new survey by Zogby International finds that people in Mexico think that granting legal status to illegal immigrants in the United States would encourage more illegal immigration to the United States. As the top immigrant-sending country for both legal and illegal immigrants, views on immigration in Mexico can provide insight into the likely impact of an amnesty, as well as other questions related to immigration.

********

3. The Obama Administration’s 287(g): An Analysis of the New MOA

EXCERPT: The Obama administration may have begun to undermine one of the most successful immigration enforcement programs in the country. Known as 287(g), the program allows trained state and local law enforcement officials to assist federal immigration agencies in carrying out immigration enforcement. Since the beginning of 2006, state and local law enforcement officials have identified over 120,000 illegal aliens for removal. As of this writing, 77 jurisdictions in 25 states have signed on to the program.

********

4. Push for Sweeping Reform Set for Early 2010

Excerpt: The word is going out from Rep. Luis Gutierrez and his business allies that they must mobilize to push comprehensive immigration reform through a narrow window of opportunity early next year.

'The room for doing this is very small,' Gutierrez said Sunday on the Spanish-language Univision program, 'Al Punto.' 'We have to do it in February or early March of next year.'

********

5. Cesar Chavez vs. La Raza

Excerpt: When I wrote a few months ago about the origins of 'la raza' as a racial-surpremacist concept (developed in the '20s and '30s on the idea of the biological superiority of mestizos), Janet Murguia, head of the National Council of La Raza, pointed and sputtered over at the Huffington Post.

********

6. There Ought to Be a Nobel Prize in Demography

Excerpt: There should be a Nobel Prize in demography to go along with those for studies in economics and other fields.

Were there one, it might encourage more attention to studies of what happens to the environment during population increases, and, more pertinently, how international immigration impacts population growth in an area of in-migration.

********

7. Indian Media Remarkably Candid About H-1B Program

Excerpt: The Indian news media is notable for its candor in regard to the H-1B visa program. While advocates in America will proudly claim with straight faces (and 13-inch Pinocchio noses) that H-1B cannot be used for cheap labor, the Indian press will tout the benefits of cheap labor that H-1B provides.

********

8. Barbara Ehrenreich Takes On 'The Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking'

Excerpt: Barbara Ehrenreich gave a fascinating interview on this morning's 'Democracy Now' radio program, as she rolls out her new book, 'Bright-Sided.' In this book Ehrenreich, also author of 'Nickel and Dimed,' which was a remarkable journey into the land of the working poor, guides readers on a tour of the world of relentlessly positive thinking.

********

9. Needless Complexities in the Visa System Hinder Migration Management

Excerpt: One of the major sources of illegal immigration is the flow of persons into the U.S. with valid temporary visas who later (often quickly) drop out of legal status. Tourists (usually on B-1 visas) and foreign students (on either F-1 or J-1 visas) produce most of this type of illegal immigrants, the visa-abusers, often called visa-overstayers.

********

10. Religious Group Backs Amnesty

Excerpt: Two days after CIS's panel on religious perspectives on immigration policy, the National Association of Evangelicals became the latest pawn in immigration politics. The NAE has failed its flock, falling far short on the 'wise as serpents, innocent as doves' standard. Rather, goaded by open-borders adherents wearing clerical garb, the NAE has become the most recent religious bureaucracy to foist biblically questionable immigration policies on citizen parishioners. Many native-born American evangelicals who, say, can't find a job or face financial disaster as a result of illegal aliens and chain migrants robbing them of their American birthright, would be harmed by the course the NAE parrots.

********

11. 'Broken Taillights'

Excerpt: Today's New York Times, whose editorial writers have never met an illegal alien they didn't like, excoriates Phoenix's elected Sheriff Joe Arpaio for apprehending those who have sneaked across the border unlawfully. They lambaste his 'indiscriminate neighborhood raids [that] use infractions like broken taillights as pretexts for mass immigration arrests.' Have these paladins of the Fourth Estate forgotten how an urban version of this approach -- 'Broken Windows' advanced by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling -- helped reduce crime in the Big Apple?

********

12. Times of London on Abuses of Migrants in Mexico

Excerpt: Readers of this blog may recall a July 16 post that reported on the abuses suffered by Central Americans at the hands of Mexican officials on their way to the United States as illegal immigrants. The post told the story of Miguel Angel, who left his $300-a-month job as a policeman in Salvador, made a miserable journey to the Rio Grande, crossed in a raft to the United States and joined friends in Maryland. There he worked in construction for about a year before returning home.

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



AUSTRALIA: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ROUNDUP

The constant and ever-growing influx of "boat people" taking advantage of the Rudd government's eagerness to class almost anyone as a "refugee" has drawn a lot of public attention in Australia, as Rudd is clearly going against what the great majority of Australians want. Three current articles below

'Humanitarian' boatpeople deal breaks deadlock

KEVIN Rudd and Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono last night resolved their standoff, with Jakarta agreeing to accept 78 asylum-seekers rescued by Australia at the weekend, citing the plight of a sick child on board. As the 78 Sri Lankans prepared to spend their third night aboard the Australian Customs vessel the Oceanic Viking, Indonesia agreed the asylum-seekers rescued by HMAS Armidale in the Sunda Strait on Sunday would be brought to shore as soon as possible.

Foreign Minister Stephen Smith and Dr Yudhoyono's spokesman cited the sick child as a factor in the "humanitarian" decision. "President Yudhoyono has advised for humanitarian reasons and safety-at-sea reasons the Oceanic Viking will come to the port of Merak where the 78 on board will be put in temporary accommodation until international agencies have had the opportunity to process them," Mr Smith told ABC TV last night. "We had a young girl on board who was unwell. "That's a very good humanitarian result. It's a very good example of co-operation between Australia and Indonesia."

After high-level talks about how to stem the flow of asylum boats to Australia, Dr Yudhoyono's spokesman, Dino Patti Djalal, said the Sri Lankans' claims for refugee status would be dealt with as soon as possible by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. "Basically, it is because there is a sick child on board and the President is quite concerned about the health of the child," he said. "We need a clear framework for how to deal with this in the future so that we don't deal with these sorts of situations on an ad hoc basis."

He indicated that officials from both countries would be working over the coming weeks to establish such a framework. Mr Rudd and Dr Yudhoyono would discuss the matter in Singapore in November at the APEC leaders conference. The agreement came as the Prime Minister held bilateral talks with Dr Yudhoyono and Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak aimed at stopping the boat surge.

Before the deal was struck in Jakarta last night, there were further indications of an emerging schism in Labor ranks over the Prime Minister's toughened rhetoric on boats. Last night, Labor MP Michael Danby [who is Jewish] rebuked Mr Rudd over his use of the term "illegal immigration", pointedly noting he preferred Immigration Minister Chris Evans's "non-hysterical" approach. "I don't like expressions like illegal immigration," Mr Danby told the ABC.

Last night, Mr Rudd was on his way home from the Indonesian capital, where he had been attending the inauguration of Dr Yudhoyono with Mr Smith and Defence Chief Angus Houston. While in Jakarta, Mr Rudd also held talks with Singapore's Lee Hsien Loong, with people-smuggling high on the agenda.

Mr Rudd's absence from Australia saw no let-up in hostilities between the government and the opposition, with the issue of boatpeople provoking a series of bitter skirmishes in parliament. As Mr Rudd was meeting regional leaders, a Senate estimates committee hearing in Canberra degenerated into a shouting match between Senator Evans and Liberal senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, who demanded to know what the Rudd government was doing to address the surge.

"We abolished the Pacific Solution. I'm absolutely proud of that. It was a blight on Australia and a blight on our international reputation," Senator Evans said. "But you, senator, you've got a choice, you either argue for it coming back, or you don't."

Malcolm Turnbull attacked the government for "unpicking" the tapestry of measures stitched together by the Howard government, while acknowledging they had been controversial. He defended reviving John Howard's declaration that Australians should decide "who comes to this country". "The previous prime minister, Mr Howard, was criticised for saying that, but the fact is, that is what every Australian expects of their government," said Mr Turnbull.

The 78 asylum-seekers transferred from their boat to the Oceanic Viking after issuing a distress call in the Indonesian search and rescue zone, includes at least five women and five young children. At Indonesia's request, Australia sent the patrol boat HMAS Armidale to the scene. "This is not an area or a matter where Australia is saying to Indonesia, 'It's your problem'," Mr Smith said last night. "This is where Australia is saying to Indonesia, and Indonesia is saying to Australia: 'We need to work together to address a very difficult problem'. It's a very good example of Australia discharging its safety-at-sea obligations. My understanding and my advice is that there's no legal obligation on the part of Indonesia to take them, and that was not a point or a view put to Indonesia by Australia."

SOURCE

Dangerous to let asylum seekers jump the queue

Susan Hocking

THE current debate about how best to handle the boatloads of refugees, illegal immigrants or call them what you will, arriving on Australia's doorstep has taken me back to a time when I was all-consumed with the lot of people trying to get into Australia, people who were failing miserably. I was a chairperson of the Australian Immigration Review Panel – a body that heard the appeals of would-be migrants to this country, people who had applied and been rejected. The panel was their last chance at entry and with that knowledge of what was at stake, it was the sort of role that gave me many a sleepless night. It was a responsibility not to be taken lightly. And it wasn't.

It was, however, a humbling, eye-opening and frequently very sad experience. I suspect that many people born to Australian citizenship, born to peace and relative prosperity and the assumption of all kinds of freedoms, do not always easily grasp what it is that would make people rally their families and head off on a plane, often to the other side of the world, leaving behind friends and loved ones, perhaps a familiar language, culture, a whole way of life.

When that same decision is made by people who jump on leaky boats captained by people who are little more than traffickers in human flesh for dangerous and sometimes futile voyages, our confusion and disbelief are even greater. As is our suspicion and our resentment at those who appear, like uninvited strangers.

And therein lies the stumbling point for me with the waves of boat people heading this way. The people on the leaky boats, no matter how brave they may be, no matter how determined or desperate, raise my concerns because they are unknown entities. And they are jumping the queue. In doing so – and by us accepting them – they are, inadvertently or not, making a mockery of our immigration policy and our refugee programs and of the very patient people spread all over the world – be they living in townhouses in London or squalid refugee camps in Kenya – who are adhering to all the myriad, time-consuming requirements we have of those we invite in.

Those requirements enable us to know who exactly is coming to live among us, what sort of people they are and with what sort of personal histories; to know, as far as humanly possible, what they have to offer us and what we can offer them. Fulfilling those requirements – from the masses of paperwork through to the personal qualities – is not easy and the process is usually slow. But sure. It takes patience and commitment on everybody's part. But ultimately we can rest pretty well assured that in the midst of a world on the move, we have opened the doors to people that we can be comfortable sharing our communities with.

While it behoves us to show compassion and understanding to people knocking to come in, to treat the homeless, albeit uninvited, stranger as we would a person in need knocking on the door of our own home, we have every right to wariness. We would be foolish and we would be risking the wellbeing of our own family if we simply threw that door open willy-nilly. We owe it to ourselves and to our children to think long and hard about who comes to live among us. That does not make us an unwelcoming, uncaring nation. It makes us vigilant, prudent stewards of the Australian "family".

Furthermore, we should be wary of making assumptions about degrees of despair. In a world racked with war and poverty and upheaval, we shouldn't assume that the people on the boats have any greater depth of loss or desperation than the Somali family, for example, or the Cambodians, or the Zimbabweans, all living in camps, waiting it out, counting the days, all their forms painstakingly filled in, doing it by the book, playing by the rules. Patient and with their hearts full of hope.

We shouldn't assume that the boat people have the right to jump the queue because of the sheer audacity of their voyage, any more than we should expect the patient, waiting, would-be migrant to be bumped back further and further down the line because they chose to do things by the book. And to resign themselves to a quiet acceptance of that.

I have read too many immigration applications from too many patient and deserving souls to buy into the business of queue jumping. In many ways, the process of biding time, of compiling the papers and the signatories and producing the certificates and the records – of satisfying the needs of our Immigration Department – is every bit as gruelling as hitting the high seas, bound for Australia by boat. It just doesn't grab the headlines or tug so hard at the heartstrings.

All that said, personally, if the boat people pass muster once they arrive here – if, when all the thorough checks are done, they do qualify as genuine asylum seekers, fleeing persecution and with no other safe place to go – I would not have a problem with them staying on. But please, only if it is not at the expense of those would-be Australians languishing somewhere right now, with very little to sustain them but the knowledge they have already played by our rules; the patient people.

SOURCE

Mainstream Australian concerns about immigration are muzzled

Thirteen years after Pauline Hanson struck a chord with mainstream Australia, the vacuum she left when she departed the political scene remains unfilled.

Civil rights apologists try to bottle up public concern about illegal arrivals, militant Islamism, ethnic gangs, drugs and the murderous danger zones that our CBDs have become, but from time to time the outrage erupts on talkback radio and in the letters to the editor columns. A caller from Bathurst, NSW, recently said the threat of Pacific Islander gangs in western Sydney made him pack up and leave, and he is not alone. A woman who was flying her Australian flag during the Cronulla riots had her house pelted with eggs. Police told her to take down the flag as it was inciting the Muslims.

These are today's forgotten people, Australians of all generations who know their history and are embittered as they see their heritage, values, institutions and way of life devalued. Under Labor, the rapid-fire arrival of boatloads of illegals has, until recently, failed to generate the banner headlines of the past, no doubt heart-warming for those Greens, Laborites and Liberal marshmallows who favour the madness of some sort of open borders policy. Ex-Liberal MP Bruce Baird, now holding a Labor job, told the Ten Network's Meet the Press Labor's policy changes on dealing with people-smugglers had nothing whatsoever to do with the recent surge in arrivals.

As Christmas Island readies to put up the no-vacancy sign, the hitherto silent Libs have broken out, led by Philip Ruddock and Kevin Andrews, and already the polls have spiked substantially in their favour, no doubt creating more grief for Malcolm Turnbull, who is handcuffed to the usual suspects in Wentworth and whose only comment to date has been a limp-wristed call for an independent inquiry.

The chief objective of the illegals and their criminal co-conspirators, the people-smugglers, is to be allowed to come ashore on the mainland and that will surely happen soon.

Still disconnected from the mainstream, there is hardly a mumble from the Liberals as our immigration rates accelerate.

A new Australia is in the making, where our ethnic minorities will become majorities, aided by people running Malcolm Fraser's line that we need a population of 50 million plus, no doubt to be fed by the spring of taxpayer-funded multiculturalism.

In 1976 the Fraser government was warned by the Immigration Department that too many Lebanese Muslim refugees were unskilled, illiterate and had questionable character and health standards. Cabinet documents released in 2007 revealed how Australia's decision to accept thousands of Lebanese Muslims escaping Lebanon's 1976 civil war led to a temporary suspension of normal eligibility standards.

With hindsight we know where Fraser stood on such matters, his sense of guilt over the Vietnam War resulting in 56,000 Vietnamese refugees coming to Australia plus 2000 or so boatpeople, culminating in him establishing the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs with his protege Petro Georgiou as its director.

Fraser has stubbornly rejected any criticism that he was responsible for sowing the seeds of unrest in Sydney's west, instead blaming schools and communities and forgetting that at no time have the views of the Australian community been honestly and properly considered on immigration and refugee issues by any government.

It is not just multiculturalism that is fuelling anger. Included in the ranks of the forgotten people are the self-funded retirees who have seen their hard-earned super and share portfolios head south during the global financial crisis, while some MPs debate and defend their salaries and maladministration allows $82 million worth of stimulus to go offshore to Australians, many of them citizens ofconvenience.

Sadly, these mainstream Australians have no one with the courage to become their flag-bearer in these challenging times. The fear of violent reprisal and being ostracised by the political elite is a reality that tarnishes and denigrates the sacrifices of past generations. Despite this, the talkback lines hum, as this form of protest is more rewarding than contacting a Coalition office.

Fearless journalism is required to expose the many unpleasant truths and maybe, just maybe, a resurgent Nationals with a Barnaby Joyce-type at the helm could strike out on its own, embracing and claiming a large and powerful constituency that has been neglected for far too long.

SOURCE





20 October, 2009

Influx of 1m migrants to Britain will cripple public spending, warn MPs

New immigrants will add almost 1m people to Britain’s population over the next five years, creating huge pressure on public spending, a group of leading MPs has warned. Frank Field, a former Labour minister and the group’s leader, said the figures would give succour to the far right British National party (BNP) which was exploiting the failure of the mainstream parties to allay public fears about immigration. The BNP will receive a boost this week when it is given its first platform on BBC1’s Question Time.

The MPs’ warning comes as the Office for National Statistics (ONS) is expected to confirm that immigration will account for 900,000 of the anticipated 1.9m growth in the population over the lifetime of the next parliament.

Field, co-chairman of the cross-party group for balanced migration and a former welfare minister under Tony Blair, said that both Labour and the Tories had failed to address the population crunch. He believes the crisis in public finances caused by the recession means the government can no longer afford to pay for the extra schools, hospitals and other facilities needed. “It is obvious there will be no money to provide the extra facilities required by another 1m people,” he said. “The case for a really effective limit on immigration is overwhelming. Both parties must now decide on a limit and then tell the voters what it will be, how it will work and what it will cover.”

The ONS is expected to show that the population will grow by 10m to more than 70m in about 20 years. About 7m of the increase will be due to immigration. The MPs’ group argues that the only effective way to control immigration is to balance the numbers coming in with those going out.

Research published by Field’s group last month showed that by 2013 an extra 96,000 primary school places will be needed in England and Wales — the equivalent of nearly 500 primary schools. Two-thirds of those places would be for children with at least one parent not born in the UK. The extra burden on the taxpayer of building these schools would be £1 billion over five years, or £200m a year. Yet with a public debt of more than £800 billion, ministers are having to cut spending rather than increase it.

David Cameron has said that if elected a Tory government would introduce a cap on migrants, but he has yet to disclose a number or which types of worker would be affected.

Phil Woolas, the border and immigration minister, said: “Net migration has dramatically fallen. This is further proof that migrants come to the UK for short periods of time, work, contribute to the economy and then return home. “We have made it clear that we do not favour a cap on immigration because it is a crude measure which could harm the economy and is not as effective as our robust and flexible points-based system.”

Immigration is falling due to Eastern Europeans returning home because of the recession.

