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



31 March, 2008

British government in illegal immigrants cover-up

Hundreds of illegal immigrants - including a suspected murderer and other criminals - are working in care homes in Britain, a leaked Home Office report has disclosed. In some homes more than half the employees have entered the country illegally and are now being entrusted with caring for old and vulnerable people. The immigration intelligence report found that one illegal worker was a murder suspect from the Philippines and others had been involved in the "abuse and mistreatment" of elderly people.

The report, which was produced more than two years ago, warned that the problems were "widespread" and "significant". But officials say its findings have been ignored. "Very few of these cases are acted on," one official said. "Ministers have turned a blind eye in the obscene interests of costs. These cases are not seen as a priority and most of them simply go to the bottom of the pile."

The leak follows the fiasco last year when Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, admitted that more than 11,000 illegal immigrants had been cleared to work as security guards. It also comes as Gordon Brown prepares to launch his flagship UK Border Agency, which is designed to bolster the country's protection from illegal immigrants, terrorists and other criminals.

David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: "The Home Office is turning a blind eye and allowing some of the most vulnerable people to be put in the care of people who by definition cannot have a criminal records check."

The 22-page intelligence report examined 110 investigations into the employment of suspected illegal immigrants in care homes in the south and southwest of England. The situation was so bad, the report notes, that "there is potential for embarrassment if the immigration service is not seen to be actively addressing this issue". Many of the illegal workers were using false names and forged identity documents to bypass police criminal records checks. The suspected Filipino murderer had used fraudulent references to get a job at a care home in Plymouth.

The report discloses that Home Office ministers had failed to tackle the problem because most of the illegal care home workers were from countries such as Zimbabwe, Nigeria and South Africa, which were not on the priority list identifying those who should be targeted. This restriction "does not allow the immigration service to take any form of action", it says. Offenders are rarely brought to court because of a lack of resources. "There is no deterrent factor for those involved in these activities," the report states.

One of the few prosecutions was a case in Nottingham in 2001 when an illegal immigrant was jailed for raping a woman in his care. The woman could not speak and had the mental ability of a three-year-old. The report, which has been leaked by Whitehall officials exasperated that little has been done about the problem, reveals:

- that 58 of 113 employees of a firm running two homes in Hampshire and Wiltshire were suspected illegal offenders;

- that 36 of 58 people at a Southampton care agency were working illegally, mostly using fake identity papers;

- and that 22 of 55 foreign nationals who applied for employment through a Salisbury agency were immigration offenders

The document says the proliferation of untrained and unqualified illegal migrants, many with unknown backgrounds, poses a direct risk to some of the estimated 480,000 elderly and vulnerable people in the 21,000 care homes in England and Wales. It states: "The severity of the reported incidents varies, ranging from care workers not being suitably qualified, to the abuse of clients within their care. If this is allowed to continue without action all have the potential to be damaging to the public and media perception of the immigration service."

Mark Hammond, of the PCS union, which represents 2,000 immigration officials, said: "This report exposes the government's big lie. There are not enough resources to enforce immigration law because of budgetary constraints and activity is set to decrease not increase, due to cuts in duties scheduled for weekends. Vitally important work won't be actioned and vulnerable people will be at risk."

The report found that there were so many illegal immigrants in two care homes in Bristol that a proposed operation at Christmas by the Home Office to arrest them was cancelled because it would have involved the removal of the majority of staff. The Home Office feared there would be "negative publicity" if it was held responsible for leaving old people without care.

Liam Byrne, the immigration minister, said controls had been tightened up since the report. "Every visa applicant is now fingerprinted before they reach here, ID cards become compulsory for all foreign nationals from November and œ10,000 on-the-spot fines are now in place for any illegal workers."

The report, however, blames government policy for the lack of action. "The predominant nationalities identified working illegally within the care industry do not necessarily correspond with current national priorities for enforcement action," it says.

Source



It's all too easy to get into Britain

People flock to Britain because its system of visas and social benefits are skewed in favour of those entering Britain

Last week's report by the Independent Asylum Commission, which describes our asylum system as "shameful", flies in the face of reality. It's almost as if the former appeal court judge Sir John Waite is pulling our legs. His conclusion - that the UK's treatment of asylum seekers falls "seriously below" the standards of a civilised society and that our treatment of them has "blemished" our international reputation - is, to say the least, a slight exaggeration.

Indeed it was only last month that the government proposed tightening immigration laws relating to asylum, citizenship and visas because it is felt - with justification - that too many people from abroad are taking advantage of our welcome and hospitality. This is borne out by Migration Watch UK's prediction that more than 2m people will arrive in the UK every 10 years for the foreseeable future - taking our population to 65m by 2016. Even the Home Office's own figures note that the UK has the third-largest foreign population and labour force in the European Union - currently about 2.2m.

It's not exactly hard to come to the UK. A couple of years ago a close friend of mine who was getting married decided to invite an uncle over from Punjab, in India. The uncle duly received an invitation and a sponsorship form and within a few weeks had obtained a visa from the British high commission in Delhi. Just like that.

There don't seem to be any stringent checks on foreigners arriving here. And various independent investigations - including one by the BBC's Panorama programme - have already documented how easy it is to obtain visas and British passports by duplicitous means.

You would think that when so many people in Britain are concerned about the polarisation of communities and the erosion of a single national and cultural identity, that there would be some joined-up thinking. Surely, you might surmise, the government and the Foreign Office are singing from the same hymn sheet. Alas, you'd be wrong. Although Gordon Brown's administration talks about tightening existing laws, it doesn't seem to convey this to the visa sections in British consulates and embassies around the world - least of all in the Indian subcontinent.

It's quite simple, really: if our government wants to control immigration and asylum, it needs to design a robust and consistent policy for entry, visas and deportation of failed applications for asylum - and this then has to be communicated to all relevant agencies. Soundbites about our rotten treatment of asylum seekers may help to win elections but they don't safeguard the interests of the country at large.

Before Waite described our nation as "shameful", perhaps he should have talked to ordinary people to get a real sense of what most of us feel about the existing asylum system. Perhaps he could have explained to them why some asylum seekers, allegedly fleeing for their lives, are crossing countries and even continents to get to the UK (surely, if you are genuinely seeking safety, you would ask for haven in the nearest country).

As everyone seems to know - except Waite - people flock here because our system of issuing visas and our social benefits system are skewed in favour of those entering Britain. However, unlike his commission, British people know full well when their hospitality and their country's welfare system are being abused and exploited.

Back to my friend and his relative. Surprisingly, his uncle missed the wedding and instead turned up a few days later. A couple of weeks on, he asked to be shown the wonderful sights of our country. My friend did as much as he could, showing him around London, Manchester, Stratford-upon-Avon, the Lake District and north Wales. Eventually he had to say: "I'm sorry but I can't keep taking you around because we can't afford it." His uncle took offence. "Well, then," he said, "get me a job so I can earn some money of my own." Anyone who comes over on a tourist visa, of course, cannot work here legally. Naturally, my friend - being a pillar of the community - declined to help, explaining to his uncle that he too would be breaking the law if he helped him to find illegal employment. Rather miffed, his uncle decided to move in with another relative in Middlesex.

Almost a year later, my friend spoke to the relative who had taken him in. This man said that he had given the uncle many hints about going home to India - but he just didn't take any notice. Apparently, six months is the minimum period for a tourist visa. Why, the uncle's new host asked plaintively, are tourists given such a long period of stay in this country?