Field’s latest estimate assumes that net migration — the difference between those coming in to stay and those leaving permanently — will fall from 237,000 a year to 150,000 and stay there. Children born to immigrants will take the figure to 900,000 over five years. His group says net immigration would have to be cut to less than 50,000 if the population was not to increase to 70m.

SOURCE



Batty Britain: Immigrant allowed to stay because of pet cat

An immigrant who was about to be deported from Britain has won a legal battle to remain in the country – partly because he and his girlfriend had bought a pet cat. The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal ruled that sending the Bolivian man back to his homeland would breach his human rights because he was entitled to a "private and family life", and joint ownership of a pet was evidence that he was fully settled in this country. [That was easy! A rush on pet shops coming up!]

Lawyers for the Home Secretary were aghast at the decision by James Devittie, an immigration judge, to allow the immigrant to stay in Britain. They lodged an appeal, but their case was again rejected. The Bolivian's identity has not been disclosed and even the name of the pet cat was blanked out in official court papers to protect its privacy. Delivering her decision on the case, which is thought to have cost the taxpayer several thousand pounds, Judith Gleeson, a senior immigration judge, joked in the official written ruling that the cat "need no longer fear having to adapt to Bolivian mice".

Barry O'Leary, solicitor for the Bolivian, said that the court was told that man and his girlfriend had purchased the animal together, and it was therefore "one detail among many" that they were in a committed relationship. "As part of the application and as part of the appeal, the couple gave detailed statements of the life they had built together in the UK to show the genuine nature and duration of their relationship," he said. "One detail provided, among many, was that they had owned a cat together for some time.

"The appeal was successful and when giving the reasons for the success the judge did comment on the couple's cat. It was taken into account as part of the couple's life together. "The Home Office asked for the decision to be reconsidered. They argued it should be reconsidered because the decision was wrong in law, and one error they cited was that too much consideration was given to the couple's cat."

Damian Green, the shadow immigration minister, said: "Sometimes you don't know whether to laugh or cry. If pet ownership is going to be used as a reason for deciding immigration cases then the law really is an ass. "This is clearly not a sensible use of human rights legislation which is designed to protect people's basic needs."

The case comes a week after The Sunday Telegraph disclosed how the same court had given permission for more than 50 foreign criminals, including killers and sex offenders, to avoid deportation because of human rights concerns. A court's consideration of the right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights often focuses on whether an immigrant should stay in Britain because they have children who were born in this country. However, this is believed to be the first time the courts have been asked to attach weight to joint custody of a pet.

A UK Border Agency spokesman said: "We were disappointed by the court's decision in this case. "The UK Border Agency vigorously opposes any appeal against detention, deportation or removal but if the courts insist an individual cannot be removed we have to accept their judgement."

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of MigrationwatchUK, which campaigns against mass immigration, said: "Drawing pets into the consideration of issues of such importance is so utterly absurd that you could not make it up. "I despair. This is symptomatic of the attitude held by many of the judiciary, which is complete disregard for the impact of such decisions on the future of our community."

Mr O'Leary added that his client originally brought the case because he should have benefited from a Home Office policy on unmarried partners which gives credit to couples who have been together more than two years. The Bolivian had been with his partner for four years, he said. "It was made clear by the initial judge and then by Senior Immigration Judge Gleeson that the appellant should benefit from that policy and be granted the right to remain," he said.

"Furthermore, it was accepted by the Home Office representative at the hearing before Judge Gleeson that the policy should apply and any other errors in the initial decision by the judge, including too much detail on the cat, were immaterial." He added: "This case was won because the Home Office had a policy which they did not initially apply but later, through their representative, they accepted should have been applied."

A spokesman from the Judicial Communications Office said: "This was a case in which the Home Office conceded that they had mistakenly failed to apply their own policy for dealing with unmarried partners of people settled in the UK."

SOURCE



More illegal immigrant boats bound for Australia

URGENT talks were under way last night between Canberra and Jakarta over responsibility for a suspected Australia-bound asylum-seeker vessel carrying 79 passengers that had issued a distress message off the Indonesian island of Sumatra. HMAS Armidale was sent to help and was last night alongside the boat -- one of three new vessels found heading for Australia -- said a spokesman for Home Affairs Minister Brendan O'Connor.

Last night, the question of which nation was responsible for the boat and its occupants had not been settled. Under maritime law, if the vessel was in international waters, responsibility would fall to Australia.

The boat, whose identity was not given, radioed a distress call giving its position as 548km "north-northwest" off the Australian territory of Christmas Island and 222km off Java. The distress signal was picked up by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, which sent the Armidale to intercept the boat. Asked which country was going to take responsibility for the boat and those aboard, a senior government official told The Australian last night: "They're still trying to work that out." None of the passengers were in danger and the vessel was regarded as seaworthy, a spokesman for Border Protection Command said last night. A photograph of the boat released last night appeared to indicate the vessel was of Indonesian origin.

Mr O'Connor last night said another boat, thought to have 39 passengers and three crew aboard, was intercepted yesterday near Ashmore Island, off Australia's north coast, after being spotted by an RAAF aircraft.

Meanwhile a third refugee-crammed vessel was yesterday reported to be in distress 200 to 300 nautical miles from Malaysia. The Malaysian navy has taken charge of that vessel but few details have been released on its whereabouts. Unconfirmed reports say the total number of asylum-seekers on all three boats is more than 310.

It is understood the asylum-seeker boat near Malaysia is off the west coast, but few other details were given. Its last stated position could put its location either off Bangka Island on the approaches to the Sunda Strait, or west of Aceh in the Indian Ocean.

Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard told the Nine Network yesterday the location of the boats off Indonesia and Malaysia put them within the areas of those countries' responsibility. "They are in the Indonesian search and rescue zone and in the Malaysian search and rescue zone, so our (Australian) role is to assist if our assistance is asked for or required by the Indonesian or Malaysian authorities, but they (Indonesia and Malaysia) are the ones in control of the efforts there," Ms Gillard said.

The latest boat sightings come as Kevin Rudd seeks a new strategic compact with Indonesia to halt the flow of asylum-seekers. As reported in The Weekend Australian, the Prime Minister heads to Jakarta tomorrow for talks with his Indonesian counterpart, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, on greater Australian support for Jakarta's long-term resettlement of asylum-seekers. The Rudd plan envisages Canberra funding the cost of Indonesian naval arrests of asylum-seekers, and cash to fund additional detention centres to be administered by the UN-backed International Organisation for Migration. Australia would boost training and intelligence sharing with Jakarta, including military and police co-operation.

The visit comes after an appeal by Mr Rudd for Indonesia to intercept a boatload of 250 Sri Lankan asylum-seekers believed to be bound for Australia. Moored at the Javanese port of Merak yesterday, the asylum-seekers abandoned their 52-hour hunger strike.

The Australian Greens say they want Mr Rudd to urge Indonesia to sign the UN Convention for Refugees, to ensure asylum-seekers who end up there receive fair treatment. Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young said Australia needed to work with its regional neighbours such as Indonesia and Malaysia to ensure fair treatment for asylum-seekers.

SOURCE





19 October, 2009

The British National Party says what others will not

Public services in Britain are hugely overstretched already. The roads are badly congested; There is standing room only on many trains; Hospitals are so stretched that the sick elderly are given short shrift; Housing prices are sky-high and the police have lost control of the streets at night. That is all in theory fixable but the Leftist government spends so much money on bureaucracy that there is little left for anything else. So immigration is going to make an abominable situation worse and all Brits know it. Saying so is another matter, however. You risk being called a "racist" if you do. The way the BNP has been demonized is an excellent example of that

When Karan Whiley, a 48- year-old mother-of-two and care home worker, went to her polling station last Thursday she was in no doubt about the issue concerning her most. “I don’t mind having immigrants who are genuine,” she said. “We live beside an Iraqi couple who have been through hell and are here because they were in fear of their lives. “But these Poles and Lithuanians are taking English jobs. They should stay in their own countries and fight for better jobs there.”

Like many of her fellow residents in the town of Boston, Whiley’s solution to the influx of foreigners — the town’s population has been swollen 25% in recent years by the arrival of an estimated 15,000 immigrants — is to vote for the far-right British National party.

The BNP is particularly strong in this corner of Lincolnshire. Last year the BNP candidate David Owens won a seat on the borough council with a tally that easily surpassed the Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and United Kingdom Independence party votes put together. Last week Owens almost won a seat on the county council — losing by only 16 votes to a Conservative.

The people of Boston are not alone in their concern about migrants. A YouGov poll last month showed immigration as the issue of most concern to voters after the economy. That is unlikely to change in the near future. Figures to be released this week by the Office for National Statistics are expected to show that Britain’s population will expand by nearly 2m during the course of the next parliament alone, almost half because of immigration. It is likely to fuel anxieties about immigrants undercutting wages and putting extra strain on schools and hospitals.

While the mainstream parties squirm and try to avoid the issue, the BNP has been quick to capitalise on it. As well as seeing the election of its first two European MPs in June, the BNP now boasts about 50 local and county level councillors.

Its profile will be further boosted on Thursday when Nick Griffin, its leader, who is an MEP, appears on the BBC programme Question Time. Complaints about Griffin show no sign of abating: on Thursday Alan Johnson, the home secretary, challenged David Dimbleby, the programme’s host, to withdraw the invitation to the BNP because of its “foul and despicable” character.

That was highlighted last week when the party was ordered to change its constitution, which bans non-whites from being members. Such prejudice has led critics to label it neo-Nazi. Griffin reluctantly agreed to consider admitting non-white members only after facing the threat of legal action by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Why has the BNP been allowed to pander to the worries of the country without serious competition from the mainstream parties? And why is immigration still the issue that dare not speak its name in British politics?

FRANK FIELD, the Labour MP for Birkenhead and former welfare minister, is in no doubt about the causes of the BNP’s support. “A lot of Labour voters are now voting for them and we have allowed it to happen,” he said. “My only surprise is that the BNP vote hasn’t been even higher. For a lot of people they think parliament has turned their ears off, closed their eyes and sealed their mouths on the big burning issue.”

Field is co-chairman of the cross-party group on balanced migration. The group, jointly led by Nicholas Soames, the Tory MP for Mid Sussex, a former minister and former shadow defence secretary, believes action is needed to stop the population spiralling to unmanageable proportions.

That the population is getting bigger, and that it is due to immigration, is beyond dispute. In 2007 net immigration reached 237,000, although last year it dropped to an estimated 150,000 as the effects of the recession put off economic migrants. According to forecasters, the UK’s current population of 61.4m will grow by 10.5m over the next 22 years, and reach nearly 80m by 2056. “Every million more immigrants means creating a city the size of Birmingham,” said Field. “If we let immigration rise we will have more people sharing less public services.”

His group had calculated that even by 2013 England and Wales will need an extra 96,000 school places, two-thirds of which will be for children with at least one parent born outside the UK. The cost to the taxpayer of providing these places would be £1 billion over five years.

Both Labour and the Conservatives have produced policies to curb immigration. These apply, of course, only to people from outside the EU as those from most of the 27 member countries have the automatic right to live and work in the UK. The Poles and Lithuanians of Boston are here to stay — if they want. Migrants from EU countries are much more likely to visit the UK on a temporary basis for work, and then return home.

Analysis of the latest annual figures suggests that non-EU citizens account for almost 90% of the total of net immigrants, a trend that is expected to continue. Most come from Africa or Asia, with Somalia, India and Pakistan leading the countries from which those seeking British residency originate.

More HERE



Poll: Mexicans say Mexican-Americans Owe Loyalty to Mexico Over U.S.

Nearly 70 percent of Mexicans surveyed said that Mexican-Americans – including those born in the United States – owe their primary loyalty to Mexico, not the U.S., according to a Zogby poll commissioned by the Center for Immigration Studies.

The in-person poll, taken during August and September, sampled 1,004 Mexicans across the country on subjects related to illegal immigration and amnesty in the United States. When asked “Should the primary loyalty of Mexican-Americans be to Mexico or to the U.S.?” 68.8 percent of respondents in Mexico said that it should be to Mexico, while only 19.7 percent said it should be to the United States. Another 11.5 percent of respondents said they were not sure.

Steven Camarota, director of research at the CIS, told CNSNews.com that the Spanish phrase translated as “Mexican-Americans” (“los estadounidenses de origen mexicano”) was carefully selected to ensure that respondents knew that it included those born in the U.S. He particularly stressed the Spanish word ‘estadounidenses.’ “It means ‘United States-ian’ -- (that's) how it translates,” he said, “and it’s understood by everyone in Mexico to include, clearly, people born in the United States of Mexican ancestry.”

Camarota also told CNSNews.com that just over one-third of respondents (36 percent) said that they would come to the U.S., if they could. Of that group, 68 percent said they think that Mexican-Americans owe loyalty to Mexico over the United States. The data shows that the percentage of potential illegal immigrants who hold that belief is nearly identical to the percentage among the general Mexican population, Camarota said.

Other poll results centered on how Mexico itself would react to an amnesty in the United States -- which was the reason for the poll, according to Camarota. “How an amnesty would be perceived or received in that country is important to think about if you’re arguing for legalization,” he noted. “That’s the number one reason we did it.”

The results clearly showed that illegal immigration tends to encourage more people to emigrate in the future. he said. “In Mexico, Mexicans overwhelmingly – especially those who have family here (in the U.S. )– overwhelmingly say that it (amnesty) would encourage illegal immigration in the future.”

In fact, 56.2 percent of respondents did indeed answer “more likely” when asked, “If the U.S. gave permanent legal status to undocumented immigrants (migrantes indocumentados), do you think it would make your friends and family members more likely or less likely to go to the U.S. as indocumentados, or would it make no difference?” Just over 16 percent said that it would make them less likely to come to the U.S., while 19.6 percent said that it would make no difference. Another 7.6 responded that they were not sure.

Camarota was careful to note the limitations of the poll. “It doesn’t tell us what Mexican-Americans think, it tells us what the expectation of Mexican-Americans is among Mexicans,” he said. Nevertheless, the poll does have its uses, he added. “(It) tells us what kind of society Mexican immigrants came out of, what the expectation is for those who go here,” Camarota told CNSNews.com.

He also said that, when asking which nation Mexican-Americans should be loyal to, “If you’re asking the question in Mexico, you don’t have to worry that people will give a guarded answer.”

SOURCE





18 October, 2009

Salvation Army Does NOT Support Evangelical Group's Pro-Amnesty Lobbying

The Salvation Army has announced that it does not endorse the National Association of Evangelicals' recent lobbying for amnesty and an increase in foreign labor importation.

With its National Commander on the NAE's executive committee, the Salvation Army is one of the largest denominations in the National Association of Evangelicals. A spokesman told NumbersUSA today that the Salvation Army is neutral on immigration policy and neither supports nor opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants. "We came to the conclusion that it was inappropriate for us to sign" the NAE pro-amnesty document that was presented at a U.S. Senate hearing last week, said Major George Hood, National Community Relations Secretary.

NAE President Leith Anderson, pastor of an independent Minnesota church, had given the impression to the Senate that the NAE's 40 denominational members were unanimous in their support for amnesty. After saying that NAE represented 40 denominations, he was asked by Sen. Schumer (D-N.Y.) how much support there was for the NAE amnesty position in the evangelical community. Rev. Anderson responded: "We actually had a vote today on this resolution with leaders in the National Association of Evangelicals and there was no dissent ... On the board there are 75 (members) who represent the head of denominations."

But Major Hood explained that the lack of dissent by a denomination was not the same as agreement. To what he called a large quantity of inquiries to the national headquarters about the NAE lobbying, he responded: "Please know that Salvation Army leadership chose to abstain from signing the final resolution on immigration reform. While the news releases did not report this specifically, the fact remains that any resolution produced by the National Association of Evangelicals does not automatically become the official policy of a member organization (ie: The Salvation Army) unless they choose to make it so. In this case, The Salvation Army chose not to adopt the resolution nor will it become our stance on immigration reform. In actuality, The Salvation Army has never established any official position on this topic and has chosen to remain politically neutral on the matter."

Major Hood noted to NumbersUSA that the Salvation Army would never deny its charity to somebody because of legal status and would not inquire about it, quoting the denomination's official mission "of preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ and to serve suffering humanity in His name, without discrimination." But the question of whether an illegal immigrant should be given U.S. citizenship is the kind of political issue in which the Salvation Army does not involve itself, he said.

The denominations that DID sign the NAE document urged an amnesty for most of the nation's 12-20 million illegal aliens, stating that the government should: . . .. . "establish a sound, equitable process toward earned legal status for currently undocumented immigrants, who desire to embrace the responsibilities and privileges that accompany citizenship".

Rev. Anderson amplified that before the Senate: "We believe that undocumented immigrants who have otherwise been law abiding members of our communities should be offered the opportunity to pay any taxes or penalties owed, and over time earn the right to become U.S. citizens and permanent residents. The process of redemption and restitution is core to Christian beliefs, as we were all once lost and redeemed through love of Jesus Christ."

The denominations that DID sign the NAE document also called for increased importation of foreign labor while nearly one out of five Americans looking for a full-time job cannot find one. The NAE explained its position on the basis of what it believes are labor shortages in the U.S.: "At the same time, many jobs and industries rely on immigrant workers. Current quotas do not grant enough visas to meet these needs, nor does federal immigration law provide sufficient opportunities to others who also come seeking gainful employment."

NumbersUSA President Roy Beck responded to the Salvation Army announcement, saying, "I am much relieved that this great organization that has done so much to relieve the suffering of the most vulnerable members of our national community is not working with other denominations to make it harder for these unemployed Americans to get a job because of an increase in foreign labor competition.

"It is fully understandable -- and admirable -- for religious groups to tend to spiritual and humanitarian needs of illegal aliens, even though their presence is the result of their breaking our immigration laws and illegally taking U.S. jobs. But I hope leaders of other denominations will soon be making it clear that they also have no intention of hopping on the pro-amnesty bandwagon that helps lawbreakers by harming the weakest in our own national community."

SOURCE



Ariz. sheriff launches immigration sweep

An Arizona sheriff known for cracking down on people who are in the country illegally launched a crime and immigration sweep in northwestern metro Phoenix on Friday, a half day after officials in Washington limited his powers to make federal immigration arrests.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whose sweeps have led to allegations of racial profiling, said the rebuff from Washington won't stop him. He said he can still arrest immigrants under a state smuggling law and a federal law that gives all local police agencies more limited power to detain suspected illegal immigrants. "It doesn't bother me, because we are going to do the same thing," said Arpaio, whose deputies had arrested 16 people by Friday evening on unspecified charges. "I am the elected sheriff. I don't take orders from the federal government."

The officers were participating in a federal program that grants a limited number of local police departments special powers to make immigration arrests and speed up deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement stripped Arpaio of his power to let 100 deputies make federal immigration arrests, but renewed another agreement that allows 60 jails officers to determine the immigration status of people in jail.

The sheriff's sweeps in some heavily Latino areas of metro Phoenix have drawn criticism that Arpaio's deputies racially profile people. Arpaio said people pulled over in the sweeps were approached because deputies had probable cause to believe they had committed crimes and that it was only afterward that deputies found many of them were illegal immigrants. The U.S. Department of Justice is investigating Arpaio's office over allegations of discrimination and unconstitutional searches and seizures.

"He is doing this to thumb his nose at the Obama administration," said Lydia Guzman, president of the Hispanic civil rights group Somos America. The sweeps have discouraged some Hispanics who have witnessed or been victims of crime to refuse to call Arpaio's deputies, for fear of mistreatment, Guzman said. Observers who are part of Guzman's group fanned out across the area of the sweeps with video cameras to record exchanges between deputies and motorists.

Arpaio said volunteers will use cameras owned by his agency to video-record deputies so viewers can see for themselves that they weren't doing anything wrong. Arpaio responded angrily to a question during a news conference about the costs of the cameras, saying they were paid through seizures in drug cases. "Dope peddlers bought the cameras," Arpaio said.

A dozen anti-Arpaio protesters yelled throughout the news conference. At one point, they chanted: "Order equals K-K-K _ here's what Arpaio has to say."

Kris Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City and an advocate of expanding local immigration efforts, said Arpaio's office _ like every other local police agency _ can detain people suspected of immigration violations for a day or two until federal authorities come to pick them up. In the past, Arpaio could have held such immigrants for longer than two days and conducted investigations of smuggling rings, Kobach said. "It's really a slight narrowing, but it's not much," said Kobach, who worked as an immigration law adviser to then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft from 2001-2003.

Dan Pochoda, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing people who filed a lawsuit over the sweeps, said Arpaio still can't pull over motorists solely because they are suspected of being illegal immigrants. "He can't do it under the terms he is claiming. He has indicated that he can stop people without the suspicion, based on what they look like, what they sound like," Pochoda said.

Arpaio said the Bush administration had no complaints about his use of the special federal powers, but all that has changed with the Obama administration. "What's changed?" Arpaio asked. "Politics has changed, because they don't like us going on the streets to catch illegals."

SOURCE





17 October, 2009

Local Immigration Enforcement: New Research on the 287(g) Program

The October 15 deadline for local law enforcement agencies to sign the new 287(g) agreements has been reached. DHS is expected to announce that nearly all the local partners have agreed to continue in the program. A forthcoming report by the Center for Immigration Studies helps explain why: 287(g) has helped reduce immigration-related public safety problems in participating jurisdictions, while significantly contributing to the productivity of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in removing illegal aliens.

The report, “The 287(g) Program: Protecting Home Towns and Homeland,” includes statistics from ICE and local 287(g) agencies and describes the various types of 287(g) programs and why they are effective. Authors Jessica Vaughan and James R. Edwards, Jr. also discuss some of the challenges facing the program, such as threats of reduced funding from Congress, opposition from ethnic and civil liberties groups, and efforts by the current administration to impose limits on how local partners can use 287(g). The study will be published next week at www.cis.org; advanced copies are available to the media. Some of the key findings:

* 287(g) provides a significant boost to ICE’s ability to identify and remove aliens who have committed crimes. In 2008, the number of 287(g) arrests (45,368) was equal to one-fifth of all criminal aliens identified by ICE in prisons and jails nationwide (221,085).

* 287(g) is cost-effective and much less expensive than other criminal alien identification programs such as Secure Communities and Fugitive Operations. For example, in 2008 ICE spent $219 million to remove 34,000 fugitive aliens (who are mostly criminals). In 2008, ICE was given $40 million for 287(g), which produced more than 45,000 arrests of aliens who were involved in state and local crimes.

* The biggest obstacle to improving and expanding 287(g) is the lack of funding for bed space to detain illegal aliens who have committed crimes who are discovered by local agencies. Currently ICE is removing fewer than half of the criminal aliens identified under 287(g).

The Center has released several additional publications concerning the 287(g) program:

* Memorandum, “The Obama Administration’s 287(g): An Analysis of the New MOA,” by Jon Feere

* Webcast, “Law Enforcement of Federal Immigration Law and Section 287(g),” with Jessica Vaughan

* Blog, “An Inside Look at Three Sheriff’s Departments Using 287(g),” by Jessica Vaughan

* Blog, “DHS Task Force Seeks Weaker 287(g),” by Jon Feere

The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: center@cis.org www.cis.org. Regarding the above Contact Jessica Vaughan, (508) 346-3380, jmv@cis.org



Illegal immigrant realities now detonating the delusions and deceptions of Australia's Leftist government

After a fatal explosion on a boat of asylum seekers under escort by the navy to Christmas Island in April, Western Australia's Liberal Premier, Colin Barnett, said those on board had doused the boat with petrol and deliberately set it alight.

The quivering self-righteousness of the then minister for home affairs, Bob Debus, was something to behold. "I am not going to allow this particular incident to be politicised as some incidents have been politicised in the past, often to our national shame," he told ABC TV. Immigration Minister Chris Evans likewise denounced Barnett's truth-telling as unwise, unhelpful and even "silly".

Canberra claimed that Australia's border protection had never been stronger. It was a neat example of how traducing people who point out inconvenient truths, rather than engaging them in reasonable debate, ends up blowing up in your face. Six months later, the smell of vindication is in the air.

It is boom time for people smugglers. The dismantling of the Howard government's border protection policies has led to a surge in boats, the likes of which we have not seen since 2001. At the weekend, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had to ask Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono for help to turn back a boat carrying 260 asylum seekers for fear the detention centre on Christmas Island would be overwhelmed. The centre can house only 1200 people and already has about 1000.

Northern Territory police have meanwhile confirmed Barnett's story: SIEV 36, which exploded in April, was doused with petrol and set alight, killing five passengers and injuring scores more, including naval personnel. The police were unable to identify the "one or more persons" responsible, but that is different from Evans' inference that no crime was committed because police "found they had no basis to charge anyone".

No sooner had the police announced the results than the Government granted residency visas to all 42 Afghan men who survived the explosion. Barnett thinks they should have waited until after the coronial inquest expected to start in January. ''Further information has come forward that it appears they deliberately ignited that fuel," Barnett told Fairfax Radio. ''Now that's a criminal act … people died … it could be seen as murder."

It didn't take long in office for Rudd to start dismantling Howard's border protection policies, under the guise of being more humane. He has relaxed the so-called Pacific Solution of offshore processing, temporary protection visas and mandatory detention. Regardless of your views of these policies, it is increasingly hard to argue their relaxation has not caused the surge in boat arrivals.

As former immigration minister Philip Ruddock pointed out this week, those were all "difficult public policy issues … and that's the reason the Rudd Government has been unwinding them. [But] the reason we've lost control of our borders now is because … all of these measures have been unwound and the people smugglers are back in business".

It was all predicted. The Australian Federal Police warned senior Government ministers this year that relaxation of border protection policies was making Australia a magnet for people smugglers. As one Iraqi asylum seeker in Indonesia told the ABC in April, "Kevin Rudd - he's changed everything about refugee. If I go to Australia now, different, different … Maybe accepted but when John Howard president [sic] Australia, he said come back to Indonesia.''

So far this year 32 boats carrying more than 1700 asylum seekers and 66 crew have been intercepted on their way from Indonesia to Ashmore Reef, 610 kilometres north of Broome. More than one-third of the people have reportedly been given visas, and the boats are still coming.

Now Rudd is talking tough. ''The Australian Government makes no apology whatsoever for deploying the most hardline measures necessary to deal with the problems of illegal immigration into Australia," he thundered this week. ''No apology whatsoever.'' The fact he used the verboten term "illegal immigration" shows the pressure he is feeling.

A Lowy Institute poll this week shows why. It reveals 76 per cent of Australians are concerned about unauthorised asylum seekers coming to Australia by boat. By contrast, concern about climate change has plummeted, from 75 per cent of people classing it as a "very important" foreign policy goal in 2007 to 56 per cent this year. Even the ABC described this as a "disjuncture between government policy and public opinion".

This wasn't what Rudd promised before the election. But if the Government's policies are fair and reasonable and in the best interest of the country, then he shouldn't underestimate the willingness of Australians to go along with them. Hypocritical posturing, doing one thing while saying the opposite, is an insult to voters, underpinned by the favourite false assumption of the chattering classes that the majority of Australians are racist rednecks.

If Rudd really wanted to show compassion he would back the audacious plan of the Christian Democrat Fred Nile and go into the people smuggling business.

Hosting a meeting yesterday at NSW Parliament House for Christians from Egypt, Iran and Iraq, the upper house MP said he was worried about the plight of Christians in the Middle East, who were desperate to come here and make good migrants. In Iraq, says the Catholic charity Aid to the Church in Need, there are only 400,000 Christians left, down from 1.4 million in 1987. Australia has a special responsibility for the Iraqi people, and from a self-interested viewpoint, Christians are likely to settle more easily into a Christian country than Muslims. "It's a desperate situation," said Nile. "They're being told 'convert or die'."

Seeing how free and easy the Government has become with boat people, Nile has hatched a plan to bring a boat of 2000 Christian asylum seekers from Indonesia to Australia. He wants donations and he dares the Government to stop him. So how about it?

SOURCE





16 October, 2009

ICE sputters back into life

Gang sweep nets 116 people in Southeast Texas. Good to see that Obama has not castrated ICE entirely and that SOME sweeps are still being done

Immigration officials today announced the arrests of 116 people in Southeast Texas as part of a gang initiative. The local crackdown was part of a six-month, nationwide Immigration and Customs Enforcement operation that netted the arrests of 1,785 gang members and associates, criminals and immigration violators, officials said. The anti-gang operation, conducted in 89 cities across the country, ended Sept. 30.

ICE officials said they arrested 1,472 gang members, associates or “those otherwise criminally charged.” The remainder were arrested for immigration violations. ICE officials also reported seizing more than 100 firearms in connection with the gang initiative.

The arrests were part of Operation Community Shield, an ICE-led program that involves partnerships with federal, state and local agencies and targets gangs. Through Sept. 30, the program since its inception has resulted in the arrest of more than 14,800 street gang members and associates. ICE officials said more than a third of those apprehended had a violent criminal history.

SOURCE



Australian immigration policies 'a marketing tool for smugglers', says United Nations official

The "boat people" had been stopped stone dead by the policies of the previous conservative government so it can be done

The United Nations refugee agency says changes to Australia's immigration policies have given people smugglers a new marketing tool.

The agency's regional representative, Richard Towle, says there has been a large increase in boats heading to Australia. "I think the 32 boats to date is significantly more than last year, but I do think we need to keep this in a sense of balance and perspective - the statistics are not peculiar to Australia, we've seen very large numbers and very sharp increases across the world," he said.

"I think perceptions of policy can certainly play a role in people smuggling. They have a product that they need to market, and to show that Australia is a place where refugees can get fair and effective refugee protection is something that is understood. "But I think we need to be careful about apologising for that. If Australia is renowned as a country that does the right thing, that offers fair and effective protection for those who need it, and requires those who don't need it to leave the territory, then I don't think any apology is needed." [Except to the Australian people, who are overwhelmingly against illegal immigration!]

Mr Towle has confirmed Australia could be asked to offer asylum to more than 250 Sri Lankan men, women and children whose boat was intercepted by Indonesian authorities this week. The UNHCR says it is ready, if asked, to assist the Sri Lankans and help resettle them if they are deemed to be genuine refugees.

But Mr Towle stopped short of urging Australia to take the Sri Lankans. "As and when we find them to be refugees, if we get to that, then we'll approach our good resettlement country partners, including Australia, to see if they can help find solutions," he said.

SOURCE





15 October, 2009

'Toughest sheriff' vows face-off with feds over illegals

The man who likes to call himself "America's toughest sheriff," Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., is planning a Friday showdown with the feds.

The sheriff has announced he will defy the U.S. Department of Homeland Security by doing a street sweep for illegal immigrants one day after the expiration of the agreement that has permitted him to conduct such operations for the past three years. The sheriff has said he expects the deal not to be extended, though federal officials have remained publicly noncommittal.

Deputies, and Sheriff Arpaio, will stake out an intersection somewhere in the Phoenix metro area to stop cars for traffic violations - everything from speeding to broken taillights to driving while intoxicated. Both drivers and passengers will be held if deputies determine that they are illegal immigrants - regardless of how minor was the initial infraction.

Sheriff Arpaio is charging ahead because he claims he has jurisdiction under a 1996 federal law allowing police to detain someone briefly if that person could be in the country illegally. "We will call Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE] to see if they will take them from us," Sheriff Arpaio told The Washington Times. "And if they tell me to let them go, I guess I'll have to transport them myself to the border [about 175 miles] and turn them over to the Border Patrol."

Sheriff Arpaio, 77 but looking 10 years younger, has been shaking up Maricopa County for 17 years, and he's not ready to quiet down: "I just got re-elected last year, but I'm going to run again, and I've already raised a lot of money. They'll have to put up with me for another seven years."

With customary bravado, he will announce on his Web site the Friday sweep's location shortly before it happens, enough time so protesters can show up: "The same ones who are out in front of my building every day calling me Hitler and a Nazi. I'm the poster boy for the open borders crowd." "We're doing it the day after Oct. 15, in order to play a little game with them," Sheriff Arpaio said. He said he expects to use a "new secret weapon," but declined to say what it is.

Oct. 15 is the day he expects to find out whether federal officials will approve his pending application for a renewal of the contract with ICE to detain illegal immigrants. In the past few weeks, the sheriff has been loudly complaining that the contract will no longer allow street sweeps of the kind he plans Friday, potentially angering federal authorities, who still have the power not to extend the agreement at all.

For the past three years, Sheriff Arpaio has been working under what is known as a 287(g) contract, named for the section of a federal immigration-reform law that established the program in 1996.

More HERE



Poll: Mexicans Say Amnesty Would Increase Illegal Immigration

Mexicans also Feel Mexican-Americans Should Be Loyal to Mexico

A new survey by Zogby International finds that people in Mexico think that granting legal status to illegal immigrants would encourage more illegal immigration to the United States. As the top immigrant-sending country for both legal and illegal immigrants, views on immigration in Mexico can provide insight into the likely impact of an amnesty, as well as other questions related to immigration.

The results are available online at the Center for Immigration Studies' website. Among the findings:

* A clear majority of people in Mexico, 56 percent, thought giving legal status to illegal immigrants in the United States would make it more likely that people they know would go to the United States illegally. Just 17 percent thought it would make Mexicans less likely to go illegally. The rest were unsure or thought it would make no difference.

* Of Mexicans with a member of their immediate household in the United States, 65 percent said a legalization program would make people they know more likely to go to America illegally.

* Two-thirds of Mexicans know someone living in the United States; one-third said an immediate member of their household was living in the United States.

* Interest in going to the United States remains strong even in the current recession, with 36 percent of Mexicans (39 million people) saying they would move to the United States if they could. This is consistent with a recent Pew Research Center poll which found that about one-third of Mexicans would go to the United States if they could. At present, 12 to 13 million Mexico-born people live in the United States.

* An overwhelming majority (69 percent) thought that the primary loyalty of Mexican-Americans (Mexico- and U.S.-born) should be to Mexico. Just 20 percent said it should be to the United States. The rest were unsure.

* Also, 69 percent of people in Mexico felt that the Mexican government should represent the interests of Mexican-Americans (Mexico- and U.S.-born) in the United States.

* A plurality, 39 percent, of Mexicans thought that in the last year fewer people they know had gone to the United States as illegal immigrants compared to previous years. Only 27 percent thought more had gone. The rest thought it had stayed the same or were unsure.

* A plurality, 40 percent, also thought that in the last year more of the illegal immigrants they know had returned to Mexico compared to previous years. Only 25 percent thought the number returning had fallen. The rest thought it had stayed the same or were unsure.

* Both the bad economy and increased immigration enforcement were cited as reasons fewer people were going to America as illegal immigrants and more were coming back to Mexico.

Discusssion: As the nation begins debates the issue of immigration, the perspective of people in Mexico is important because Mexico is the top sending country for both legal and illegal immigrants. In 2008 one of six new legal immigrants was from Mexico and, according to the Department of Homeland Security, 6 out of 10 illegal immigrants come from that country. Asking people in Mexico their views on immigration can provide insight into the likely impact of an amnesty for illegal immigrants and other questions related to immigration.

This survey is the first to ask people in Mexico if they thought legalizing illegal immigrants in the United States would encourage more illegal immigration. The survey was conducted in August and September of 2009 and consisted of 1,004 in-person interviews of adults throughout Mexico. The findings show that a majority of people in Mexico think that an amnesty would make it more likely that people in Mexico would come to the United States illegally. This is especially true for people who have a member of their households living in the United States. It is important to note that respondents were asked specifically about whether an amnesty would make illegal immigration more likely, not just immigration generally. Other questions in the survey explore attitudes about migration to United States generally, recent trends in migration, and loyalty to the United States.

The results may give pause to those lawmakers who think that an amnesty/legalization for illegals immigrants would reduce illegal immigration in the future. The findings of this survey indicate that an amnesty would encourage more illegal immigration, at least from Mexico.

Methodology: The in-person survey done in Mexico for the Center for Immigration Studies by Zogby International was of 1,004 persons 18 years of age and older. The sampling framework was the most recent (2009) electoral sections defined by the Federal Electoral Institute. A multi-stage sampling procedure was employed that first randomly selected 100 electoral sections proportional to size. Second, two house blocks were randomly selected from each section. Within each block five households were selected using a systematic random procedure. The margin of error for the entire sample is +/- 3.1% for a 95% confidence level. Margins of error are larger for sub-groups.

The above is a press release dated October 14 from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: center@cis.org www.cis.org





14 October, 2009

Geert Wilders wins appeal against exclusion from UK

Britain's Leftist government allows some of the scum of the earth to stay in Britain but tried to keep out an influential Dutch politician -- on the grounds that his presence would "inflame" Muslims. A government that was really committed to community harmony would have adopted measures to deal with the inflamed ones, not added to the attack on their target

Geert Wilders, the far-right Dutch politician, today won his appeal against the government's decision not to allow him into the UK. Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, was originally refused entry in February after arriving in London. He had been due to show his 17-minute film Fitna, which criticises the Qu'ran as a "fascist book", at the House of Lords, but was turned away at Heathrow airport.