As many British Asians know only too well, living with visitors with whom you have little in common can be a nightmare. Getting them to go home is almost impossible. Indeed the uncle's host said he felt as though he was living in the Big Brother house with a guest from hell. So you can imagine how flabbergasted he was when the uncle suggested at the end of the six months that he wanted to extend his stay. No way, thought his host, who then helped him pack his bags and ordered a taxi to the airport.

This is quite a typical scenario. In other parts of our communities, "arranged" marriages are nothing more than economic contracts that enable young men from the Indian subcontinent to stay in Britain. Even so-called spiritual guides, such as the Sikh a cousin of mine once invited over, can be suspect. After six months the guru suddenly told my cousin that he was being persecuted in India - for being a Sikh. And, yes, he wanted to apply for political asylum.

It was like a sketch from Goodness Gracious Me. Yet the guru was serious: he knew that if he lodged an application for asylum, it might be years before the government heard his case. In the meantime he'd be free to do as he pleased. The next day he did a runner. Thus a Sikh who had nothing to complain about in his native land became one of the 60,000 people who, according to Migration Watch UK, enter this country every year on a visitor's visa and then disappear. Most visitors from the Indian subcontinent, I'm afraid, will do whatever they can to stay in the UK. Maybe Sir John Waite could consider making that the subject of his next commission

Source





30 March, 2008

Locals Crack Down on Illegal Immigration

Mayra Figueroa - a naturalized U.S. citizen, community organizer and licensed driver - had no reason to fear being arrested, no need to worry about deported. Then she was pulled over by a Houston police officer, who told her he found it suspicious that a Latina was driving a late-model car. The first thing the officer requested? Figueroa's Social Security card, as proof of citizenship.

Until now, few local police and sheriff's departments wanted any part of enforcing federal civil immigration laws. They had their hands full with local crime - and needed witnesses and victims to work with them without fear. But as local governments feel mounting frustration over illegal immigration, that hands-off attitude is disappearing. More than 100 local law enforcement agencies - including Los Angeles and Orange counties in California and Maricopa County in Arizona, which includes Phoenix - have begun or are waiting for training to help the Department of Homeland Security root out illegal immigrants and hand them over for deportation.

Advocates say the training beefs up the power of the overworked Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agency. Detractors say it will discourage millions of immigrants from reporting crime or cooperating with police investigations. They also cite evidence of poor training and overeager cops, like the one who questioned Figueroa. [QUESTIONING someone is bad??]

The ICE training program began 12 years ago in 1996, but had only one taker until 2002, when political pressure began to mount to fix the illegal immigration problem. Now 41 law enforcement agencies are trained, and 92 more are waiting in line. Even in places where police departments have resisted enforcing immigration laws, elected officials and local governments have passed or are considering similar policies.

In Harris County, which includes Houston, sheriff's deputies routinely check the immigration status of anyone booked into the county jail. In New Jersey, the Attorney General ordered police to ask arrested suspects about their immigration status. In Minnesota, Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty signed an executive order requiring state agents to enforce immigration law. "When my deputies come across illegals, they arrest them - even on traffic violations," said Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. "People ask me why I am taking this on? The last I heard, crossing the border is an illegal activity. I took an oath of office to enforce the law, so I am enforcing the law."

But some experts say it could spell the end of cooperating with police in immigrant neighborhoods. "People are very, very fearful of interaction with law enforcement, said Susan Shah, with the New York-based Vera Institute of Justice, a nonprofit. "Even people with legal status, whose families may have mixed immigration status, now have a fear of opening the door." That fear has been exacerbated by accounts - some rumored, some real - of people being turned over to immigration officials after being stopped for minor offenses such as traffic violations and loitering, or after going to police to report a crime.

In Newark, N.J., a freelance photographer who stumbled upon on a dead body in an alley and reported the discovery to police was detained and asked about his immigration status. In Falls Church, Va., staffers at the Tarirhu Justice Center, which works with immigrant victims of domestic abuse, say they are fielding calls from women who have been assaulted, yet refuse to go to police. "When there's confusion about what policy applies to you and when it does, the safe course of action is to avoid authorities altogether," said Jeanne Smoot, the center's director of public policy.

In Durham, N.C., police recently investigated a string of robberies targeting Latino immigrants, who the thieves saw as "soft targets" because they'd be reluctant to call police. Only after officials reassured local residents that they would not be reported to ICE did they get the information needed to solve the cases, said Durham Police Chief Jose Lopez. "If people are not reporting crimes, we don't know what is happening out there. It puts all of the community at risk," said Lopez.

Even so, the Durham police department does check the immigration status of anyone arrested, and has since been approved for the federal training program. Such confusing, sometimes contradictory, policies and programs are only heightening immigrants' fear and mistrust, say immigrant advocates and community activists. Mayra Figueroa, the woman stopped in Houston, agrees. "I have been living here for the last 17 years, and to have an officer stop me for no reason and ask for papers, it made me feel like he didn't think I belong here," said Figueroa. "It makes people feel that anytime that something happens to you, you can't call police."

Source



304,000 Inmates Eligible for Deportation, Official Says

At least 304,000 immigrant criminals eligible for deportation are behind bars nationwide, a top federal immigration official said Thursday. That is the first official estimate of the total number of such convicts in federal, state and local prisons and jails. The head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Julie L. Myers, said the annual number of deportable immigrant inmates was expected to vary from 300,000 to 455,000, or 10 percent of the overall inmate population, for the next few years. Ms. Myers estimated that it would cost at least $2 billion a year to find all those immigrants and deport them.

This week, Ms. Myers presented a plan to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security intended to speed the deportation of immigrants convicted of the most serious crimes by linking state prisons and county jails into federal databases that combine F.B.I. fingerprint files with immigration, border and antiterrorism records of the Homeland Security Department. In an interview on Thursday, Ms. Myers said the plan would bring "a fundamental change" by streamlining deportations of foreign-born criminals.

Representative David E. Price, Democrat of North Carolina and chairman of the subcommittee, wrote a five-page letter on Thursday saying that the agency's plan did "not meet the legal requirements" of the 2008 appropriation that gave the agency $200 million to deport criminals. Mr. Price said the plan failed to focus mainly on illegal immigrants who committed crimes, did not provide for any coordination with immigration courts and justice officials and included huge unexplained cost increases. Based on the schedule in the plan, Mr. Price said, he did not see evidence that the agency "shares my sense of urgency about removing criminals from our country before they victimize Americans again."

In the intensely contentious debate over immigration, one point that generally draws broad agreement is that federal authorities should deport illegal immigrant criminals as swiftly as possible. But considerable confusion prevails about how fast that might be. Immigrants convicted of crimes - including illegal immigrants and those who had legal immigration status at the time of the crime - must serve their sentences before they can be deported. Many immigrant convicts are naturalized United States citizens who are not subject to deportation.

Ms. Myers said her agency, known as ICE, was seeking to expand operations to identify jailed immigrant criminals. The agency is working in all federal and state prisons, but reaches just 300 of 3,100 local jails, an official said. The agency plans a major effort to use new technology and databases at local jails so law enforcement officers can determine at booking whether immigrants have previously committed serious crimes or immigration violations. ICE officers bring charges while immigrants are serving their sentences so they can be deported as soon as they complete their terms without being released from custody. "We will identify individuals who pose the greatest risk as quickly as possible," Ms. Myers said, including in jails that the agency cannot visit regularly.

Surprised by Mr. Price's letter, she rejected his criticism of the plan's legality. She was supported by Representative Harold Rogers of Kentucky, senior Republican on the appropriations subcommittee, who said the plan could be refined.

In fiscal 2007, 164,000 immigrant inmates were charged with immigration violations to prepare the way for deportation, and 95,000 immigrants with criminal histories were deported, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement figures. Immigration lawyers warned that unless local law enforcement officers were trained in immigration law, the ICE plan could focus on many immigrants who committed minor violations that did not make them deportable. "Immigration law is confusing and convoluted and not user friendly," said David Leopold, a vice president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. "To turn that over to local law enforcement without training is asking for trouble."

Source





29 March, 2008

Rhode Island Targets Illegal Immigrants

Linking the presence of undocumented workers to Rhode Island's financial woes, Gov. Don Carcieri signed an executive order that includes a series of steps to combat illegal immigration. The order signed Thursday requires state agencies and companies that do business with the state to verify the legal status of employees. It also directs the Rhode Island State Police and prison and parole officials to more aggressively find and deport illegal immigrants. The Republican governor said he understands that illegal immigrants face hardships - but he does not want them in Rhode Island. "If you're here illegally, you shouldn't be here illegally. You shouldn't be here," Carcieri said.

Immigrant advocate Juan Garcia feared Carcieri's proposals would drive a vulnerable community underground. He said illegal immigrants who are victims of crime will fear approaching police, and that children could suffer if parents lose their jobs. "These people are not criminals," he said. "This is affecting the poor people."

Carcieri's popularity has plummeted in recent months as Rhode Island faces an estimated $550 million budget deficit, its worst financial crisis since a series of bank and credit union collapses in the early 1990s. He has proposed cutting school funding, reducing welfare and health care benefits and even letting prisoners out of jail early. He blamed Congress for failing to set a new immigration policy. He said he supported increasing the number of legal immigrants and skilled workers allowed into the country. Carcieri was testy when taking questions after signing the order. When a reporter asked if his order might embolden xenophobes, Carcieri blamed the media for inflaming the immigration debate.

Under his order, state police will enter an agreement with federal immigration authorities permitting them access to specialized immigration databases. That information would allow police to identify and detain immigration violators. State police could investigate the legal status of anyone they suspect is an immigration violator, including crime victims, witnesses and people supplying police with confidential tips, state police Maj. Steven O'Donnell said.

Department of Corrections Director A.T. Wall said the prison system will negotiate a similar agreement so it too can identify illegal immigrants in state custody as well as legal immigrants who are subject to deportation if convicted of crimes.

Carcieri said he supported legislation that would force all companies in Rhode Island to do the same. He said he did not know how much his initiatives would cost, although he assumed they would save money in the long run.

Source



The facts that shatter British Labour's big immigration myth



By ANTHONY BROWNE (Author of Retreat of Reason. Review here)

There is a traditional pattern to any discussion about immigration. First, the Government and its supporters in the (often taxpayer-funded) immigration lobby declare various reasons the public should support their policies. Otherwise we would face a serious shortage of workers, economic growth would stagnate, there would be fewer people in the workforce to help pay the country's pension bill, the NHS would collapse or that the country would suffer without the enriching force of multi-culturalism.

These arguments are then unquestioningly trumpeted by the BBC and by much of the rest of the Press which instinctively wants to support mass immigration on the basis it is the morally decent thing to do. But then someone suddenly points to holes in the arguments, often in cold, factual ways. These critics inevitably get pilloried. In my case, when I started pointing out some of the downsides of immigration, I was denounced by the then Home Secretary David Blunkett in the Commons for "bordering on fascism."

In an earlier generation, Ray Honeyford, the Bradford headmaster, was hounded out of his job for declaring that children who are born and grow up in England should speak English. Sir Andrew Green, the chairman of Migrationwatch, has been regularly demonised for the counterarguments he has put forward. But the beauty about truth is that, in the end, it will out. Ultimately, it is realised that mass immigration's critics have many valid points, and ministers are forced to change their tune (of course, rarely with any public admission that they were wrong). And so the same government that promoted multiculturalism and attacked its critics is now having to admit that multiculturalism was wrong. In the same way, a government that once insisted the NHS would collapse without foreign workers is now having to impose curbs on foreign medical staff. And the very immigration lobbyists who previously denounced those who said people living in Britain should speak English now concede that they should for their own (and society's) good.

And so is the case with that final defence for mass immigration - the argument that it benefits the British economy. The trouble is that the claim that our economic boom was based on mass immigration (rather than a credit bubble) seems a little thin now that our economy is collapsing with immigration still at record levels. The belief that we needed Eastern Europeans to fill 600,000 vacancies in our employment market seems a tad stretched given that a million or more Eastern Europeans have come - and we still have 600,000 vacancies. The argument that we are desperately short of workers looks faintly ridiculous now that we are all increasingly aware that there are more than 5 million people of working age out of work and living on benefits - and there have been for the past ten years.

The Government's final justification was that immigration is a major boost to economic output - pumping the economy by 6 billion pounds a year. This figure is parroted so often that it has become received wisdom. But unfortunately, the argument is utterly misleading. Ignore the very serious questions about how the 6 billion figure was arrived at, and take it at its face value. The real problem is that while immigration does boost the overall size of the economy (more people working means more output), it also boosts the population. And what people really care about is not how big the economy is but how well off they are - their standard of living and quality of life.

In short, what matters is not the total Gross Domestic Product, but the GDP per capita. This is the mind-numbingly obvious flaw in the Government's argument. Although a growing population means more output it also means more people to consume that output. Almost all the resultant increase in GDP goes to the immigrants themselves (which is why they come to the UK in the first place). In fact, using the Government's own figures, the effect of immigration on GDP per capita is minimal 28p a week. That too is an average figure --while the affluent who employ immigrants tend to benefit, the poor who compete with them lose out.

When Sir Andrew Green first pointed out the 28p a week figure, he was, of course, pilloried. But, although his claims are about to be confirmed by the House of Lords committee, it is probably too soon for ministers to admit the folly of their beloved 6 billion argument. But as the truth slowly emerges, it can only be a matter of time before the Government finally abandons its policies of encouraging mass immigration to this already crowded island. Only then can we expect the level of immigration to be lowered.

Source





28 March, 2008

KS lawmakers pass illegal immigration reforms, reject tough penalties on business

Kansas lawmakers Thursday backed away from threats to pull the licenses of businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Like the Senate before it, the House eliminated tough penalties for businesses from a bill designed to crack down on illegal immigration. Instead, those who repeatedly hire illegal immigrants would face fines of up to $3,000 per illegal worker and the possibility of being held in contempt of court. The step back from tougher penalties pleases the business community, religious groups and immigrant advocates, but is sure to anger citizens who urged tough enforcement of immigration law. The House endorsed the bill, SB 329, on an unrecorded preliminary vote Thursday night. A final vote is expected today. The bill also:

* Creates new criminal penalties for employment identity fraud, voter fraud and exploitation of illegal immigrants

* Prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving many public benefits such as food stamps.

* Stiffens penalties for businesses that intentionally misclassify workers as contractors to avoid paying taxes and benefits.

An earlier provision to require all police to ask the citizenship of anyone they arrest was eliminated. Supporters said the bill struck the right balance. "It's a tough but reasonable and effective response to the problem," said Rep. Raj Goyle, a Wichita Democrat. The Senate approved a similar bill Thursday morning. The vote was unanimous, but several senators said they wanted a more aggressive bill.