The decision to refuse Wilders entry to the country, made by Jacqui Smith, then the home secretary, led to criticism of what was seen by some commentators as the silencing of free speech. The ruling by the asylum and immigration tribunal means that Wilders, who is accused of Islamophobia, could now be allowed into the country.

In initially refusing Wilders access, a letter sent to the politician by the Home Office, on behalf of Jacqui Smith, said his presence "would pose a genuine, present and significantly serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society. The secretary of state is satisfied that your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in the film and elsewhere, would threaten community harmony and therefore public safety in the UK."

Today a Home Office spokesman said the government was "disappointed" by the ruling. He said: "The government opposes extremism is all its forms. The decision to refuse Wilders admission was taken on the basis that his presence could have inflamed tensions between our communities and have led to inter-faith violence. We still maintain this view."

SOURCE



Kevin Rudd's "refugee" policies make Australia a soft target

When federal Labor MP Michael Danby visited Christmas Island last year he declared that the new $400 million, 800-bed Christmas Island detention centre, a legacy of the Howard government, was "an enormous white elephant".

For more than a year Immigration Minister Chris Evans maintained the pretence that the Government's softening of policies on asylum seekers would have no material effect on the number of arrivals. To support this fiction, the Government transferred boat people to Christmas Island, but housed them in a construction camp, private accommodation, and an obsolete detention facility at Phosphate Hill. Anywhere but the Christmas Island detention centre.

Today, the detention centre is not just full, it is overflowing. The Government has been forced to ship 200 bunk beds to Christmas Island, where more than 1000 detainees are being housed. Another 58 are on their way. The Rudd Government is readying another 500-bed detention centre in Darwin. It is also funding the construction of yet another detention centre, in Sumatra, on behalf of the Indonesian Government.

The policy announced last year that "detention in immigration detention centres would be a last resort" is now in tatters. For the past two months, boat people are have been intercepted up at a rate of 100 a week. Thousands of asylum seekers from South Asia have reached Indonesia to apply for refugee status in Australia or by-pass border controls and reach Australia by boat.

The Christmas Island detention centre, with its 800 beds, shows that the numbers are far higher than the previous government envisaged under its policies. Not only has the number of boat people built steadily since the change of policy, so too have the tensions and confrontations implicit in people smuggling. As this piece was being written, the Indonesian military was engaged in a volatile and potentially life-threatening stand-off with a small cargo ship packed with an estimated 260 Sri Lankan asylum seekers.

The ship was heading for Christmas Island when it was intercepted. The stand-off is taking place in Indonesian waters and was instigated by a tip from Australian intelligence. Some of the Sri Lankans on board are threatening to scuttle the ship or jump into the water rather than allow the vessel to be towed back to Indonesia. In accordance with the tactics long used by people smugglers, the putative asylum seekers are engaging in brinkmanship. Since arriving in Indonesia they have destroyed their passports and are now threatening their own lives.

This tactic has already produced deadly results this year. On April 16, five Afghan asylum seekers were killed when their boat exploded off the Ashmore Reef. Within 24 hours, West Australian Premier Colin Barnett said he had been advised by police that the explosion was the result of deliberate sabotage. He was roundly criticised by the Rudd Government. For six months, the Federal Government refused to comment on the incident, saying it was under police investigation. Last week police confirmed that the fatal fire had been deliberately lit.

The Premier accused the Government of delay and dissembling: "I was quoting from a formal report from the emergency personnel at the site." He said the Rudd Government had been given the same report at the same time, but said nothing. He was also highly critical of the Federal Government's decision last week to grant asylum status to the remaining 42 Afghans who had been on the boat, before the coronial inquiry had even taken place.

Barnett said the perpetrators of the crime had never been identified, Australian Navy personnel had been injured by the explosion, and there was a possibility that some of those complicit in the deaths had now been granted asylum status. This, he said, was another signal of weakness from the Government.

Yesterday, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was talking tough about "illegal immigrants". But thousand of people have read the signals sent by his Government and mobilised to bypass Australian refugee and immigration procedures. They have taken this risk in the confidence that once they enter Australian waters, they are highly likely to be rewarded with Australian residency. While that confidence remains well founded, the ugly events of the past year and the present day will continue.

SOURCE





13 October, 2009

CIS roundup

1. Statement on Faith Traditions and Immigration Policy: A Jewish Perspective

Submitted to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Citizenship, Senate Judiciary Committee

Excerpt: Dr. Steinlight has previously held senior positions in the American-Jewish Establishment and in interfaith and human rights organizations. He was Director of National Affairs (domestic public policy) and Senior Fellow at the American Jewish Committee; Vice President of the National Conference of Christians and Jews; Director of Education, United States Holocaust Commemoration Council; and Executive Director, American Anti-Slavery Group.

********

2. Webcast on 287(g): Law Enforcement Group Moderated by CIS Analyst

Webcast:

Details: The Center for Immigration Studies and the Law Enforcement and Public Safety Channel hosted a webcast on the 287(g) program. The webcast, moderated by CIS Director of Policy Studies Jessica Vaughan, features representatives of three local law enforcement agencies that have successful 287(g) programs in place: Harris County, Texas; Collier County, Fla.; and Whitfield County, Ga.

********

3. Illegal Immigration: A Culture of Corruption

Excerpt: At a time when 83% of Americans view government corruption as a very important problem, isn't it time that we stop fostering a culture of corruption by failing to control illegal immigration?

Most illegal aliens come from countries where corruption is rampant. In 2008, the average corruption score of the ten countries with the largest number of their citizens residing illegally in the United States was 3.43 out of a possible ten signifying a serious to rampant level of corruption.

********

4. The Human Toll of Meat Packing

Excerpt: In visits to the communities around six Swift meat packing communities for a CIS report published earlier this year, I was struck at how often I heard workers and former workers use similar language to express their bitterness about safety conditions. They would say, 'This plant doesn’t just kill animals. It kills people, too.'

********

5. 'Another Such Victory Will Undo Me!'*

Excerpt: The Hill newspaper, in 'Appropriators deal blow to border fence,' reports House conferees killed a $42.8 billion appropriation in the Senate's version of the 2010 Homeland Security spending bill, an amendment inserted in July by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) adopted with majority Republican support and the votes of 21 Democrats.

********

6. Mexico's Internal Walls

Excerpt: Mexican government officials complain bitterly about the wall that the U.S. has constructed along sections of the southern border to discourage illegal immigration. Today, writing in the Mexican newspaper El Universal about the brutal social and economic inequalities that propel much illegal immigration, columnist Ricardo Rocha notes the construction of 'stately versions of Chinese walls so the poor don't bother the rich' in the city of Monterrey.

********

7. An Inside Look at Three Sheriff’s Departments Using 287(g)

Excerpt: DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano took a swipe at her erstwhile rival, the popular Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, by unceremoniously yanking his investigative 287(g) program late last week. Since previous audits found no serious problems, DHS seems to be throwing a bone to the many ethnic and civil liberties groups who resent Arpaio’s unapologetic attention to addressing the crime problems resulting from illegal immigration, and who are constantly clamoring for the program to be ended entirely. To their dismay, DHS definitely wants to keep Arpaio’s jail removal program, which has so far identified more than 18,000 criminal aliens, and dozens of other 287(g) programs remain intact around the country. Representatives of these programs report that it’s still “business as usual” in their jurisdictions. You can find out what that means, and how the 287(g) program enhances public safety while reducing criminal justice costs by viewing the first installment in a series of “webinars” on 287(g), produced by LEAPS.TV, and hosted by the Center.

********

8. California Senate Embraces Lawlessness

Excerpt: The California state Senate recently passed a resolution in support of non-enforcement of immigration law. It was authored by State Senator Gilbert Cedillo (D-Los Angeles), a man who has made a name for himself by constantly pushing for driver’s licenses for illegal aliens. The resolution’s purpose is to “urge Congress and the President of the United States to declare an immediate moratorium” on the enforcement of certain immigration laws until an amnesty is passed on the federal level. While the resolution does not have the force of law, it does illustrate how radical some lawmakers are in their support for open borders. It passed the Senate by a margin of 23-14.

********

9. Fuzzy Words Foul Up the Immigration Policy Debate

Excerpt: The use of deliberately fuzzy terms -– 'undocumented worker' is my favorite -– continues to cloud the immigration policy debate, always to the detriment of the restrictionists' position.

A good example popped up in yesterday's New York Times; the headline was 'Ideas for Immigrant Detention Include Converting Hotels and Building Models'. In the article the term 'noncitizens' was used to define the inmates.

********

10. Martinez's Warning to Republicans

Excerpt: As someone who lived in Arizona in the 1990s, when a large influx of illegal immigrants were met with a backlash that continues today, I agree with the warning from recently retired GOP Sen. Mel Martinez in today's Washington Post. It comes in a column from Michael Gerson, who writes of the electoral risks to Republicans if they are associated with virulent criticism of illegal immigrants.

********

11. Lou Dobbs Segment on 287(g) Changes

Excerpt: I appeared on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight for a segment on the Obama administration's changes to 287(g), a highly-successful program that allows state and local law enforcement officers to assist ICE in carrying out immigration enforcement. Many activist groups opposed to enforcement of our immigration laws are seeking to end the program.

********

12. Catch and Release Redux

Excerpt: The Obama Administration is ignoring hard and unpleasant lessons learned from decades of prior failed immigration policies. 'Alternatives to Detention' (ATD) is just another way to say 'Catch and Release,' which was the thorn in the side of the prior administration until they stopped it and put rule of law in place. Although managing detention facilities and their population well is a good goal, simply doing it by reducing the illegal population and dispersing them back into American communities does not help enforce immigration law or make our communities more secure.

********

13. More Illegal Aliens, More House Seats and Electoral Votes

Excerpt: Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution mandates that a census be conducted every ten years in such manner as Congress shall direct. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution further states that 'Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.'

********

14. The Immigration Managers - The Departments of Labor and Justice

Excerpt: The principal U.S. migration management agency has done a lot of institutional migrating over the decades. During the late 19th Century, as the Bureau of Immigration, it was first in the Department of the Interior, and then in the Treasury Department. It moved to the no-longer-existing Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903, and then became one of the main parts of the Department of Labor when it was created in 1913. It stayed in Labor for a long time, by now as the Immigration and Naturalization Service, until World War II, when it was moved to Justice, where it remained until the passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

********

15. Sacrificing American Children for Illegal Alien Health Insurance

Excerpt: When Senate Finance Committee Democrats defeated an amendment last week that would have required photo identification for health benefits on a straight party-line vote, they joined their House colleagues in defending a culture of corruption that results in millions of American children having their identities being used by illegal aliens to obtain benefits that they are not entitled to.

********

16. Heritage Homeland Security University

Excerpt: The following is an overview of Border ID Programs and a comparison of where these program were under the Bush Administration and where they stand today under the Obama Administration.

Most of these programs are based on the 9/11 Commission recommendation that we must assure that people are who they say they are and are authorized to gain the privilege they are seeking, whether it is to enter the country, work, or get a driver license, for example. A few of these programs have been on the books since 1996, like E-Verify, but most of them are post-9/11 programs. You will see the programs listed in blue down the left column and a series of columns describing the programs and their current status, broken down by the shift in U.S. leadership. The chart is meant to be a take-away from this talk, and for now, I just want to highlight some important nuggets.

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





12 October, 2009

Australian government's strange way to stop illegals coming from Sri Lanka

They say it's effective. In which case, why are the Sri Lankans still coming? The previous conservative government had the effective way: Lock them up behind barbed wire for long periods and invite the media to see that. The stuff below is just pissing into the wind: Another addle-headed Leftist idea. There is nothing wrong with giving aid to the very poor but giving them volleyball nets (!!!) won't stop the illegals

The Rudd government will offer micro-loans, free volleyball nets and fishing nets to poor Sri Lankans as part of a campaign to dissuade them from illegally migrating to Australia. Four hundred chairs, 300 fishing nets and 50 volleyball nets will be distributed in coming weeks to community centres and churches across the country's west coast -- all the products bearing warnings of the perils of the Indian Ocean crossing. Australia will also offer community grants and micro-financing for local job creation projects in the hope that improving the lives of poor Sri Lankans in their own country will reduce the likelihood that they will seek a better life elsewhere.

Sri Lankans are now among the largest group of asylum-seekers in Australia with more than 300 washing up on our shores in the past year. Another 260 Sri Lankan migrants, heading for Australia, were yesterday detained by Indonesian authorities in the Sunda Strait between Java and Sumatra.

The freebies, known as "livelihood products" are part of an advertising campaign being launched this month in Sri Lanka. Australia Customs has hired the International Organisation for Migration and advertising agency Saatchi & Saatchi to deliver its message through posters, stickers, bookmarks and street theatre performances. IOM Sri Lanka spokeswoman Stacey Winston said: "These products are really effective, small amounts really make a big difference. There will be two rounds of distribution of livelihood products. That's what we will deliver in the first round but we have some flexibility to change the products".

While posters and performances had proven "wonderfully effective" in previous public information campaigns in Sri Lanka "we wanted something tangible to give them also", she said. The loans would not be advertised in the campaign but offered to community leaders in follow-meetings.

The Australian government has identified Sri Lanka's west coast, a series of largely Sinhalese Catholic fishing villages and the most popular jumping-off point for illegal boats, as the first target in their campaign. So prevalent is illegal immigration from that area that whole pockets of one village are known as Little Italy in honour of the Italianate villas financed with money sent back by locals who have washed up on Europe's shores. Last week six Sinhala Christians from that region became the first Sri Lankans to be returned by the Rudd government. The men were deemed to be economic migrants with no reasonable fear of persecution on their return.

The Australian understands the Sri Lankan navy intercepted a boat with up to 60 asylum-seekers last week as it left Negombo Port headed for Western Australia. All those on board, believed to be mostly west coast locals, are now in Negombo prison.

The first street performance for the Australian campaign was to have been launched yesterday during a Catholic feast day at St Sebastian Church in Negombo -- an event attended by hundreds of local parishioners. But the Australian government cancelled the event less than 24 hours before it was scheduled. Parish priest Father Erington Silva said the Australian Government had missed an opportunity to reach a large audience of locals and drive its message home.

He also questioned the effectiveness of handing out free volleyball nets to communities of people so poor they were prepared to risk a perilous, month-long boat trip in the hope of a better life in a more prosperous country. "I think people might be a bit cynical about that," Father Erington said. But he said the Rudd government plan to offer grants and micro financing could help in an area where mass unemployment was forcing many to either work in the people-smuggling trade or take their chances on the boats. "If you can do something like that for people here, where there's so much poverty and unemployment, then maybe we can change peoples' minds little by little."

SOURCE



If you are from Afghanistan and say you are a refugee, you get accepted into Australia

None have been rejected so far. Australia could get millions at this rate. Yet NONE are in fact refugees. They ceased being refugees as soon as they arrived in Pakistan, where millions of them now live

All surviving asylum-seekers from the boat that exploded near Ashmore Reef in April will be granted permanent residency in Australia, ahead of a coronial inquest into the cause of the blaze that killed five of their fellow passengers. The 42 Afghan men from the boat that was set alight on April 16 will be released into the community this week.

Police believe the fire was deliberately lit by one or more of the asylum-seekers, but do not have enough evidence to lay any charges. An inquest in January is expected to find out more about what happened. The Australian understands that if any of the asylum-seekers are convicted of serious charges as a result of the inquest, Immigration Minister Chris Evans is prepared to cancel their visas and deport them.

While Northern Territory Assistant Commissioner Mark McAdie said earlier this month that there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone, police had ruled out the two Indonesian crew members as suspects. "It's unknown whether the person or persons responsible for the fire intended to cause the explosion that resulted in the loss of five lives," Mr McAdie said. He refused to say whether those responsible for the fire were still alive, but said there was insufficient evidence to charge any of the survivors. "Clearly someone knows what occurred ... but they're not telling us," he said at the time.

The Australian understands that Senator Evans ordered a ministerial briefing on the men's cases, which he received on Friday. The minister asked for the briefing after serious concerns were raised about their mental health; they are adamant they were not involved in lighting the fatal blaze and many have become distressed and anxious.

When the men are granted their permanent protection visas this week, the total number of asylum-seekers to be granted protection visas since a run of boats that began last September will reach 687.

The men from the boat that exploded are being detained in Perth and Brisbane, not on Christmas Island, because of their special medical needs. Doctors from hospitals in Perth and Brisbane have provided the men with regular follow-up treatment for their burns. They have also had regular visits from members of the Afghan community, imams from local mosques and refugee advocates.

Immigration officials have allowed the men to go on excursions to local cinemas, parks, shops and cultural events organised by Afghan communities in Perth and Brisbane. In Perth, the men have been allowed to play volleyball every Sunday. They play against members of the Afghan community and are supervised by guards from security firm G4S, which is contracted by the immigration department to run detention facilities in Perth.

Specialist counsellors from the Association for Services to Torture and Trauma Survivors have also regularly seen the men to help them cope with depression and other issues stemming from the horrific explosion and their lives in Afghanistan. They have all had their refugee claims examined and have undergone health, security and identity checks.

The Department of Immigration and Citizenship found that, as Afghans, their cases triggered Australia's obligations under the UN Refugees Convention. It is understood Senator Evans also believes that granting the visas now, instead of after the inquest, will help the group recover from a traumatic ordeal, settle in the community and recover their physical and mental health.

Northern Territory police were consulted and raised no concerns, it is understood. The men will be provided with settlement services including short-term torture and trauma counselling where necessary, English language tuition and help with funding somewhere to live. The department will provide assistance to the NT Police should any of the group be summonsed to appear at the inquiry.

On Saturday, Sri Lankan asylum-seeker Sarath Tennakoon was deported to Colombo, leaving just one man from the group of 12 who reached the Australian mainland last November but were found not to be refugees. The last asylum-seeker from that boat, Roshan Fernando, has his hopes pinned on a court appeal.

SOURCE





11 October, 2009

New immigration rules mean that Britain gets a lot more Left-voting Africans

Just what Britain needs, I am sure! A report from "Newstime Africa" below:

Thou­sands of asy­lum seek­ers in the UK are to ben­e­fit from new rules set by the gov­ern­ment to clear back­logs of about 450,000 appli­cants within the immi­gra­tion sys­tem, accord­ing to Britain’s Daily Tele­graph News­pa­per. The Daily Tele­graph is say­ing that the Home Office has lost track of tens of thou­sands of migrants who should have left the coun­try at least six years ago, and some as far back as the 1990s. In 2006 the gov­ern­ment had promised to clear a back­log of 450,000 asy­lum claims by 2011. How­ever, offi­cials realised that in the cases of some 40,000 claimants, it was tougher to remove them from Britain because they came from coun­tries with poor human rights records such as Iran, Zim­babwe, Soma­lia and Nige­ria.

The paper went on to say that Min­is­ters have agreed that home office offi­cials could change the guide­lines to grant the 40,000 peo­ple indef­i­nite leave to remain in the coun­try. Accord­ing to the report, Matthew Coats, head of immi­gra­tion for the UK Bor­der Agency, had sent a memo in July this year to Alan John­son, Home Sec­re­tary, and Phil Woolas, the immi­gra­tion min­is­ter, advis­ing that rules be relaxed to clear the back­log by grant­ing leave to remain in the UK to migrants if they have been liv­ing in the UK for at least 4 - 6 years instead of the pre­vi­ously stated rules that they must have been liv­ing in the coun­try for 10 -12 years. As usual the con­ser­v­a­tive oppo­si­tion led by David Cameron is against the new rules.

But African’s across the UK have wel­comed the news and this will give a big boost to the Labour party in the forth­com­ing gen­eral elec­tions as this would mean over a mil­lion fam­ily mem­bers who may not have been eli­gi­ble to vote as a result of their sta­tus would now cast their votes for the first time in the UK. We are urg­ing all those who are set to ben­e­fit from this new rules to cast their votes for the Labour party as they have shown courage in the face of con­ser­v­a­tive adver­sity to make this pos­i­tive move that will go down well in places as far as vil­lages in remote areas in Africa whose loved ones have faced intol­er­a­ble suf­fer­ing in Britain as a result of touch immi­gra­tion poli­cies.

For a long time now this press has called for amnesty for the thou­sands of immi­grants from Africa liv­ing here in the UK. And we must com­mend the British Prime Min­is­ter Gor­don Brown along with the new Home Sec­re­tary Alan John­son together with Immi­gra­tion Min­is­ter Phil Woolas who have shown so much com­pas­sion and acknowl­edge­ment of the fine con­tri­bu­tion Africans are mak­ing towards the social and eco­nomic devel­op­ment of the United King­dom. From now on this press would mount a ‘VOTE FOR LABOUR’ cam­paign in recog­ni­tion and appre­ci­a­tion of this bril­liant move by the labour gov­ern­ment to make life much eas­ier for African immi­grants in the UK. This move is a clear indi­ca­tion that the Labour party is the party of the peo­ple!!

SOURCE



"Refugees" know that Australia's new Leftist government has opened the door

By Paul Toohey

SOME are stuck, their spirits broken and their money gone. They are unable to move. Others are just waiting for the right deal and are ready to make the journey at a moment's notice. At the mountain resort town of Puncak, two hours south of Jakarta, an estimated 400 Iraqis and Afghans, including Naghmeh and her son Milad, are scattered about in rundown inns and hotels. Most of them barely know each other but they are united by a common obsession - getting to Australia. The Indonesian authorities know they are here, as do the Australian government and agencies such as the International Organisation for Migration and the UN High Commission for Refugees. Most of them are registered as refugees with the UNHCR, and are waiting and praying for legal settlement in countries such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

But they say the UN moves too slowly for them. Those with the money will take their chances with the people-smugglers and book a passage on an Indonesian boat to Ashmore Reef or to Christmas Island - anywhere, as long as it is within Australian waters.

There is a surge happening, with 10 boats, carrying 542 passengers and crew, arriving in Australian waters last month alone. Another boat, carrying 55 people, was intercepted yesterday near Ashmore Reef. Observers say it is either an organic spike, or it may be that people have chosen to move before the monsoon weather sets in.

But all the people The Weekend Australian spoke to were sure of the new ground rules in Australia - that is, that anyone who makes it to Australian waters will, if they pass the health and security checks, be on the mainland with a visa within 90 days.

Samer, a 31-year-old Iraqi now living in Puncak, knows all about Kevin Rudd and his new immigration rules. "I know Kevin Rudd is the new PM," he says. "I know about him. He has tried to get more immigrants. I have heard if someone arrives it is easy. They have camps, good service and if someone arrives they give us a limited visa and after three years you become an Australian citizen."

The Howard government's Pacific Solution is dead, and they know it. That is why Australian police are working in Indonesia trying to encourage people to turn back before they arrive in Australian waters. In places such as Sri Lanka, the source of a recent wave of boatpeople after the civil war, Australia is using street theatre to spread its message about the dangers and illegality of the journey in an effort to deter people-smugglers and those who use them. In Colombo, the first failed asylum-seekers to be forcibly deported by the Rudd government, including Stanley Warnakulasuriya, face an uncertain future.

Australia funds the IOM to accommodate irregular arrivals in places such as Puncak, and to offer them the opportunity to volunteer for free repatriation. Few take it. The IOM's best estimate is that there are several thousand Afghans and Iraqis in Indonesia, trying to find a route south.

While many in Puncak identify as Afghans, they may not have lived in that country for years. One such is Ali, 18, who was born in Afghanistan but was taken to Iran with his mother, brother and sister when he was three after his father was killed by enemies. Ali says life in Iran was unbearable, and his family were never accepted into the Iranian community. "They do not treat us as friend but as enemy," he says. His family gathered the money from their dressmaking business and have sent Ali to find a path to Australia, and with any luck to bring the rest of them later.

Ali says he has never possessed an official document that identifies him. If he gets to Australia, how will he prove he is who he says he is? He does not know. "I am not Taliban," he says.

Ali left Iran seven months ago with $US5000 ($5535). He flew to Malaysia, which provides immediate tourist visas on arrival to visitors from Muslim countries. He stayed for four months, hooking up with four other Afghan teenagers. With safety in numbers, they each paid $US800 to a local agent, who brought them on a boat to western Sumatra. They island-hopped on ferries to Jakarta, where they immediately registered with the UNHCR. This gave them a modicum of security. Those who do not register can find themselves locked away in one of Indonesia's 12 detention centres.

They have no faith that the UNHCR will find a Western country to take them, so they stay in contact with a Jakarta-based Afghan people-smuggler. He is asking $US6000 to deliver them to Australian waters. It is too much money for Ali, who is waiting for the price to drop. He says he would prefer to enter Australia legally, but he is running out of time and money. "If I get a suitable price, I will take a boat," he says. "I have to go. I have to take my chances."

Migration experts in Indonesia dismiss the notion that there is a "snake-head" - that is, a major international criminal syndicate moving Afghans and Iranians from Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran to Australia. "If there was a snake-head, we could simply cut off the head," said one source. "But it's not like that. It's the lack of any highly organised structure that is in fact its strength. It's more like a series of travel agencies."

The Australian Federal Police are working on a training program with Indonesian police to tackle the irregular migrants, as they are called in Indonesia, but it's a battle. They have identified 12 key departure points across Indonesia, but these are only temporary. Once the heat is on, the smugglers just shift location.

The Indonesian navy last month intercepted a boatload of 70 Afghans headed for Australia. They were put in a low-security detention centre on the island of Lombok. On the evening of September 23, during Ramadan, their guards were elsewhere or were looking the other way (during Ramadan, you are required to be kind to all people). They walked out the door and have now broken up into smaller, less conspicuous groups and have scattered across the islands. They will presumably try again.

During 2000 and 2001, the time of the Tampa crisis, women and children were making the journey. Now it is almost exclusively men, who hope to settle and bring their families afterwards. We did meet one rare Afghan woman, Naghmeh, 28, who was living in a decrepit motel in Puncak with her 10-year-old son Milad. She was originally from the Oruzgan province of Afghanistan but left for Iran as a child., She still considers herself an Afghan. Naghmeh, who has Asiatic features and could pass as an Indonesian, has been a refugee nearly all her life. She says her husband had hardline religious views. "I didn't want to be with him," she says. "I want to be secular."

Naghmeh says she flew from Iran to Dohar and then to Singapore. She arrived in Jakarta in January. She had paid $US6000 to an agent in Iran, which was for her airfares and boat travel to Australia. "The agent took the money and ran," she said. Naghmeh and Milad are trapped in Puncak. Many are in a similar fix, running down their money and marking time. For registered refugees, the UNHCR will eventually come through with subsistence cash - 1.77 million rupiah a month ($210). But the Afghans say it takes seven to eight months to start receiving it.

Thair, 23, is an Iraqi who fled to Syria in 2007. He is yet another male emissary, sent by his family to make his way to Australia. He says he is surviving on the UNHCR money, hoping he will be legally resettled in Australia. "You know why people take the boats?" he says. "They are waiting too long here in Indonesia. We are all registered with the UNHCR, but we wait, wait, wait. Every day I die here. I can't eat, I can't sleep. Now I want to go back home, but I cannot go back home. "I do not want to catch a boat. The ocean is not easy. I want to build my life. I want to change my life, to get married, to go to Australia."

Muhammad, 16, from Kandahar in Afghanistan, is another recent arrival. His money is running low but he is hoping to buy a passage with $US2000. He has been told the weather is turning bad and that he may have to wait three months. Some of the Afghan refugees have heard about the SIEV36 explosion at Ashmore Reef on April 16, in which five of their countrymen died. They have also heard that anyone who makes it to Australian waters is almost guaranteed fast processing. "Everybody knows about the 90 days," says Muhammad. They know little about Australian politics, but they do know something has changed. And that it is not hard to become an Australian if you can only make the crossing.

A group of Afghan teenage youths, who are yet to receive the UNHCR allowance, eat two meals a day - rice with a salad of cucumbers, onions and tomatoes. They insist we share their food. They say they want Australians to know their stories. They have many stories, but they're all the same. They are the last hope of their families back home. Ali says he wants to continue in the dressmaking trade. Matin wants to be a mechanic. Muhammad would like to study medicine, and Amir wants to be a carpenter.

These teenagers describe themselves as Muslim, but just outside their rented home, for which they pay about $100 a month, there is a small musholla, or prayer room, which is used by local Indonesians. They do not use it. They indicate, in circumspect fashion, that the last thing they're interested in is religion. It has been the cause of all their problems.

Samer, 31, says he was a photo-journalist in Baghdad and has a picture of himself in a media flak jacket with a press badge and a camera around his neck. He says he worked for One World magazine and fled after he was threatened by terrorists. He went to Syria but says local intelligence agents put the heavies on him to become a spy. "They're like Gestapo," he says, "and I could not tell them I support America." He caught a plane to Doha, and then on to Malaysia, where he applied through the UNHCR to become a refugee. "I got no help from them," he says. "They are useless." He says he was dumped in a jungle in Sumatra and caught ferries and buses across to Jakarta.

"So many Afghans here in Puncak have been cheated. The people who organise to get you on the boat are wealthy Afghans or Iraqis who live here. I met one; I didn't trust him. He says to give him $4000 and after a few days we'll move to a boat. There were no guarantees."

Thair says he has heard from friends that Australia is clean and peaceful. But for now, he doesn't know what he's going to do. He was so terrified catching the boat from Malaysia to Indonesia that he refuses ever to go on one again. Thair is afraid of going back to Iraq, but he believes taking a voluntary repatriation is his only option. "I was so stupid coming here," he says.

SOURCE





10 October, 2009

Backdoor amnesty just sneaked through in Britain

An illegal immigrant now has to have been in Britain for only four years and they are home free. And given the glacial pace of the British immigration bureaucracy, it's easy to be in Britain for that long while your case is being dealt with. In typically dishonest Leftist fashion, they are denying that it is an amnesty but it is. It is an amnesty for anyone who has been in Britain for 4 years

Immigration rules are being changed to ease a backlog of asylum cases, it emerged last night.

The UK Border Agency urged an alteration to existing guidelines after realising that it would be too difficult to deport failed applicants from countries with poor human rights records without going through costly court battles. Matt Coats, the agency’s head of immigration, asked Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, and Phil Woolas, the Immigration Minister, to relax laws to allow his teams to clear a backlog of up to 40,000 applicants from Zimbabwe, Iran and other countries.

In a memo signed off by Mr Woolas, Mr Coats suggested the applicants be given leave to remain after being in Britain for just four years rather than the 10 to 12 years as rules had stated.

Last night Mr Woolas said: “There is no amnesty. Our guidelines were updated to provide case workers with a simple framework to judge cases, and to avoid long drawn out court battles. Less than 40 per cent of cases are being granted.”

SOURCE



AMERICAN EVANGELICALS: Your Leaders have just Endorsed Mass Amnesty

Leaders of most of the nation's evangelical Christians made a shocking endorsement of illegal-alien amnesty today in Senate testimony. Their spokesman -- the head of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) -- said high immigration is increasing membership in evangelical churches and is good for the economy.

Polls have shown that evangelical Christians in the pews are the MOST likely to OPPOSE amnesty. If you are one of them, you may want to contact your church leaders immediately. The NAE phone number is: 202-789-1011 --- Fax number is 202-842-0392. The NAE email address is: executivedirector@nae.net and govaffairs@nae.net Please be respectful and thoughtful in your comments to the NAE. I would suggest that only evangelical Christians make the contacts.

NATIONAL EVANGELICALS PRESIDENT SAYS PRO-AMNESTY SUPPORT WAS UNANIMOUS

Rev. Leith Anderson, president of the NAE, was invited by Sen. Shumer (D-N.Y.) to testify in favor of the Senate immigration chairman's push to create amnesty legislation this fall. Sen. Shumer asked Rev. Anderson if many of his colleagues agree with his support for legalizing 12-20 million illegal aliens and increasing the legal immigration far higher than the 1 million a year current level (the two key components of "comprehensive immigration reform").

Rev. Anderson answered that there was no dissent in adopting the pro-amnesty resolution on the 75-member NAE board of directors. ZERO dissent!

Rev. Anderson described the NAE as: ". . . a network of 40 denominations comprising more than 45,000 local churches located in every congressional district and every state. The NAE membership also includes evangelical universities, seminaries, ministries, local congregations, and individuals. Here is the list of the denominational members.

There is a good chance that even the leaders in your national church agencies are not really aware that their representative voted for a massive amnesty and increase in foreign worker importation.

Rev. Anderson is Senior Pastor of Wooddale Church in Eden Prairie, Minn. It describes itself as non-denominational with some Baptist connections. http://www.wooddale.org/default/index.cfm

EVANGELICAL OFFICIALS REFUSED TO EVEN HEAR MORAL ARGUMENTS FOR REDUCED IMMIGRATION

I would note that NumbersUSA and others have made requests to NAE for several years to present our moral arguments for less overall immigration to protect the stewardship of the nation's natural resources and to protect the nation's most vulnerable citizens. The NAE has resolutely refused to hear any voice but pro-amnesty voices, as far as we have been able to tell.

When you read Rev. Anderson's prepared testimony, you find much that is thoughtful, including:

Evangelicals do not condone law breaking. . . . Evangelicals believe that government is a gift of God for the common good. Borders are necessary for public order. We support intelligent enforcement of our nation's immigration laws as long as the enforcement measures are consistent with respect for human dignity, family values and sanctity of human life. -- Evangelicals President

But then Rev. Anderson told Sen. Shumer that the Gospel requires that Christians be willing to forgive illegal aliens for breaking immigration laws which means that:

We believe that undocumented immigrants who have otherwise been law abiding members of our communities should be offered the opportunity to pay any taxes or penalties owed, and over time earn the right to become U.S. citizens and permanent residents. The process of redemption and restitution is core to Christian beliefs, as we were all once lost and redeemed through love of Jesus Christ. -- Evangelicals President

Furthermore, the 75 national evangelical leaders agreed that immigration laws that have allowed legal immigration to soar from a traditional average of 250,000 a year to more than 1,000,000 a year are too strict and must be changed to allow many more foreign workers to enter.

FAULTY THINKING, FAULTY PROCESS, FAULTY ANALYSIS, FAULTY THEOLOGY

The staff at NumbersUSA are members of the Evangelical, Catholic, Jewish, Mainline Protestant, Liberal Protestant and no religious faith. We all believe in ethical systems that say it is wrong to run an immigration policy that hammers down the weakest, poorest and unemployed members of our society while making it impossible to achieve environmental sustainability. It grieves our hearts to see evangelical leaders join national Jewish, Catholic, mainline Protestant and liberal Protestant leaders who have already fully endorsed amnesty and massive increases in foreign workers and U.S. population growth.

We have no doubt that all these national religious leaders have failed in their duties of fact-gathering and thoughtful analysis. They bring discredit on their religious faiths from their sloppiness in truth seeking and their lack of intellectual integrity.

We call on all NumbersUSA members of faith to point us to leaders in their own religious traditions who are open to discussing the full ethical issues involved in immigration.

The NAE's call for forgiveness seems to ignore the Gospel context of "go and sin no more."

We do not call for a policy that locks up and throws away the key on foreign citizens who have broken our immigration laws. Most of us are willing to let most illegal aliens return to their home countries under no penalty whatsoever.

But the NAE has proclaimed that our forgiveness of illegal aliens should allow them to keep the very things they broke the law to steal: U.S. jobs and access to U.S. infrastructure. How many billions of people in the world would like to line up for that kind of forgiveness?

We have pled with the NAE leaders (as we have with leaders of all other faith traditions) to talk to them about how mercy shown by governments can easily create injustice against a society's weakest members. In general the Judeo-Christian scriptures call on individuals to show mercy but governments to provide justice.

When the government shows mercy, it allows people to break the rules. But if breaking the rules harms law-abiding members of society, that mercy creates an injustice against them.

I am especially devastated by the national evangelical leaders' callous disregard for the U-6 unemployment rate of nearly 20% -- job-seekers (active and recently discouraged) who cannot find any job or who have been forced into involuntary part-time work.

It is incredible to read Rev. Anderson's testimony talking about the failure in having enough immigration visas to fill the needs of the U.S. business community!

I am embarrassed for him and his 74 colleagues. I am sure they do not mean such inhumane treatment of their fellow Americans. And I am sure they dug themselves into this shameful hole with the most well-intentioned of shovels.