One key difference: the House bill would, starting in 2011, require all new hires to be checked against the federal E-Verify database of legal workers. The bill would have the state's Department of Labor run the checks unless businesses choose to do it themselves.

When introduced, the bills were much more aggressive. The authors of those proposals said the Legislature caved to powerful industry groups. "We can't go home and say we've passed meaningful immigration reform in this session," said Rep. Lance Kinzer, an Olathe Republican who said the original bill had been "eviscerated."

Source



Official: Immigration into Britain "too fast"

A government minister today said that the effects of immigration were moving too quickly for some areas of the UK and local services were being put under pressure. Speaking in an interview with the BBC, Liam Byrne, the immigration minister, said that although there were some parts of the country, notably the north-east of England, and Scotland, that wanted immigration to boost their populations, generally its impact needed more control. "There have been communities in different parts of the country where the pace of change has been too fast and transitional pressure has been put on public services," he said on The World at One. "We do need a new balance in migration policy," he added.

The effects of globalisation are now being felt outside the country's main cities. Cumbria police recently revealed that its budget for interpreters had risen 386% since 2003 and schools across the country are having to provide for pupils speaking a variety of languages other than English.

A recent study compiled by the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) predicted that a record number of highly skilled migrant workers, such as teachers, will enter Britain over the next four years, contributing an estimated 77bn pounds to the economy. The CEBR report forecast that there would be 812,000 such migrants in the UK by 2012, a 14% increase on the 715,000 recorded last year.

Migrants added 6bn pounds to the British economy in 2006 and their impact was a net benefit to the country as a whole, said Byrne. But the minister said that the UK had no need for low-skilled workers coming from outside of the EU. A points-based system for migrants wishing to come to the UK was introduced at the beginning of this month. But the government has not said when the system for low-skilled workers will come into effect, meaning that in practice low-skilled workers from outside the EU will not be allowed entry for the foreseeable future.

The new regime involves tougher penalties for employers who employ illegal immigrants. But it also simplifies the system used to determine whether foreigners are allowed into the country to work. This, along with the economic downturn, will deter some migrants from moving to the UK, the minister said.

Source





27 March, 2008

Bush Criticized for Pardoning Drug Offenders, Embezzler While Leaving Border Patrol Agents Behind Bars

The chairman of the Project 21 leadership network is condemning President George W. Bush's issuance of a new set of presidential pardons March 25 that includes forgiveness for drug smugglers, an embezzler and others but not for jailed Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean. Ramos and Compean entered prison in January of 2007 after a controversial ruling on their actions in apprehendng a fleeing drug smuggler.

"I believe the President's stolid refusal to pardon Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean is the most unconscionable act of disloyalty he has perpetrated upon those sworn to protect our well-being. I know this feeling is shared by many other patriotic Americans," said Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie. "This sends a disturbing signal to the men and women who protect our borders, not to mention how it must affect the morale of those serving overseas."

On February 17, 2005, Ramos and Compean pursued Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila on foot after Aldrete-Davila abandoned a van containing 743 pounds of marijuana worth an estimated $1 million. During the chase, Ramos shot at Aldrete-Davila in the belief that Aldrete-Davila had drawn a gun of his own. Aldrete-Davila escaped across the U.S.-Mexico border, and Ramos assumed Aldrete-Davila was unhurt. In fact, Aldrete-Davila had been shot in the buttock.

U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton later charged that Ramos and Compean violated Border Patrol policy by pursuing Aldrete-Davila without supervisor approval, moving spent shell casings and improperly reporting the fired shots. Aldrete-Davila was granted immunity to testify against the agents. Ramos and Compean were sentenced to 11 and 12 years in prison, respectively. They are currently in solitary confinement in maximum-security prisons.

The Ramos and Compean convictions have been questioned by many, who point to the following: During the trial, jurors were not told of Aldrete-Davila's continued drug trafficking, for which he has now been arrested and indicted. Jurors were also unaware that a fellow agent who testified against Ramos and Compean is a life-long friend of Aldrete-Davila - a violation of Border Patrol Policy in itself.

T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, a labor union which has organized workers at the agency, testified before the U.S. Senate that a medical examination of Aldrete-Davila supported the agents' description of events and complied with Border Patrol and Justice Department policies. The convictions of Ramos and Compean are currently on appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

"Leaving good cops behind bars is unconscionable," added Project 21's Massie. "President Bush can argue he is granting mercy only after sentences are served, but we cannot forget that he immediately commuted the sentence of his friend and political ally Scooter Libby. Similar clemency should be given to Ramos and Compean, if not a full pardon. If he refuses, we can only hope that the next president will not only do so but also treat our courageous border guards with the respect they deserve."

Source. See also here



Canada's Health Care System Cannot Survive Mass Immigration

A cynic might characterize Canada's medicare system as the universal, free, democratic and egalitarian access to a two-year waiting list. You jump the queue only if you have the bucks and the referral to jump over the 49th, unless a life-threatening emergency sends you to the OR. America's health care system, on the other hand is discriminatory and expensive, but it offers immediate access to the best medical treatment in the world. In both cases timely care for everyone is an elusive goal.

In any event Michael Moore's take on Canada is superficial, euphoric and unrealistic. New technology, abuse and the insatiable demands of an ever expanding clientele of elderly relatives sponsored by Third World immigrants is breaking the bank. It has been calculated that each sponsored immigrant in that age group will cost the Australian medical system $250,000. Since roughly 75% of Canadian immigrants and refugees, drawn from largely "non-traditional" sources, in fact consist of their unskilled dependent children, a terrifying portrait of the toll that Canadian immigration policy is taking on medicare could no doubt be drawn.

A recent article featured in the London Free Press (Thursday, March 13, 2008 "Hospitals forecast deficits") recognized population growth as one principal reason why the Canadian health system was on the brink of deficit financing, with half of Ontario's hospitals facing service cuts to meet the legal requirement for a balanced budget. Seventy percent of Canada's population growth is driven by immigration.

It was economist Milton Friedman who commented a decade ago that "It's just obvious that you can't have free immigration and a welfare state." As Robert Rector explained, to be properly understood, Friedman's observation should be viewed as applicable to the entire redistributive system of benefits, subsidies and services that lower income groups disproportionately enjoy at the expense of higher income groups.

Unfortunately, this superstructure of benefits and services rests not only on an economic foundation but a cultural one as well. A people that is very much alike is more inclined to trust one another, and this trust translates into a willingness to vote for redistributive policies. But we are no longer a mostly ethnically homogeneous society with a shared respect for institutions and a shared sense of civic obligation. When a significant portion of the population is from another hemisphere, another culture or even another generation with different values, the welfare state is perceived as an unlocked candy store with services to be exploited to the maximum.

Redistributive policies like medicare are inversely correlated to cultural diversity. Rather than confront this reality, Canadian leftists demand yet more financial IV injections into the morbid body of the health care system. They refuse to acknowledge that even the Swedish Social Democrats, their role models, were forced to discover the "Laffer curve". That is, push the tax rate up beyond a certain level and tax revenues fall in response. Tax payers will not keep working and producing if they can't keep enough of their income. There are limits to what can be funded. The Canadian model is not sustainable. It works only if there is enough public money to fund it and not enough patients with doctors to help them abuse it. Those days are gone forever.

Source





26 March, 2008

Farmers leery of legal hazard

At the wage rate concerned, there should be no problem finding workers. It is clearly the risk of being prosecuted for hiring illegals that has the guy below running scared. I would be that way too. It should be made very clear that if an employer has made basic checks he is safe. The present situation should be good for farmers in Mexico, though.

This is an interesting story. Keith Eckel, the largest tomato grower north of the Mason-Dixon line whose crop accounts for 3/4 of the fresh tomatoes sold in markets from Boston to Washington, is quitting the tomato business over fears that he won't be able to find the 180 workers he needs for harvest. Instead, Eckel is planting grain, which he can harvest by machine with the help of only 5 workers.

Eckel told the Philadelphia Inquirer he was forced to scuttle his tomato business because of Congress's failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform, saying more and more farmers would follow suit when faced with the prospect of a labor shortage. Here's the part of the story that caught my attention:

Workers on Eckel's farm averaged $16.59 an hour "and they earned every penny of it," Eckel said. "No one will harvest tomatoes in 90 degree weather except immigrant labor," he said. And a number of people who worked in his packing house were retired workers picking up a few extra dollars, he said.

We always hear the argument that immigrants do labor that Americans aren't willing to do, and picking tomatoes would certainly seem to fall into that category. But $16.59 an hour seems like a pretty decent average wage, and so the question is whether in a place like Scranton - a metro area with more than 600,000 people and an unemployment rate that jumped seven tenths of a percent in December and is above both the state and national average - Eckel truly cannot find a hundred and eighty legal US citizens who want to make, on average, $16.59 an hour.

The bigger problem may be, as Eckel points out in the article, bearing the burden and the risk associated with verifying that his workers are in fact here legally:

He said the climate was such that legal immigrants were fearful of moving across state lines, further exacerbating the problem. Although his workers have documents proving that they are legal, Eckel said some estimates show that between 60 percent and 70 percent of the documents are fraudulent. "We can no longer take the risk," he said. "We have done everything we can to comply with the law." Most farmers are honest, he said, but rather than run the risk of losing their crop, they simply won't plant one.

Source



Britain and France join forces on immigration

In a token sort of a way

Plans for a joint drive by Britain and France against illegal immigration could backfire by forcing "soft targets" to return to dangerous countries, refugee groups have warned. The initiative will be announced by Gordon Brown and the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, who arrives in Britain for a two-day state visit tomorrow. The leaders will also set out plans to co-operate over the crisis threatening world money markets, nuclear power and defence.

Mr Sarkozy, who will be accompanied by his new wife, Carla Bruni, will be welcomed by the Prince of Wales. The couple will stay at Windsor Castle. The immigration package is likely to be agreed by the leaders on Thursday. It includes proposals to arrange joint charter flights to return failed asylum-seekers to their home countries. Mr Sarkozy wants international co-operation over immigration to be a theme of France's European Union presidency from July and will set the tone this week. The leaders will also promise to increase numbers of officials checking lorries at Channel ports and fresh action against people-smuggling gangs.

Donna Covey, chief executive of the Refugee Council, said: "Our leaders would do better to focus on joint initiatives to make countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan safe for people to return to - rather than forcing them to go back when it is clearly not safe." Keith Best, chief executive of the Immigration Advisory Service, urged Mr Sarkozy to be sceptical of Britain's approach to deporting asylum-seekers, which often resulted in "soft targets" being singled out for removal. [That's true. Asian kitchenhands are at risk but criminals can stay as long as they like]

Source





25 March, 2008

U.S. Tweaks Proposal On Illegal Workers: Employers Could Get Warnings in June

The Bush administration yesterday renewed its drive to crack down on U.S. companies that hire illegal immigrants by slightly altering an earlier initiative stalled by a federal judge since last September. If the new proposal satisfies the court, the government could begin warning 140,000 employers in writing as early as June about suspect Social Security numbers used by their employees and force businesses to resolve questions about their identities or fire them within 90 days. The result could intensify an economic and political debate over the administration's immigration policies in the months leading up to November's elections for president and Congress.

The mailings, known as "no-match" letters, were enjoined by U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer in San Francisco while he hears a lawsuit brought by a wide-ranging coalition of major American labor, business, farm and civil liberties groups. The plaintiffs, including the AFL-CIO, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Civil Liberties Union, allege that the plan will cause major workplace disruptions and discriminate against legal workers, including native-born Americans.

A systematic effort to wean the U.S. economy off an estimated 8.7 million illegal workers has long been blocked by economic interests and civil rights concerns. But the Bush administration considers that effort the linchpin of its immigration enforcement efforts. "We are serious about immigration enforcement," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in a brief written statement yesterday. "The No-Match Rule is an important tool for cracking down on illegal hiring practices while providing honest employers with the guidance they need."

The 44-page proposal released yesterday makes mostly technical changes to the administration's initial proposal. It includes a statement about the regulation's impact on small businesses, as required by a 1980 law. According to DHS, compliance will cost companies with fewer than 100 workers $3,000 to $7,500 overall, while it will cost larger companies $13,000 to $34,000. But these estimates do not include the cost of firing and replacing workers who lack legal documentation. "DHS does not believe that the direct costs incurred by employers . . . would create a significant economic impact" on most companies, the department stated.

Opponents said the proposal makes no substantive changes to a plan that Breyer in October wrote would have "severe" effects and produce irreparable harm to innocent workers and employers. Lawyers familiar with the plaintiffs' case said they expect to battle the department in the rulemaking process and the courts through the summer.

Critics have noted that the Social Security Administration's inspector general has concluded the database used to cull suspicious numbers contains erroneous records on 17.8 million people, 70 percent of whom are native-born U.S. citizens. Even if the actual error rate of no-match letters is far lower, labor leaders say that unscrupulous employers will use the rule to burden or harass anyone who looks or sounds foreign. "It's an attempt to justify the fundamentally flawed database without actually fixing any of the problems," said Lucas Guttentag, director of the ACLU immigrants' rights project. Angelo I. Amador, director of immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the DHS glossed over the true costs. "It keeps the questions before the judge the same. I would have been more concerned if they had come up with a big study" detailing the broader impact on businesses, he said.

Source



No Coyote Needed

CIS press release: New Paper Examines Visa Overstays

While presidential candidates promise to secure the border, the other major source of illegal immigration is largely ignored - lax visa policies. Visa overstays account for between one-quarter to one-half of the illegal-alien population, and fencing, unmanned aerial vehicles, National Guard patrols, etc., are irrelevant to controlling this part of the immigration problem.

To shine some light on this neglected weakness, the Center for Immigration Studies has published a new paper, "No Coyote Needed: U.S. Visas Still an Easy Ticket in Developing Counties," written by former State Department official David Seminara, examining the systemic problems in our "nonimmigrant" (i.e., temporary) visa system. The complete paper is online here

U.S. law places the burden of proof on the visa applicant to demonstrate that he won't remain in the United States as an illegal alien after his permission to remain has expired. Despite the law's tough language, 74 percent of nonimmigrant applications are granted, mostly from countries with much lower standards of living than the United States, where few residents should truly be able to qualify.

The new paper identifies some of the reasons for this laxity, including:

# The crushing volume of applications. Most visa-processing posts are woefully understaffed, resulting in very brief interviews. Managers value speed over clarity of decision making, so many applications that deserve closer scrutiny instead end up being approved.

# Foreign Service officers tend to have a diplomatic rather than a law enforcement mindset.

# Developing countries place great importance on visas in bilateral discussions.

# State Department managers are required to review only visa refusals - not issuances - forcing consular officers to routinely justify denials.