I suggest that the readers of this blog consider forgiveness toward these religious leaders while thoughtfully guiding them to see all the shades and complexities of the immigration issue to which they weren't exposed by the NAE staff and the open-borders lobby which led them to this pro-amnesty position.

More HERE





9 October, 2009

Integration, the missing ingredient of immigration

Comment from Australia

The recent call for a review of Australia's migration intake has, in my opinion, a great deal of merit. In fact, I am pleasantly surprised that the usual assortment of jibes attacking those who advocate a more measured migration program hasn't yet taken place. Perhaps that's because this time the advocacy comes from a leftist Labor politician. I have no doubt that had a conservative made such a call the cries of "xenophobia" and "dog-whistle politics" would have been deafening.

I have benefited from migration more than most Australians. My father came here from Italy in 1958 and my wife is an Irish migrant. I have an extended family comprising Australians who have originated from Malaysia, Denmark, Austria, Ireland, England and Italy. They all add to the richness of my life and that of our nation, which is why I don't want any of you to construe what I am writing here as being anti-immigration. Nothing could be further from the truth.

But there is something clearly wrong with the migration system in Australia today, and it is about time we had a decent conversation about it. Unfortunately, it is a conversation that many conservatives shy away from due to the vile and outrageous pot-shots it often provokes. I recall receiving a most abusive e-mail from an ABC journalist over a previous comment of mine in which I dared to raise the subject of benefits given to those entering our territory illegally and claiming asylum.

However, the immigration problems we need to deal with are not limited to illegals. Our authorised migration processes are clearly not working effectively either. The past few years have seen what can only be described as an explosion in race-oriented violence, ranging from riots in Cronulla and terrorist plots to gang stabbings and gang rape. The question is: why?

Shooting from the hip, my view is that it comes down to lack of assimilation. Unfortunately, too many new Australians put their faith, their clan or their longstanding hatreds ahead of the values of their adopted country. They seek to use our freedoms, our systems and our tolerance as a means of undermining our values and indulging in behaviour that is anathema to most Australians.

The suggestion that our migrant intake should be reduced to ensure sufficient vetting of applicants and their background is a step in the right direction. But I believe there is a bigger problem. Evidence suggests that the many so-called "race" problems are not caused by the original immigrants but by their radicalised children. Somehow, the progeny of those who have been offered a better life in Australia are keener at continuing ancient rivalries or religious hatreds than their forebears. Such beliefs can only be cultivated by the same extremist poison that is far too prevalent in the United Kingdom, Europe and parts of Africa and South East Asia.

The question many ask, but too many of us avoid answering, is: where does most of this indoctrination of hate begin? For some it is in the home, but evidence suggests that for many it begins in the mosque. Yet to say so is to subject oneself to claims of intolerance and bigotry. Frankly, it is time for the excuses to stop.

For how long can we be expected to accept sermons of hate explained as being incorrectly translated? Surely, it is right to ask how the so-called "religion of peace" can be so regularly used, by the very people it proclaims as scholars of its holy book, as an excuse for murder and destruction.

Recently, the activities and arrest of an alleged Islamic terrorist were blamed by one of his relations on the Australian welfare system. Let me tell you: if this was a genuine reason for the dismantling of the welfare state, then I'd probably join the campaign. The problem, though, is that this claim, like many other rationalisations, is nonsense. It is simply an excuse to seek to exonerate the vile alleged activities of a religious extremist.

In Australia we are yet to see the openly public protests advocating death to infidels or other displays of bilious hatred that have occurred elsewhere. The day we do and are expected to accept it as freedom of speech is the day our nation ceases to become the egalitarian one previous generations have fought so hard to defend.

You may ask, as I do, how we can prevent the expansion of racial and religious hatred from infecting Australian society. Unfortunately, I don't have the answer. However, it is clear to me that unless we are prepared to stop making excuses for those who support the doctrine of intolerance and hatred, and until we are prepared to talk openly about the problems associated with a clearly flawed immigration policy, we will be ignoring a battle that we must win.

Winning that battle requires great courage from our politicians, honesty from members of the fourth estate, and greater advocacy by members of the public. We must now be willing to engage in the same debate that too many nations have ignored to their own regret.

Unless we are prepared to learn from the experience of others, the difficulties we are experiencing today may just be the genesis of a problem that could change our country forever.

SOURCE



Permanent Reauthorization of E-Verify Rejected

House-Senate conferees finalizing the Homeland Security Appropriations bill, yesterday, undermined the long-term security of American workers by removing language that would have made the E-Verify program permanent. Instead, the conference agreement limits reauthorization to just three years.

E-Verify is the nation's essential worksite verification tool that allows employers to voluntarily determine whether workers are legally authorized to work in the U.S. by electronically verifying their Social Security numbers. Over 140,000 employers are using the system, 1000 are joining each week, and according to the Department of Homeland Security, E-Verify has a 99.6 percent accuracy rate.

The decision to extend E-Verify for only three years is further evidence of the Obama administration's and the congressional leadership's effort to raise a smokescreen while it dismantles all effective controls against illegal immigration, charged the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

Conferees also stripped other safeguards in the Senate bill that were intended to protect American workers from losing jobs to illegal aliens. These provisions included a requirement that federal contractors use E-Verify to determine the employment eligibility of new and existing employees working on federal contracts, and language to prevent the repeal of a rule that required employers to take action upon the receipt of "no-match" letters, issued to employers whose workers' Social Security data cannot be confirmed. A third provision would have ensured all employers can use E-Verify to determine employment eligibility of existing workers in addition to new hires.

"A three-year extension of E-Verify was the bare minimum this administration and the congressional leadership could support and still make any credible claim that they are prepared to enforce U.S. immigration laws," said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "All that would have been required to make E-Verify a permanent federal program is for conferees to have adopted provisions that were already part of the Senate bill. The fact that they did not speaks volumes about the priorities of this Congress and the Obama administration."

"Unfortunately, at a time when American workers most need the full commitment of their government to protect their jobs, what they got was a half-hearted gesture. E-Verify is the real meat and potatoes of worksite enforcement and dries up the jobs magnet which is the reason illegal aliens come and the reason they stay. The program offers a meaningful solution to our immigration crisis and needs a permanent reauthorization, not a temporary stay of execution. The Obama administration and congressional leaders demonstrated, once again, that their goal is to minimize the enforcement of laws against illegal immigration," concluded Stein.

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





8 October, 2009

Sheriff Joe set to outsmart the Feds

He may bus illegals to the border after some federal authority revoked. Trying to thwart America's most popular sheriff is dumb PR for the Obama admin.

Despite recently losing authority over agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio announced Tuesday that he will "continue to crack down on illegal immigration" by enforcing state laws. He says he will arrest people who are in the country without authorization and if ICE will not take them, he will "load them on a bus and drive them to the border."

Although Arpaio's popularity has not waned in Arizona, he has become an increasingly controversial figure in the national spotlight in recent years. He houses inmates in outdoor tent-based jails, where he dresses them in striped uniforms and pink underwear, and feeds them bologna twice a day. His most controversial practices, though, stem from an agreement between the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and the Department of Homeland Security that is authorized by 287(g), a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Under the agreement, county office deputies can screen inmates already booked into jails and detain and investigate immigrants outside of jail for suspicion of living or working in the country illegally.

The Department of Justice opened an investigation in March into alleged civil rights violations by the Maricopa office, which continually faces off against local groups on the issue of immigration enforcement. In August, 521 immigration rights groups sent an open letter to President Obama demanding immigration reform and specifically criticizing what they see as the administration's unwillingness to deal with section 287(g).

On July 10, the Department of Homeland Security announced that agreements made under 287(g) with all law enforcement agencies would be reviewed and standardized over a period of 90 days. The department currently has agreements with more than 60 local law enforcement agencies, covering more than 1,000 officers. MCSO has the largest contingent of protected officers, at 160, and was the first agency to sign into the agreement.

On Sept. 21, Arpaio signed an agreement that would have allowed his office to continue enforcement both inside and outside of the jails, but ICE Deputy Assistant Secretary of Operations Alona Pena called later that evening, then traveled to Arizona the following day to personally deliver a new agreement to Arpaio. This one would limit Arpaio's office from screening immigrants outside of jail. Arpaio signed Pena's new agreement and said, "They figured I'd never sign, but I surprised them and signed it," later adding, "I want to keep the jail program .... Being an ex-fed, I'll take anybody's help. even if there's just one case, it's worth having the help."

Still, Arpaio said he suspected the new agreement was indicative of the federal government's hope to oust him. "There is always an excuse to cover up their motive, which is to get rid of me .... They just don't want this sheriff to arrest illegal aliens." He added that he'd never before seen the Federal government "go after" a law enforcement agency for political reasons.

The new agreement must be signed by Oct. 15, and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors will vote on it this Wednesday [Now voted on and approved]. Arpaio expressed concern at the last-minute nature of the decision, saying if the board does not approve the new agreement, his office will no longer be able to detain anyone in the county jails. "It's interesting that all of this came to be at the midnight hour," he said, calling the developments a "conspiracy." Though he has clashed with the board on other issues, the majority of the board traditionally supports his enforcement efforts. Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox is usually Arpaio's lone opponent.

The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has snagged more than 33,000 illegal immigrants in the country through in-jail screening since signing the 287(g) agreement two years ago. Almost 300 people have been arrested outside the jails under the agreement, but it is the officers' behavior on the streets that has proved most controversial due to accusations of racial profiling -- charges Arpaio adamantly denies. He maintains that officers are well-trained and only stop people when they have probable cause to suspect they have committed a crime.

Arpaio said an audit was conducted of his 287(g) program after a series of crime suppression sweeps drew fire for racial profiling, and that his office received a copy of the audit "through a back door channel" after repeatedly requesting an official copy unsuccessfully for months. He said the agent assigned to the case by the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported that the only complaint to the F.B.I came from Phoenix Mayor Phil Gorder, a person Arpaio deems a "political opponent."

"The audit results prove the only reason for stripping Arpaio's office of its ICE agent status is for political purposes, nothing more," said Robert Driscoll, Arpaio's Washington, D.C.-based lawyer. He said the Homeland Security Department "knew how embarrassed it would be if this audit became public."

Arpaio conceded that street-level enforcement may not catch many hard criminals, but "it has to do with public perception. People are leaving because they are here illegally. This is a crime deterrent program." The new agreement under 287(g) however, says the priority is to detain "criminal aliens" and requires that law enforcement agencies "pursue all criminal charges that originally caused the offender to be taken into custody." The Homeland Security Department says this clause was added because of public concern about officers detaining people for minor infractions such as traffic violations.

Somos America, an immigrant rights group in Arizona, argues that section 287(g) was originally created so that local and federal immigration authorities could work together to apprehend only those people who pose a threat to the community -- those who stand accused of violent or other serious crimes. They say Arpaio is overstepping that goal.

A spokesperson for the National Day Laborers Organizing Network, a Los Angeles-based coalition of workers' groups, said Arpaio's "neighborhood sweeps" have terrorized residents, and that many fear the police.

With two lawyers at his side, including County Attorney Andrew Thomas, Arpaio said Tuesday that he will continue his efforts to enforce immigration by detaining immigrants under three state laws: a law against hiring people who are not authorized to work in the U.S., a law that denies bail for people in the country illegally who have been charged with a serious crime, and a law that allows people who are living in the country illegally to be charged as a co-conspirator in their own human smuggling.

Ira Melman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) said 287(g) agreements bolster federal agents' efforts to enforce immigration laws in the country's interior. Melman told AP, "I suspect there is some effort there to send a warning to other police departments: Don't get too aggressive with this, because we will yank it out from under you."

"I'm going to continue doing everything I've been doing," Arpaio said in a press conference Tuesday, "In fact, it'll be easier not being handcuffed by the federal government. Nothing changes." "I'm taking my fight to the streets of Phoenix," Arpaio said as he announced Tuesday that his office will do another immigration 'sweep' in two weeks, "This one will have a new twist. I have a new tool."

As for those picked up in the sweep, Arpaio said, "Those that have criminal offenses go directly to jail. Those without criminal charges will be turned over to ICE. If ICE refuses to take them, then I'll take a little trip to the border and then turn them over to the border."

SOURCE



U.S. to overhaul immigration system

"Make the nation's immigration detention system safer and more efficient, without adding to its costs". What a laugh!

Detainees will be ranked by risk factors, and new detention centers will be built.

The Obama administration will review the procedures under which the United States detains about 380,000 illegal immigrants a year, exploring the use of converted hotels and nursing homes as it seeks to transform a prison-based system into one tiered according to the risk posed by individual detainees, officials said yesterday.

Detailing an overhaul announced in broad terms in August, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and John Morton, assistant secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said the measures were intended to make the nation's much-criticized, $2.6 billion-a-year immigration detention system safer and more efficient, without adding to its costs.

The changes come as President Obama has been pressured by immigrant advocates to reform a 32,000-bed system that has quadrupled in size since 1995, while he has said that tough enforcement policies are key to winning approval by Congress for any push to legalize illegal immigrants.

"We accepted that we were going to continue to have - and increase, potentially - the number of detainees, so with that, we want to accomplish several goals," Napolitano said, including greater federal oversight and accountability of more than 300 local jails, state prisons, and private facilities. Napolitano said that by next October, ICE would rank detainees by flight risk and public danger, set new detention-facility requirements based on those risk levels, and issue bids for two new-model detention centers.

Morton will meet with contractors at the end of this month to explore converting residential facilities to house noncriminal and nonviolent persons, such as those seeking asylum, that could be cheaper to operate and less restrictive for occupants. [And much easier to break out of] On Sept. 1, ICE housed about 31,075 illegal immigrants. Of those, 51 percent were felons; 11 percent of those had committed violent crimes.

Morton also said ICE would implement a medical classification system within six months to identify detainees with special health needs.

The agency vowed to speed up efforts to provide an online detainee-locator system for attorneys, family members, and others, and to provide Congress this fall with a plan to implement less costly alternatives to detention, such as remote supervision using electronic bracelets. As of Sept. 1, ICE supervised 19,169 illegal immigrants in alternative programs.

After the news conference. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D., N.Y.) called the focus on detention misguided, since about half of ICE detainees have no criminal record and await deportation for administrative violations. "It would be more cost-effective to track these individuals with an electronic monitoring device than to build brand-new facilities to detain them," he said.

Civil-liberties groups said that they were encouraged but that fundamental reforms were needed to ensure due process and access to legal counsel for illegal immigrants who are sometimes wrongfully deported or detained for years. "Meaningful reform of the system must focus not only on the conditions under which immigrants are being detained, but on why they are being detained in the first place," [Doesn't she know?] said Judy Rabinovitz, deputy director of the American Civil Liberty Union's Immigrants' Rights Project. Eleanor Acer of Human Rights First said asylum applicants who had been detained should be able to ask courts to review those decisions.

SOURCE





7 October, 2009

U.S. officials vow to continue immigration enforcement

In response to widespread criticism from immigrant advocates, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced steps Tuesday to improve conditions of detainees and allow them easier access to attorneys. But Napolitano stood firm on the Obama administration's efforts to continue strict enforcement of the nation's immigration laws. ``We accept that we are going to continue to have and increase, potentially, the number of detainees,'' Napolitano said.

But in her mixed message of humane treatment and tough enforcement, Napolitano made it clear she intends to reform detention operations from what she described as a patchwork of privately-run and government-run facilities with different standards in different locations.

Cheryl Little, executive director of Miami-based Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, welcomed Napolitano's initiatives but urged Homeland Security officials to move more rapidly in reforming the system and freeing immigrants, especially those seeking asylum or with serious illnesses. "We give them credit for recognizing that the current system is fundamentally flawed and attempting to improve it,'' Little said. ``However, the devil is in the details and there's an urgent need for more immediate relief. Far too many immigrants who are neither dangerous nor likely to flee are currently in detention and should be fairly considered for release.''

For decades, Little has monitored detention practices in Florida and has testified in Congress about conditions in immigrant detention facilities, including Krome in west Miami-Dade. She recently met with Napolitano and John Morton, the assistant secretary for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Napolitano did not say asylum seekers or sick detainees would be freed as a rule, but said asylum seekers will be housed in facilities "commensurate with their needs'' such as ``converted hotels or residential facilities.''

Morton, in answer to a question from El Nuevo Herald, said one option under consideration is electronic ankle bracelets for asylum seekers. ``Ankle bracelets are one of the many different forms of alternative to detention that is very much on the table,'' Morton said. He also said detention facilities should be located in major urban areas, so detainees can more easily contact attorneys. In the past, some detainees have been removed to remote facilities, leaving their attorneys and families scrambling to make arrangements to see them or unaware of their whereabouts.

Napolitano said federal immigration authorities will establish an online locator system to help families and lawyers quickly find detainees.

SOURCE



Amid secrecy, Obama's Feds attack Arpaio

With the probably unforeseen result of making it harder for those Arpaio pulls up

An Arizona sheriff known for aggressively cracking down on illegal immigration has been stripped of some of his special power to enforce federal immigration law, and he claims the Obama administration is taking away his authority for political reasons. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whose office faces racial profiling allegations over crime and immigration sweeps in some heavily Latino areas of metro Phoenix, said officials from Washington won't let him renew a deal that let his deputies make federal immigration arrests.

"Let them all go brag that they took away the sheriff's authority. Let them all do that. That doesn't bother me. I don't have an ego. I will continue doing the same thing," the Republican sheriff said, noting he can still enforce state immigration laws. "What has changed, other than the politics and the perception emanating from Washington?"

The U.S. government, which does most of the nation's immigration enforcement, is changing its rules for allowing local police to enforce more expansive federal immigration laws. Nationally, more than 1,000 local police and jail officers have been granted the power since 2002 to make immigration requests and speed up deportations. Arpaio has more officers with the special powers than any other local police agency in the country. For more than two years, 100 of his deputies have made immigration arrests and another 60 jail officers have identified inmates who are illegal immigrants.

Even though federal officials declined to let the sheriff keep making immigration arrests, Arpaio last week renewed a deal that will let his jail officers determine inmates' immigration status. Arpaio said federal officials offered no explanation of why his powers were cut in half. Vinnie Picard, a spokesman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which grants the special powers, declined to comment on the curtailment of Arpaio's powers or whether any of the other 62 participating local agencies across the country have been denied renewals.

The agencies face an Oct. 14 deadline to renew their agreements. So far, at least three agencies have dropped out of the program.