# DHS has not implemented meaningful exit controls or shared entry/exit data with consular officials overseas, leaving them without adequate information on visa renewal applicants.

# Officers evaluate how well-off visa candidates are by the standards of their home country, rather than by U.S. standards, and thus often fail to understand how a nurse from Ecuador, say, would prefer to wash dishes at a restaurant in New York.

# Refused applicants, their relatives, and members of Congress routinely pressure consular officials to overturn visa refusals.

# The simple reality that it is far easier to say "yes" to applicants than to dash their hopes by telling them that they don't qualify to come to America.





24 March, 2008

The Gurkhas have earned the right to live in Britain

This is truly amazing stuff. The Gurkhas are most highly thought of in Britain -- though not among the Leftist British government and bureaucracy, apparently. Warriors of any sort are just "incorrect" in Leftist circles

There are times when the routine irritation we all feel with the idiocies that take place daily in government is supplanted by splenetic anger caused by something truly outlandish. The sight of Gurkha ex-servicemen gathered in front of the Palace of Westminster [the British parliament] to return the medals they had received for fighting with the British Army was just such a moment. They were objecting to the fact that many of their number are denied the right to settle in Britain because they retired before 1997.

The grievances of the Gurkhas are legitimate and long-standing. You could be forgiven for imagining that they were resolved in September 2004, when Tony Blair, then prime minister, announced after an 18-month Whitehall review that Gurkhas who had served with the British Army and wanted to settle here with their families would be allowed to apply for citizenship.

The Government confirmed it would change immigration rules to let them stay. Prior to that decision, they had no pension rights, no leave to remain in the UK, and could not apply to become British citizens. David Blunkett, then the Home Secretary, said: "We have put together the best package to enable discharged Gurkhas to apply for settlement and citizenship. I hope this decision makes our gratitude clear."

But note the weasel word "discharged" in that statement; and, indeed, the devil was in the detail. The change meant that only Gurkhas who have served at least four years and were discharged after July 1, 1997 - the date at which the brigade's headquarters moved to the UK from Hong Kong - would be eligible for "fast-track" citizenship.

So an apparently generous gesture was instantly turned into something divisive. What possible moral case exists for saying that a Gurkha discharged in 1996 after 15 years' service is any less entitled to come here than one discharged a year later, after five years in the Army? For some Gurkhas falling outside the cut-off date who are already living in Britain, sometimes in penury, it means the prospect of deportation.

It is extraordinary that the authorities are prepared to deport someone who fought in our Army, yet last week the Court of Appeal ruled that under an EU directive, an Italian who served nine years for robbing a pensioner - and had a string of other convictions - could not be ejected because he did not pose a serious threat to the security of the nation.

Pre-1997 Gurkhas are not able to stay or settle because the Home Office says they cannot demonstrate "close ties" to this country. Even serving Gurkha soldiers are not treated equally. Their children are regarded as foreign students and must pay fees of up to 13,000 pounds a year if they want to attend university. Only when citizenship is granted after a lengthy application period once they leave the Army are their children regarded as home students in the UK.

All of this is particularly galling when you consider the mess the Government has made of our immigration system. Over the past 10 years, it has allowed hundreds of thousands of people who have no claim to settle here to do just that. Nepalese Gurkhas, by contrast, have been part of the British Army for nearly 200 years and about 200,000 of them fought for Britain in both world wars; some 43,000 were killed or wounded, and they have won 26 Victoria Crosses.

A few weeks ago, one of these VC winners, Havildar Bhanubhakta Gurung, died in Nepal aged 86. He was decorated with the highest award for valour when serving as a rifleman in the 3rd Battalion of the 2nd Gurkha Rifles in Burma in 1945. It is worth quoting from the citation. "On approaching the objective, one of the sections of the company was forced to the ground by heavy machine-gun, grenade and mortar fire, and owing to the severity of this fire was unable to move. "While thus pinned down, the section also came under fire from a sniper in a tree 75 yards to the south. As this sniper was inflicting casualties on the section, Rifleman Gurung stood up and, while exposed to heavy fire, calmly killed the enemy sniper with his rifle, saving his section from further casualties."

Bhanubhakta then dashed forward alone, attacking enemy positions single-handed, using grenades, smoke bombs, his rifle and, eventually, his kukri. The citation continued: "He showed outstanding bravery and a complete disregard for his own safety. His courageous clearing of five enemy positions single-handed was decisive in capturing the objective and his inspiring example to the Company contributed to the speedy consolidation of the success."

Under the current immigration rules, had Bhanubhakta, whose three sons followed their father into the Gurkhas, wanted to come to live in Britain, he would not be allowed to stay and could be facing deportation were he here already.

When a big enough fuss is made, as in the case last year of Tul Bahadur Pun VC, 85, who wanted to move from Nepal for medical reasons, an "exceptional" visa can be granted, as it was in his case. But these men should not have to beg for entry. Given the sheer scale of immigration to Britain in recent years, this is a small group of people who are rightly insulted by the suggestion that their ties to this country are "insufficiently strong" when they see so many here who have none whatsoever, including some who would do us great harm.

When Gordon Brown was asked about this injustice in the Commons at Question Time by Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, he said the right for retired Gurkhas to live in Britain had only been granted from 1997 because that was when Hong Kong, their former principal base, was handed over to Chinese rule. So what? The fact that previous administrations failed to treat the Gurkhas properly is no excuse to continue treating them badly. The Labour Government is entitled to be congratulated for making some attempt to rectify past mistakes, especially over pension entitlements; but the decision taken in 2004 was only half right and too many anomalies remain. It is time to honour our debt to the Gurkhas.

Source



Australia's Chinese suburbs are top-drawer

Safe, peaceful, affluent and a great place to eat. But they do tend to be targeted by robbers. If only all immigrants were as high-quality as the Chinese!

SUBURBAN multicultural hubs are on the rise, with overseas-born residents accounting for more than 50 per cent of the population in some suburbs. An analysis of Census statistics by RP Data research director Tim Lawless has found Robertson, in Brisbane's south, is home to the highest proportion of overseas-born residents, with migrants comprising 58 per cent of its population. Mr Lawless said the majority of foreign-born residents were from mainland China and Hong Kong.

"Robertson was followed by Stretton, with 55 per cent of the population born overseas, also mainly from China and Hong Kong," he said. "The Brisbane CBD comes in as the third highest suburb based on residents born overseas. This would be due to the high number of international students that reside within inner-city accommodation."

Rocky Lee and his parents, Ming Lau and Yiu Lee, have recently moved to Stretton. Hong Kong-born Mr Lee said he and his family had lived in Carindale, in the city's southeast, since they arrived in Brisbane about 10 years ago, but had wanted to move to the Stretton area because of its multicultural reputation. "And I think it's also got a reputation as a prestigious area," Mr Lee said.

Louis Soh, of Yong Real Estate, based on Brisbane's southside, said the majority of his clients were born overseas. "I would say that about 60 per cent are from overseas," Mr Soh said. He said migrants, particularly those from China and Hong Kong, were attracted to the southside because of its standing as an Asian hub. "There's the Chinese shopping centre in Sunnybank and a lot of people have relatives here," Mr Soh said.

Mr Lawless said migrant clusters were evident throughout Brisbane. Darra and Richlands, in the city's southwest, hold the largest migrant clusters - Vietnam-born residents account for 17 per cent of the suburbs' total population. The second largest cluster was the Chinese community living in Sunnybank, with 9.3 per cent of the overall population, while South Africans living in Anstead [Anstead has large semi-rural blocks of land] account for 6.2 per cent of the total population.

Conversely, Ipswich [a most unprestigious area], which forms part of the greater Brisbane area, is home to the most Australian-born residents. More than 93 per cent of the population in Purga, Deebing Heights and Tallegalla were born in Australia. The Australian Demographic Statistics report shows more migrants settled in Australia last year than in any other period in history.

Source





23 March, 2008

African refugee brings rare and dangerous disease to Britain

Health officials are screening the close contacts of a man who has become Britain's first case of a virtually untreatable form of drug-resistant tuberculosis. The man, believed to be a Somali asylum-seeker in his thirties, has a rare strain, Extremely Drug Resistant TB (XDR-TB), which has a high mortality rate.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) says that XDR-TB accounts for possibly only 2 per cent of the 9 million cases of tuberculosis in the world, but that it poses a grave public health threat, especially in populations with high rates of HIV and where there are few healthcare resources.

Health chiefs said yesterday that close contacts of the patient, who is in isolation at Gartnavel General Hospital, Glasgow, were being screened. He has been in the hospital since January.

Dr Oliver Blatchford, consultant in public health medicine in Glasgow, said yesterday: "It is no more infectious than ordinary TB but it does require different treatment. The contacts of this case are being screened in the same way as ordinary TB contacts. They will be monitored closely to ensure that any further cases are identified early and treated quickly."

A health board spokesman added that the man had been admitted to hospital at the end of January but was unable to give any personal details or provide information about his condition. It is understood that the man arrived at Heathrow last November and when screened for infectious diseases was found to have TB scarring on his lungs.

The condition was not active, however, and the man told doctors he had recently had a six-month course of treatment for TB. After an immigration interview, he was allowed to go to Scotland, where the disease became reactivated.

XDR-TB poses a far greater challenge to doctors than MDR-TB (Multidrug Resistant TB), which is resistant to at least the two main first-line tuberculosis drugs, isoniazid and rifampicin. XDR-TB is a form of MDR-TB that is also resistant to three or more of the six classes of second-line drugs. Doctors can only try to contain the disease with a cocktail of second-line drugs. In some cases, part of the lung can be cut out. This is the first case reported in Britain since the revised definition of XDR-TB was published by the World Health Oorganisation in 2006. Recent findings from a survey of data from 2000-04 found that XDR-TB had been identified in all regions of the world but was most frequent in the former Soviet Union and Asia.

Professor Peter David, the secretary of TB Alert in Britain, said that drugs could contain the disease but not cure it. Treatment takes 12-18 months and is estimated to cost more than 100,000 pounds per patient. [AND the patient has got to comply with his treatment regime]

Source



NYC DA: Immigration Agent Demanded Sex

The charges this guy is facing seem inadequate for the crime. He could be prosecuted for rape. I gather that he himself was originally an immigrant, a "diversity" hire, perhaps

A federal immigration official who was recorded demanding sex from a young Colombian woman in exchange for a green card was arrested on corruption charges, prosecutors said Friday. The woman, who is married to an American citizen, said she gave in to one demand for oral sex because she was afraid, but she also used a mobile phone hidden in her purse to record the December encounter and the conversation that preceded it. Days later she went to a The New York Times to tell her story. She also called the district attorney's office.

"I want sex," he said on the recording, according to the Times. "One or two times. That's all. You get your green card. You won't have to see me anymore." Queens prosecutors said Isaac R. Baichu, an adjudication officer at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office in Garden City, threatened to hold up the woman's application and even deport her relatives if she didn't acquiesce. Baichu was arrested March 11 after meeting with the woman again, this time with prosecutors listening in.

His attorney did not immediately return phone messages Friday. Baichu faces misdemeanor charges of coercion and sexual misconduct and a felony charge of receiving a reward for official misconduct. A judge released him on a $15,000 bond. Baichu was suspended immediately after his arrest, and his pay will be halted, Citizenship and Immigration spokesman Shawn Saucier said. Baichu was hired three years ago and made about $50,000 annually.

Source





22 March, 2008

Crazy Canada: AIDS no problem

Ottawa needs to tighten up its admission of HIV-carrying immigrants who are a drag on the country's strained medical system, a leading taxpayers' advocate said yesterday. Sun Media revealed yesterday that between 2002 and 2006 federal immigration officials had only refused 126 of 2,567 applicants who'd tested positive for the virus that causes AIDS.

A more moral and practical approach would be ensuring foreign aid combats the disease, said John Williamson, national director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. "Canada could show its compassion best by using foreign aid money by delivering medicine overseas," said Williamson. The country's immigration policy, he said, should be to ensure a supply of productive new residents, "not as a back door to our health-care system."

Calgary immigration lawyer Gary Hansen said HIV-positive newcomers are too easily granted entry when others aren't. "I've known of people with cancer who've had to wait for five years after they're cancer-free," he said

Source



Negligent U.S. bureaucracy defeated only by luck

A Kenyan immigrant has achieved victory in his decade-long quest to fix a bureaucratic snafu that almost led to his deportation. This month immigration officials approved Charles K. Nyaga for a green card, a goal that was achieved after a host of legislative efforts by Sen. Saxby Chambliss failed, but a move made by Nyaga's brother more than 10 years ago came to light to save the day. The system doesn't always work, said Nyaga's lawyer, Charles H. Kuck of Atlanta, "but in this case, it did."

Nyaga's saga started on two tracks in 1997. That's the year his brother Kenneth, a U.S. citizen, filed a family member visa application for Nyaga, who came to the United States to attend technical college. That year Nyaga also won a State Department lottery that distributes about 110,000 diversity visa applications among would-be citizens from countries underrepresented on American immigration rolls. Nyaga submitted his application in February 1998, eight months before the deadline. But immigration officials failed to process it-other than sending his fingerprints to the FBI-before it expired at midnight on Sept. 30, 1998, the end of the federal fiscal year.

Immigration officials said they were overworked, but U.S. District Court Judge Orinda D. Evans didn't accept that excuse, ordering the government to complete the process. In 2003, a panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to reverse, saying immigration officials didn't have the authority to revive Nyaga's application after it had expired. That case was Nyaga v. Ashcroft, 323 F.3d 906 (2003).

In February 2004, when he was chairman of the Senate immigration subcommittee, Chambliss submitted a bill that would have allowed officials to reconsider some visa applications like Nyaga's that had expired due to government inaction. But a month later Atlanta Immigration Judge William A. Cassidy ordered Nyaga to leave the country within 60 days. The judge stayed the order pending Nyaga's appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which ultimately upheld the order.

Nyaga testified on Capitol Hill in April 2004 when the House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration was looking into fraud and abuse in the diversity visa program. But Chambliss' bill failed to get through Congress. Chambliss tried again the following year, attaching his proposal to an emergency Iraq war supplemental appropriations bill. Chambliss also tried a couple of so-called private bills, designed to help only Nyaga, in 2005 and 2007, but they didn't get out of committee.

In an example of the darkest hour coming just before the dawn, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents came to arrest Nyaga and his wife last September. Kuck said last week when Nyaga called from ICE custody that day, one of Kuck's associates found buried in Nyaga's case file the receipt from the family visa application filed by Nyaga's brother. "It had become forgotten in the annals of time that this was there," said Kuck. Nyaga said in the back of his mind he had still "vaguely remembered something like that" but it had seemed his case was "almost irredeemable." The line for family visas is years long, said Kuck, but, amazingly, the application was set to reach the front of the line the following month, in October 2007. "We pulled out the file and were looking for some other documents," said Kuck, "and it was right there. It was one of those 'Oh my God' moments."