Giving federal powers to local police helps supplement the small staff of federal agents who enforce immigration laws in the country's interior, said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors tougher immigration enforcement. He said it's hard to tell whether the limits on Arpaio's authority will extend to other agencies and would hamper the movement for local police to confront illegal immigration. "I suspect there is some effort there to send a warning to other police departments: Don't get too aggressive with this, because we will yank it out from under you," Mehlman said.

Joan Friedland, immigration policy director for the National Immigration Law Center, said the federal government wasn't making a serious attempt to rein in Arpaio, because his jail officers still have the power to question jailed people about their immigration status. "All he has to do is get people to the jail, rather than being able to question them about their immigration status on the street," said Friedland, whose group advocates for low-income immigrants.

For his part, Arpaio said he plans to continue cracking down illegal immigration by enforcing state laws that prohibit immigrant smuggling and ban employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. Arpaio said his deputies can still detain suspected illegal immigrants who haven't committed state crimes, as long as his officers call Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to pick them up.

Critics say some of Arpaio's deputies racially profiled people during immigration sweeps. Arpaio maintains that people pulled over in the sweeps were approached because deputies had probable cause to believe they had committed crimes. His office is being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice over allegations of discrimination and unconstitutional searches and seizures.

Arpaio's approach to immigration has frustrated other public officials. The mayor of Mesa complained in 2008 that Arpaio didn't warn his city of raids by deputies who were looking for illegal immigrants working at his city's library and City Hall. And as Arpaio's sweeps began to draw heavy criticism in 2008, then-Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, cut off immigration enforcement dollars to his office.

Napolitano, who as the country's homeland security secretary now oversees the federal government's immigration agencies, had said it wasn't an attempt to change Arpaio's approach to cracking down on illegal immigration. Rather, she said the funding was reallocated to try to clear a backlog of thousands of outstanding felony warrants across the state. [And who believes that?]

SOURCE





6 October, 2009

CIS roundup

1. CFC Promotion Video

DETAILS: The Center for Immigration Studies participates in the Combined Federal Campaign. Our CFC number is 10298.

More information on the Campaign is available here

********

2. The Immigrant Paradox: The Stalled Progress of Recent Immigrants’ Children

EXCERPT: The American tradition, over the years, has been that the first generation of immigrants struggles, the second generation does better, and the third generation does even better in terms of income, education, personal health, and overall achievement. There is much statistical as well as anecdotal evidence of these trends in the past.

Currently, however, social scientists are finding that this overall pattern is not happening with the second and following generations of more recent immigrants; on many measures, the follow-on generations do not achieve as much as their forefathers, the immigrants. Interestingly, the scholars making these findings are deeply sympathetic with both the immigrants and their descendants; there is no stacking of the social science deck here.

Comment from JR: If we mention the unmentionable -- the low average IQ of Hispanics -- it should all become clear

********

3. The Obama Administration’s 287(g): An Analysis of the New MOA

EXCERPT: The Obama administration may have begun to undermine one of the most successful immigration enforcement programs in the country. Known as 287(g), the program allows trained state and local law enforcement officials to assist federal immigration agencies in carrying out immigration enforcement. Since the beginning of 2006, state and local law enforcement officials have identified over 120,000 illegal aliens for removal. As of this writing, 77 jurisdictions in 25 states have signed on to the program.

********

4. Immigration, Population, and the Environment: Experts to Debate Impact of Current Policies

CIS Video

DETAILS: It is well-documented that current U.S. immigration policies will increase Americas population by about 100 million people over the next half-century. Past attempts to restructure the federal immigration program have often included debates on education, assimilation, health care, labor, and many other issues. But the environmental impact of immigration-driven population growth is usually missing from the discussion, despite the fact that environmental concerns are high on the Obama Administrations priority list.

********

5. On 'Al Punto': The Census and Mexican 'Rocky'

EXCERPT: The debate among advocates of illegal immigrants about participation in next year's census received pointed commentary on the Sunday morning Univision program, 'Al Punto.' The Spanish-language program also included an interview with the star of a new feature film about illegal immigrants that presents the same trajectory of triumph as Sylvester Stallone's 'Rocky.'

********

6. DHS Task Force Seeks Weaker 287(g)

EXCERPT: Federal administrators of the 287(g) program seem to be limiting the reach of the program on a number of fronts. But the changes taking place are not a benefit to anyone other than those violating our laws.

********

7. Sen. Grassley's Gold mine of Temporary Worker Data

EXCERPT: Senator Charles Grassely (R-IA), or more precisely his staff, has opened up a goldmine of policy and statistical information on the use of allegedly short-term foreign workers holding U.S. white collar jobs.

********

8. Obama Administration Prepares for Amnesty – on Taxpayers' Wallet

EXCERPT: It is fiscally (and morally) irresponsible to overextend the public treasury (and American taxpayers) in the breathtaking manner this Congress and administration are doing. Legalizing aliens adds significantly to that public cost burden.

********

9. No 'Fresh Air' on Immigration Politics

EXCERPT: David Weigel is a talented young reporter who has written for The American Conservative and Reason magazine and is now with the Washington Independent. But his interview last week on the National Public Radio program 'Fresh Air' with host Terry Gross revealed gaping holes in his understanding of the politics of immigration.

********

10. The Immigration Managers

EXCERPT: The management (or mismanagement) of the flows of immigrants into the United States is, thanks to Congress, an extremely complicated task assigned to at least eight agencies spread over four cabinet departments. If anything, the second Bush Administration's decision to re-organize the immigration process (and dismantle the old Immigration and Naturalization Service) made matters more complex.

+++

The Immigration Managers - The Department of Homeland Security

EXCERPT: The team of five Presidential appointees working on immigration management in the Department of Homeland Security include two people with substantial resumes in the immigration field, two neophytes, and one in-between. All five have law degrees.

+++

The Immigration Managers - The Department of State

EXCERPT: The two units within the State Department that deal with migration management are the Bureau of Consular Affairs and its considerably smaller cousin, the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration. Both are headed by Assistant Secretaries.

********

11. The Case of Hosam Maher Husein Smadi: Deja Vu All Over Again

EXCERPT: Overshadowed in the extensive national coverage of the Najibullah Zazi terror case is the case of Hosam Maher Husein Smadi, a 19-year old Jordanian man arrested on Thursday, September 24, in Dallas. Smadi was taken into custody by FBI agents shortly after throwing the switch on what he believed was a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device (VBIED) in an SUV he had parked in the basement of a 60-story Dallas office tower, in an attempt to kill thousands of people timed to celebrate the end of Ramadan. Like several other terrorists before him, Smadi apparently was a student visa overstay.

The above is a press release dated October 6 from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. For more information, contact Steven Camarota at (202) 466-8185 or sac@cis.org.





5 October, 2009

Free speech under attack in "progressive" California

Must not say anything bad about illegals

"While the state continues to flounder in an economic quagmire, unemployment creeps deeper into double digits and residents continue to pay some of the highest taxes in the country; Sacramento lawmakers think it’s time to move on to shutting up the voters in a clear attack on freedom of speech.

The mentality of the overwhelming Democratic elitists in Sacramento should be ashamed of themselves. The state Senate passed along party line SCR 58 a resolution that would hinder free speech, in particular, my free speech. Under the guise of ‘hate speech’ this resolution would implement new government tactics to draw up guide lines as to what journalists, talk radio, media and Internet content is deemed appropriate.

The resolution states, “Hate speech has been defined as speech which threatens imminent unlawful action,” this seems amiable enough, however the resolution doesn’t stop there; “but also, as speech which creates a climate of hate and prejudice, which in turn MAY foster the commission of hate crimes.”

Here in lies the problem. What will be deemed hate speech and who will decide whether a word is taken out of context or not? ...

SCR 58 was the brainchild of Gil Cedillo-D. The one page resolution targets negative speech in regard to Latinos who remain undocumented in California. Rather than leave this Constitutional Amendment to the Supreme Court, Cedillo undermines Californians to further his withering political clout.

Source

On all precedents, SCOTUS would knock this one over but it could be very expensive for anyone targeted so lots of plea deals could be expected before it got to court.



The U.S. immigration bureaucracy is not alone in its negligent bungles

Australian Ombudsman slams refugee's wrongful detention

The Commonwealth ombudsman has criticised the Department of Immigration over the case of a Vietnamese-born refugee who was wrongly detained for three years. Van Phuc Nguyen was granted refugee status in 1989, but in 2002 he was thrown into Villawood Detention Centre when airport immigration officials did not recognise his permanent resident status. He was there until February 2006.

Ombudsman John McMillan says it is the longest term of wrongful detention in recent history and highlights a more serious problem across government departments. He says the system needs to be overhauled. "The Department of Immigration did not have an expressed power to correct a defect in an earlier decision and part of the delay was caused by legal debate within the department as to the options available to them," he said.

Mr Nguyen's lawyer Robert Sutherland says it was a bureaucratic bungle. "The Commonwealth ombudsman was able to decide, ascertain, that he ought not to be there," he said. "I frankly don't understand why the department couldn't come to the conclusion themselves."

The Immigration Department says the ombudsman's findings in this case have been taken seriously. Spokesman Sandy Logan says it has taken on board the criticism, but that the department is now looking to the future. "We acknowledge that the Ombudsman's recommendations and findings were indeed accurate," he said. "Additionally with a new government and the new government of the day's policy, immigration detention is now risk-based. "We would hope that a case such as [Van Phuc Nguyen's] would never reoccur."

SOURCE. More details here.





4 October, 2009

In Arizona desert, illegal immigration's mysterious spike

Authorities work to decipher meaning of an influx of Chinese. Catching Chinese illegals should be a low priority. They make excellent citizens: Generally law-abiding and hard-working. Chinese youths are to be found in universities, not street gangs

Amid an overall drop in arrests of illegal crossers at the U.S- Mexico border, an intriguing anomaly has cast new light on the global underworld of immigrant smuggling. Authorities report an almost ten-fold spike in arrests of clandestine migrants from China in the southern Arizona desert, the busiest smuggling corridor on the international line. The Border Patrol in the Tucson sector has caught at least 261 Chinese crossers this year, compared to an average of 32 during the past four years, officials say. "They are the main [non-Mexicans] we catch," said Agent Juventino Pacheco of the Patrol's international liason unit here. "Lately we have been catching more Chinese than Central Americans in Nogales."

As agents find groups of exhausted Chinese migrants hiding in gulches and huddled in smuggling vehicles, the Border Patrol scrambles for the services of professional interpreters. The sector's only Mandarin-speaking agent, a former Mormon missionary in China, has kept very busy.

The increase remains but a fraction of the overall activity at the Nogales station, which is the biggest in the entire Patrol and guards 31 action-packed miles abutting Nogales, Mexico. This year, the Tucson sector that encompasses the Nogales station recorded a total of 226,000 apprehensions -- a 24% decline that reflects the impact of the U.S. economic crisis and tougher enforcement, officials say. The great majority of those arrested were Mexicans.

In the lexicon of the Border Patrol, Chinese immigrants belong to a rarefied category known as OTMs: Other than Mexicans. Although just a small percentage of border-crossers, OTMs are big business for smuggling gangs that overlap increasingly with Mexico's violent drug mafias. Compared to Mexicans who pay about $1,500, smuggler fees for Central Americans and South Americans reach $6,000 for the trek across a sun-seared landscape, as dangerous as it is majestic. A group of bewildered Haitians intercepted in Tucson after three nights hiking in circles in a canyon had coughed up $10,000, with another $10,000 due on arrival in the Chicago area.

Chinese pay the most of all. They often work off fees between $30,000 and $70,000 over the course of several years as indentured servants in the sweat shops and kitchens of New York and other cities. Sophisticated Asian mafias organize long, intricate journeys. A typical route leads from Beijing to Rome to Caracas, Venezuela to Mexico City to the border, according to Matthew Allen, the chief agent of the Phoenix office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "It's much more elaborate" than smuggling Latin Americans, Allen said. "Waiting in hotel rooms, calls on cell phones, code words. The trend [in increased arrests] stands out as apprehensions are going down overall."

What explains the increase here? Does it reflect a major influx of Chinese illegals into the U.S.? Enforcement officials say it's not clear. At the border, facts are elusive. Statistical barometers are imperfect. Differing interpretations, political spin and the mysteries of the criminal underworld complicate the picture. High-priced smugglers are better at dodging defenses, so it's hard to assess the correlation between arrests, crossing rates and the number of illegal immigrants who succeed.

Chinese smuggling made headlines at its chaotic peak in the early 1990s. Fetid smuggling flotillas swarmed the coasts of Southern California, Mexico and Central America. Seven people died in June, 1993 when the ship Golden Venture ran aground in New York carrying 286 migrants, more than the total captured this year at the Arizona border. A crackdown at sea and tighter political asylum rules reduced the flow.

Asian smuggling kingpins are known as snakeheads; like killer snakes, they react with stealth and agility. Thus, changing border-crossing patterns reflect reconfigured tactics abroad as the flow persists. Today, mafias favor air routes and exploit favorable visa policies for Chinese travelers in countries including Ecuador, Honduras and Venezuela, which are hubs for their travel to Mexico, officials say. Many migrants report also stops in Cuba, officials say.

U.S. investigators have gathered intelligence about thousands of Chinese who have settled temporarily in Ecuador with the intention of being smuggled into the United States, according to a high-ranking federal official. "The smugglers are attuned to nuances in South American visa policies, and will adapt," Allen said. Apprehensions of Chinese along the southwest boundary oscillate. Border-wide arrests hit 2,060 in the 2006 fiscal year, dipped to near 700 during the next two years, and then rose to 1,221 as of August, according to Border Patrol statistics.

The Patrol's McAllen sector in South Texas, a high-volume corridor for non-Mexicans because of its relative proximity to Central America, led all sectors with at least 667 arrests of Chinese by August, officials say. But the Tucson area experienced the most dramatic proportionate surge. The convergence of drugs and illegal immigrants in the Sonora-Arizona area helps explain that, officials say. The dominant drug mafia in the region, the Sinaloa cartel, "saw an opportunity to get into Chinese smuggling," said Mario Escalante, a Border Patrol spokesman.

The evolving alliance between traffickers of drugs and immigrants, once separate specialties, is complex. Investigators say that drug lords use their firepower to control turf and tax migrant smugglers for use of border corridors, known in Spanish as "plazas," charging from $50,000 to $100,000 a week, officials say. "The drug trafficking organizations in the plazas control who smuggles, what they smuggle, where they smuggle," said Allen, the ICE chief in Phoenix....

As in the past, the Chinese come almost exclusively from the province of Fujian. Another fixture of the trade: corruption speeds the passage of precious human cargo. In the 1990s, Mexican investigators broke up Chinese smuggling rings assisted by Mexican authorities.

And in May, two Mexican immigration police officers based at the Mexico City airport were arrested. Alerted in advance by smugglers, the two allegedly met Chinese travelers arriving on international flights. The officers allegedly gave the migrants fraudulent documents and sent them north to the border where the crossing continues, desperate but quiet.

SOURCE



Indonesian "asylum-seekers" sent home from Australia

MORE than 60 Indonesians who arrived by boat in Australian waters have been returned home after failing to meet criteria for refugee status. Their departure came as four Sri Lankan asylum-seekers threatened with forcible removal from Australia voluntarily agreed to return to their homeland, after failing to win protection visas.

Immigration Minister Chris Evans said last night that a group of 62 Indonesian men whose boat was intercepted north of Broome on September 15 had been flown home after processing at the Christmas Island detention centre. The 58 passengers and four crew, who claimed to be from Java, were told they had not raised any issues "which might engage Australia's protection obligations", Senator Evans said.

The group had "requested removal" when told they did not meet any criteria for refugee status under the Refugees Convention, he said. "Someone who is seeking better economic opportunities does not meet the criteria for a protection visa," he said. Senator Evans said 21 asylum-seekers who had arrived by boat since the beginning of the year had returned home voluntarily. Removal arrangements were being finalised for another six who had asked to go home.

Five more Sri Lankans, who arrived on the West Australian coast by boat last November, remain in detention in Perth and are refusing to return to Sri Lanka, pinning their hopes on last-ditch appeals. If their appeals fail, they may be the first boatpeople forced back to their homeland by the Rudd government.

Speaking to The Weekend Australian yesterday from inside Perth Immigration Detention Centre, one of the remaining men, Sarath Tennakoon, said he wanted Australia to accept him as a refugee because he would be killed if forced home. Mr Tennakoon said he had told the Department of Immigration and Citizenship that his life was in danger after he was identified by the defeated separatist Tamil Tigers as a member of Sri Lanka's air force intelligence unit in 2002. He said he did not come to Australia for economic reasons. "I have money; I have a house and a farm in Sri Lanka," he said. The men were part of a group of 12 whose boat reached Shark Bay, 800km north of Perth, before being spotted by campers.

Refugee Action Coalition spokesman Ian Rintoul said the four men who agreed to return to Sri Lanka did so only after being pressured to sign documents by Immigration officials. A department spokesman said the claims were "ridiculous" and the department treated people with respect and dignity.

Mr Tennakoon has appealed to Senator Evans and, along with the other four remaining men, wants the Federal Court to allow an appeal against an earlier ruling by the Refugee Review Tribunal.

SOURCE





3 October, 2009

The Greener Grass: New Video Highlights Incentives Given as Main Cause of Illegal Immigration

With the recent controversy over adding verification to the health care reform bill prohibiting illegal aliens from participating in a government plan, it is a good time to question why so many from neighboring countries, and all over the world, want to come to America.

The most obvious answer is that we reward lawbreakers with jobs, free emergency room health care, and free education (not to mention other benefits that can be obtained by cheating the system with false documentation). They are able to find employers who have no moral qualms about hiring them and breaking the laws of our country. As if it couldn’t get any better, the cherry on top is that we have a President who is continuously making appearances on Spanish Language Programs and promising viewers “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” (read: amnesty) as early as next year.

In the new video, The Greener Grass, immigration experts explain why so many are willing to cross the border and overstay visas to remain in our country. Many of these illegal aliens cannot receive the benefits and good treatment they do in America in their home countries. The truth is that the United States cannot accept every person in the world who is worse off than the average American. The rate at which we currently accept foreigners is already detrimental to the quality of life of our citizens.

Many foreign governments have little problem with their citizens illegally living in America—it means less benefits they have to pay, fewer jobs they have to provide, and more money their country receives from their citizens residing in America. It is estimated that $23 billion is sent back to Mexico each year from Mexicans living in America. Worldwide, $300 billion is sent home from foreigners working in America.

Taking all of this into account, how can this change? Our President and many leaders in Congress insist on continuing to provide taxpayer funded benefits to illegal aliens while promising them citizenship next year.

Just as Americans have done in the past few weeks, we must contact our elected officials and let them know that we do not want to encourage illegal immigration by offering illegal aliens incentives to break our laws. We must remind President Obama and Congress that we are paying attention. Please watch this video and keep the pressure on!

SOURCE. See the original for video



A Working Man’s Views on Illegal Immigration, Tricks of The Trade

Undocumented workers are used in order to reduce labor costs in the areas of workers’ compensation and liability insurance, unemployment insurance, and "lower than prevailing rate" wages. They are not interested in hiring American citizens because they know they would have to pay them a fair wage, as well as covering the other associated costs of using documented workers.

Illegal workers will work for less money because, being undocumented, they rarely pay employment taxes or any related insurance costs. Contractors exploit the illegals’ fear of immigration officials (La Migra), and the resultant silence stemming from that fear, for the purpose of fattening their own wallets. Too bad the prices these builders charge for the goods they provide don’t reflect their reduced production costs. Although reduced quality, is often the result.

In the residential home building sector, these "undocumented workers" do not have business licenses, liability insurance, and tax documentation. Why? Because of the obvious fact that they are illegal aliens. Yet they still find plenty of work because the contractors who hire them have various ways to get around those pesky legalities. Those loopholes, while almost always illegal, are always unethical and always in the contractor's favor, financially.

One trick commonly used by employers who pay variable rates based on the number of employees, is to insure only one person. Basically, the crooked builder/contractor gambles on the chance that nobody will get hurt on the job, thereby saving premium costs. If no one gets hurt then there will be no bothersome attention paid to the project. In the unlikely event someone does get hurt, the gamble is protected by the "happy coincidence" that the injured party’s name always seems to be the same as the one listed in the insurance paperwork. The ploy is further enhanced by the fact that, attempting to reliably identify undocumented workers is - well . . . unreliable. This tactic is a blatant case of insurance fraud. Fines and/or temporary loss of business licenses will not sufficiently end this behavior. Jail time for first offenders, is the message that needs to be sent!

Of course, the whole concept is additionally flawed by the incorrect assumption that there will be few, if any, job related accidents. In an environment where quantity is the only production goal, neither quality nor safety, even enter into the equation. This skewed set of priorities increases the chance of injury. It’s a perfect example of "penny-wise, pound-foolish". The problem is, this seemingly perfect script for an edition of "Dumb Crook News" has been working out nicely for underhanded contractors and illegal aliens alike. These crooks often go unnoticed (and unpunished) by exploiting vague, ineffectual, or nonexistent laws. The offenders are further emboldened by rare, often pre-announced, job site inspections by insurance company representatives.

Legislation that would close these loopholes, along with more frequent unannounced inspections would bring this practice to an end. In any case, insurance companies need to know about this scam.

Another strategy dishonest builders employ is to make sure they are not directly connected (through employer/employee relationships) to the illegal immigrant workers. They use a middleman of sorts. It goes something like this.

The building contractor hires a documented subcontractor (often an American) who will be the party receiving payment for the work being done. This "sub" already has a crew of undocumented, illegal workers on the payroll. The illegal workers get paid in cash, leaving no paper trail. The "sub" then hides the cash outlay in their tax return as a cost of doing business. This scheme effectively insulates the builder from any documented contact with illegal aliens and lets them fall back on the excuse . . . "I didn’t hire them. They don’t work for me. They work for . . . (insert name here)." I have been present when statements like this have been made. These greedy individuals are cutting the legs out from under their own countrymen. Why? For a bigger bank account. To me, they’re no better than war profiteers or drug dealers!

Illegal workers are brought in, presumably, as a cure to offset high business costs. But their presence, whether proven or otherwise, has already created an unknown, high risk liability issue which increases insurance costs. The hiring of undocumented workers by dishonest, money hungry business owners and contractors, is not the cure for high insurance costs. Instead, it is one of the direct causes.

In the building industry, this illegal behavior causes a "snowball effect," felt in virtually every area of the industry. This includes higher business costs for those that don’t hire illegal aliens, the loss of jobs for skilled U.S. citizens, and the resulting fallout from this unemployment. In some states, insurance premiums for the small subcontractors are so high that they are effectively forced out of business. Their absence creates a void, which the more amply funded contractors fill with crews staffed by illegal immigrants. The operators who suffer the most are the ones who refuse to sacrifice their law abiding and patriotic ethics for the sake of larger profits.

Quality is the next victim on the snowball’s downhill journey. It gets hit from two sides. First, the boss wants as much work as possible, done for the least amount of money. That’s understandable . . . except that the cost savings isn’t passed on to the customer. It’s pocketed, leaving us with products which are built with an emphasis on quantity over quality. If you’ve ever tried to lay brick on a wall above a front porch that wobbles and sways under your weight alone (not to mention the weight of the materials you are working with) you know what I’m talking about.

Equally important, is the fact that many illegal aliens here in the U.S. are transient in nature. That is, they plan to stay here only long enough to earn the amount of money they think they need to go back home and live well. Because they‘re not here for the long haul, they don’t care about the virtue of having a good reputation, built through years of quality workmanship. Their objective is to get in and out as fast as possible, with as much cash as possible and don’t look back. That is one of the reasons why they are such a good fit for the unscrupulous builders out there!

Construction crews comprised wholly of illegal aliens often acquire jobs by undercutting the competition. Competition is a healthy attribute of a free market economy when accomplished with honesty. But, because they operate in the shadows of our legal system, illegals don’t adhere to the concept of honesty to achieve their goals. This particular group of illegal aliens doesn’t trouble with the usual administrative business costs which legal tradespeople must comply with. As a result, they can afford to charge less for work performed.

One suggestion I’ve heard to return fairness to the area of job bidding is to convince illegal aliens to join construction trade unions. Presumably, their membership would require them to charge the same rates that legal tradespeople do, effectively removing the unfairness. I believe this short sighted solution is the brainchild of a knee jerk reaction that has not been developed to its logical conclusion.

Granted, the above solution builds its foundation on a point of fact. It is true that these illegal immigrants undercut their competition via the use of unlawful means. However, their illegal status not withstanding, rewarding illegal immigrants with higher wages will not reduce competition. In fact, the higher earning potential in any region where this absurd idea is implemented would undoubtedly draw more illegals into the picture.

Supporters of this ill-conceived idea fail to recognize another significant factor. Construction jobs are ". . . a prime draw . . ." for illegal immigrants seeking work in the U.S., according to D.H.S. head, Janet Napolitano. Based on Sec. Napolitano’s statement, it is reasonable to assume that illegal immigrant workers would naturally be drawn to a region offering higher earning potential. This assumption is supported by historical evidence which clearly establishes an invariable tendency, by illegal immigrants, to migrate towards regions where greater economic opportunities exist.

This begs a question. Will the new found earnings of these - still illegal aliens - be used to help pay taxes on the roads they use every day, the schools their children go to, their own medical insurance (as opposed to government funded "free" programs)? Will they incur any and every cost necessary to their business that their competition is paying? Will the same be true of the new illegals that will be drawn in by this higher earning potential?

A scheme to include illegal aliens in such organizations would, presumably, require some sort of adjustment to their status as illegal aliens. In my opinion, the above solution is no more than another example of "back door policies" which will lead us steadily to the inevitable conclusion of a blanket amnesty. At which point, such an amnesty could be used to, "just tidy up a couple of loose ends".

Just as there is no single "magic bullet" solution for America’s current economic dilemma, there is no simple cure for our dysfunctional immigration system. Ineffectual, ill-defined laws created by policy makers with suspect intentions have achieved their goal. They have resulted in unrestrained illegal immigration and flagrant abuse of the legal immigration system.

Any list of solutions to keep the long term viability of American citizens secure, has to include the following:

1. Nationwide implementation of E-Verify

2. Harsh "first offense" penalties for dishonest employers of illegal aliens

3. Legislation aimed at ending chain migration.

4. An honest revamping of current legal immigration standards, with an eye towards lowering overall numbers.

5. Clearly worded laws to punish those who exploit the legal immigration system.

6. Resounding defeat of any mass amnesty legislation.

These are measures that are vital. They will help America keep our citizens and legal immigrants employed and safe from foreign terrorists, save our tax dollars, maintain production quality and safety on a national scale, and prevent rising insurance and health care costs.

SOURCE





2 October, 2009

Some Massachusetts agencies no longer enforcing US immigration laws

Two Massachusetts law enforcement agencies – the Framingham police and the Barnstable County sheriff’s department – are no longer enrolled in a controversial program that let them enforce federal immigration laws. The program had stirred anger and fear among advocates for immigrants who said it would terrify immigrants and deter them from reporting crimes.

Framingham Chief Steven Carl said he withdrew from the program today because federal officials pressured the department to broaden its enforcement. He said he signed up two years ago exclusively to tap into federal databases to investigate crime, and balked when federal officials wanted him to detain immigrants, transport them and even testify in immigration court.

Carl said that could hurt the police’s relationship in the community, where 26 percent are immigrants. “It doesn’t benefit the police department to engage in deportation and immigration enforcement,” Carl said today. “We’re done. I told them to come get the computers.”

Barnstable County Sheriff James Cummings said federal officials suspended their involvement in the program a few months ago, before it ever got off the ground. “They told us that they were going in a different direction,” Cummings said of federal officials. “They said they weren’t going to operate the program [here] any longer. They may be back sometime in the future.”

In Massachusetts, only the state's Department of Corrections is still enrolled in the program, known as 287(g) for the section of federal law that authorized it.

Department of Homeland Security officials were not immediately available for comment today. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which reports to the department, directly oversees the program. In July, the Obama administration streamlined the program to require that local law enforcement agencies focus on the federal government’s main priority -- serious crimes, such as drug smuggling and murder. The Government Accountability Office had criticized the program in January because some law enforcement agencies were processing immigrants for minor offenses, such as speeding.

In Framingham, Carl said the program allowed the police to tap into federal immigration databases to investigate crime in the city, such as gangs, drugs and domestic violence. Still, out of thousands of arrests last year, the program resulted in perhaps two or three arrests, he said.

In Barnstable, Cummings said he sent 12 sheriff’s deputies for federal training to learn how to detain immigrants. Cummings said the area in his jurisdiction needs special powers less now because immigration appears to have decreased, and because the sheriff’s department has suffered budget cuts and has fewer officers to devote to it. Still, he said he was disappointed that the program never got off the ground there. “With our budget cuts and everything else it wasn’t a great thing,” he said. “But I did spend a lot of time and effort getting these guys trained and then they never got to use their training."

SOURCE



Amazing! Australia's Leftist government has actually rejected a few "asylum seeker" claims

NINE Sri Lankan men are set to become the first asylum-seekers to be forcibly returned home since the Rudd government was elected. Last night the men were being flown from Christmas Island, where they have been detained since arriving in November, to Perth. They are expected to be detained for two days before being placed on a commercial flight to Sri Lanka.

The men were part of a group of 12 whose boat reached Shark Bay, 800km north of Perth, before being spotted by campers. Two of the men have already returned home voluntarily. The Australian understands the nine men were found by Department of Immigration and Citizenship to have come to Australia in search of work. Another man from the group remains on Christmas Island where he is appealing the rejection of his asylum claim through the Federal Court.

Last night Immigration Minister Chris Evans said none of the men would be in danger when returned to Sri Lanka. "All protection issues raised by this particular group have been fully assessed against Australia's international treaty obligations and there are no protection issues which would prevent their return to Sri Lanka," hesaid.

But refugee advocate Ian Rintoul said it was outrageous the government was deporting one of the men, Sarath Tennakoon, after he claimed his life would be in danger if forced to return. In an interview with The Australian in August, Mr Tennakoon said he had told the Department of Immigration and Citizenship that his life was in danger after he was identified by the Tamil Tigers as a member of the air force intelligence unit in 2002.

"The appalling human rights abuses of the Sri Lankan government is well known to the world," Mr Rintoul said. "It is too dangerous for anyone with problems with the Sri Lankan government, Tamil or Sinhalese, to be sent back." Mr Rintoul said he was attempting to lodge a last-minute appeal to the Federal Court against Mr Tennakoon's deportation.

All nine men appealed against the department's decision to the refugee review tribunal but were unsuccessful. They then lodged claims for the minister to intervene and allow them to stay but this was also rejected. The appeals lodged by the men were only possible because they were found so close to shore and classified as mainland arrivals. Asylum-seekers found outside Australia's migration zone do not have such appeal rights.

To date, 22 people detained on Christmas Island have returned home voluntarily and a further 58 Indonesian men are expected to leave voluntarily this weekend. The men arrived on a boat intercepted near Barrow Island last month and were believed to have come to Australia in search of work.

SOURCE





1 October, 2009

Religious Perspectives on Immigration

Panel to Examine Faith-Based Debate

The supporters of amnesty for illegal immigrants have frequently used religious arguments and terminology to make their case. They explicitly claim that legalization and increased immigration are the only morally acceptable choices facing lawmakers and that opposition to “comprehensive immigration reform” is, literally, a sin.

To address such claims, the Center for Immigration Studies is hosting a panel discussion entitled “Religious Perspectives on Immigration” on Tuesday, October 6, at 9:30 a.m. at the Murrow Room of the National Press Club, 14th & F streets NW. Each of the three speakers has authored a CIS Backgrounder exploring a portion of this issue:

Fr. Dominique Peridans – Associate pastor at a Roman Catholic parish in Maryland and author of “Catholics, Immigration, and the Common Good.”

James R. Edwards, Jr. – Fellow at CIS and author of “A Biblical Perspective on Immigration Policy.”

Stephen Steinlight – Senior Policy Analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies and author of “No ‘Progress by Pesach’: The Jewish Establishment’s Usurpation of American-Jewish Opinion on Immigration.”

Moderator: Mark Krikorian, Executive Director, Center for Immigration Studies

The event is free and open to the public. Please RSVP to Bryan Griffith, press@cis.org or 202-466-8185.

The above is a press release dated October 1 from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076.



Unrest over illegal immigrants to Australia

Community leaders on Christmas Island say they are being treated like second-class citizens in comparison to asylum seekers arriving in Australian waters by boat. Islanders blame the $400 million immigration detention centre at North West Point - where all sea arrivals are taken for health and security checks - for many of the problems facing the remote Australian territory. Inflated food prices, a lack of accommodation for tourists, a shortage of rental cars and even crumbling roads are all due to the immigration detention centre's growing hunger for resources, they say.

Almost 1,500 people on 29 unauthorised vessels have been picked up on their way to Australia this year. There are currently 890 asylum seekers and 16 crew members being held on Christmas Island, which is 2,600km northwest of Perth and just 500km south of Jakarta. Some 726 are behind barbed wire in the detention centre itself. Another 145 are in the unfenced Phosphate Hill and construction camp facilities while 35 are living in the community. They're generally processed and flown to the mainland within three months.

This week, Nationals Senate leader Barnaby Joyce visited the island and declared the asylum seekers ``seem very happy here - which is a concern''. Many had arrived with multi-vitamin tablets, an indication, Senator Joyce declared, that they were economic migrants rather than genuine refugees. Immigration department figures suggest otherwise: 641 people sent to Christmas Island have been found to be genuine refugees this year, while just 29 have been returned home. The rest are still being processed.

The island has a 1,500-strong permanent population, including large ethnic Chinese and Malay communities. Many are sympathetic to Senator Joyce's view. Local Islamic Council president Zainal Abdul Majid says the federal government uses taxpayers' money to look after the detainees while the islanders are neglected. ``They are being very well looked after, whereas the local community has got nothing out of the detention centre,'' Majid said. ``We feel as if we are second-class and not being looked after as well.''

Like most island leaders, Majid doesn't want the detention centre closed down now that it's been built at such expense. Rather, he wants more money to flow into the pockets of locals. ``Even if one per cent of the total amount spent on detainees is invested into the local community then they will say there's a balance and the government is looking after both sides.''

Christmas Island councillor Nora Koh, who is also president of the local women's association, claims food prices have increased 50 per cent since the new detention centre opened in late 2008. ``The traders are taking advantage of the increase in the population,'' she says. ``They know the economy on Christmas Island is up now but the refugees may not stay here long.'' Koh believes the island's four stores are essentially making hay while the sun shines.

When Home Affairs Minister Brendan O'Connor visited earlier this month she pleaded for him to subsidise freight so fruit and vegetables could be sold more cheaply. It could be funded by increasing taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, which are currently duty free, Koh said. Others have suggested locals should be given an ID card that allows them to purchase goods at a discounted rate compared with the asylum seekers living in the community.

Those not locked up in the detention centre receive cash, phone cards and access to a store account equivalent to 90 per cent of the Newstart Allowance. That equates to $410 a fortnight. O'Connor says the assertion that the immigration department's increased presence on the island has pushed up food prices needs to be tested. ``We'll look at that,'' the minister said, adding that it could form part of the work of a newly formed commonwealth taskforce which is examining the economic and environmental sustainability of Christmas and nearby Cocos islands.

On a recent trip, journalist David Marr found prices weren't as high as claimed. ``But the food argument is as much about passion as price, and the feeling there should be something in this for them,'' he wrote.

The immigration department itself insists it goes to great lengths to ensure its presence on Christmas Island doesn't inflate prices. ``The department monitors any impact on the community very carefully and takes appropriate steps such as freighting in food as required to provide for staff as well as the people that are in detention,'' a spokeswoman said. ``The arrival of a large number of asylum seekers doesn't affect the community's food supply.''

There are 50 departmental staff working on the island. About 100 locals are employed by the contractor which runs the detention centre, the food caterer and maintenance companies. Immigration says the ``vast majority'' of staff travel to and from work in a mini-bus provided by the department. It also sponsors a community bus service. But sometimes the department does hire rental cars, which are in short supply.

Tourism association development officer Bill Tatchell blames immigration for monopolising cars and accommodation beds. The island turns away more tourists than it accepts due to capacity constraints, he says. ``We don't have the resources to deliver because the resources are being used by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.'' Like the Islamic Council and shire councillor Nora Koh, the tourism association wants the immigration department to invest in the island and build ``key infrastructure''. In particular, islanders say the road to the detention centre needs to be upgraded before it crumbles from heavy use.

SOURCE








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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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