Nyaga, now 50, said when Kuck told him the news, "It was unbelievable, because it was almost a desperate situation at that time." Kuck said Nyaga was in custody only one day. "We were able to get him released right away with Senator Chambliss' intervention," he said. Lawyers for ICE cooperated in asking Cassidy to reopen Nyaga's case, according to Kuck. The immigration judge terminated removal proceedings in October.

At that point, said Kuck, it was just a matter of time-waiting for the green card interview with U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services that took place March 13. He said that day Nyaga and his wife and children received stamps in their passports saying they are permanent U.S. residents, and they'll get their actual green cards in a few weeks. That means they'll always be able to live and work in the United States, said Kuck, having to go through no more than a standard green card renewal process. And they plan to apply for citizenship in five years when that option is available. "I have rarely seen happier people," said Kuck.

Nyaga, who received a master's degree from Atlanta's Interdenominational Theological Center last year, cites Bible verse Jeremiah 29:11 to describe his story: "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." Despite his degrees, Nyaga still works at a local hotel and for a cleaning service. The Powder Springs resident said he plans to pursue a doctorate degree rather than taking on his own church right now. His wife works at a Wal-Mart, and his son, 18, and daughter, 21, attend Toccoa Falls College, a Christian school. After 11 years of up-and-down battling with the government, Nyaga sounds jubilant, not bitter. "One thing I've always known is that government does what governments do," he said. "But fortunately this land is a land of laws."

Source





21 March, 2008

'Speak English' Signs OK at Philly Shop



The owner of a famous cheesesteak shop did not discriminate when he posted signs asking customers to speak English, a city panel ruled Wednesday. In a 2-1 vote, a Commission on Human Relations panel found that two signs at Geno's Steaks telling customers, "This is America: WHEN ORDERING 'PLEASE SPEAK ENGLISH,'" do not violate the city's Fair Practices Ordinance.

Shop owner Joe Vento has said he posted the signs in October 2005 because of concerns over immigration reform and an increasing number of people in the area who could not order in English. Vento has said he never refused service to anyone because they couldn't speak English. But critics argued that the signs discourage customers of certain backgrounds from eating at the shop.

Commissioners Roxanne E. Covington and Burt Siegel voted to dismiss the complaint, finding that the sign does not communicate that business will be "refused, withheld or denied." In a dissenting opinion, Commissioner Joseph J. Centeno said he thought the signs did discourage some customers. "The sign appeared immediately above another sign that had the following words: 'Management Reserves the Right to Refuse Service,'" Centeno wrote.

Geno's and its chief rival across the street, Pat's King of Steaks, are two of the city's best known cheesesteak venues. A growing number of Asian and Latin American immigrants have moved into the traditionally Italian neighborhood in recent years.

Vento had threatened to go to court if he lost. His attorney, Albert G. Weiss, said he was "pleasantly surprised" by Wednesday's decision. "We expected that this was not going to go our way," Weiss said. In February 2007, the commission found probable cause against Geno's for discrimination, alleging that the policy discourages customers of certain backgrounds from eating there. The case went to a public hearing, where an attorney for the commission argued that the sign was about intimidation, not political speech. The matter then went to the three-member panel for a ruling. W. Nick Taliaferro, the commission's executive director, said he would not appeal.

Source

Previous story from 2006 here



EU Rules: Violent criminal cannot be deported from Britain

A foreign criminal who attacked and robbed a pensioner cannot be deported because he is not considered dangerous enough, the Court of Appeal has ruled. The decision has rendered the Government virtually powerless to remove even the most vicious offenders if they come from within the European Union. Ministers wanted to remove the 38-year-old Italian, who lives in Newport, Gwent, at the end of a nine-year jail term imposed for violent robbery

But the Court of Appeal said there were no "imperative grounds of public security" to justify throwing him out. These were the grounds on which the Government failed last year to deport Learco Chindamo, the Italian-born killer of Philip Lawrence, the London head teacher. Under a directive, an EU national living in another member country for 10 years or more cannot be deported except under exceptional circumstances.

The criminal, whose identity was protected by the court, moved to Britain as a teenager and has five convictions. In October 2001 he was jailed for nine years for attacking and robbing a pensioner. A judge called the offence a "brutal, cowardly attack". Last year, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal ruled that the robber should be deported on grounds of "imperative" public policy, public security or public health. It said he was a "very dangerous man" who posed a "very high risk indeed" to the public. He was also "unwilling to accept any real responsibility for the injuries to his victim".

However, the appeal judge Lady Justice Arden concluded that the tribunal had made an "error of law" and had not distinguished between "serious" and "imperative" threats to public security. The case will now be sent back to the tribunal, which will have to judge whether the offender posed an "imperative" threat - something -lawyers say applies only to terrorists

Source





20 March, 2008

Reuters pushes the same old baloney

Reuters is a "news" organization that thinks that there is no such thing as terrorism and that Israel is always in the wrong so I guess the baloney below is to be expected. Fortunately, lots of Americans know from their own experience that heavily Hispanic areas of their cities are also high-crime areas. It's mostly because of the youth gangs formed by the children of the illegals (See here) but the end result is the same: Allowing illegals to settle leads to unsafe neighborhoods.

I reproduce the Reuters report in full below. The whole thing is just epidemiological speculation -- claiming that because two things happened at the same time then one caused the other. But a Harvard sociologist cannot of course be expected to know one of the most basic principles of statistics: That correlation is not causation. The claim that crime dropped because more illegals came in is just crazy

Contrary to common beliefs, rising immigration levels do not drive up crime rates, particularly in poor communities, and Mexican-Americans are the least likely to commit crimes, according to a new study. Robert Sampson, a sociologist at Harvard University who studied crime and immigration in 180 neighborhoods in Chicago over seven years, found that first-generation immigrants were 45 percent less likely to commit violent acts than third generation Americans. "Immigrants have lower rates of crime and there is a negative correlation between the trends," Sampson said in an interview.

The study, which is published Contexts, a journal of the American Sociological Association, showed that incentive to work, ambition and a desire not to be deported were common reasons cited for first generation immigrants, especially Mexicans, not to commit crimes.

Sampson also studied data from police records, the U.S Census and surveyed more than 8,000 Chicago residents. The study showed there was significant immigration growth, including illegal aliens-in the mid-1990s, peaking at the end of the decade. But during that time the national homicide rate plunged. [But was it due to illegals being law-abiding? Or was it due to more law-enforcement -- such as more bad guys being locked up for longer? Correlation is not causation] Crime also dropped in immigration hot spots [Dropped from what level? From very high to high?, such as Los Angeles, where it fell 45 percent overall, San Jose, Dallas and Phoenix.

Sampson argues that public perception drives a large part of the debate so its easy for politicians to blame illegal immigration for driving up the crime rate. Although it is difficult to point to any data to substantiate it, not many people question it. "There is a pretty powerful underlying current of belief in society that is pretty resistant, stubborn if you will to the facts," Sampson said.

Source



More Visas, More Jobs

There's no reason for America to keep out brainy people when it lets in so many dummies. It might help restore the average IQ

Bill Gates appeared before Congress again last week to make a simple point to simpler pols: The ridiculously low annual cap on H-1B visas for foreign professionals is undermining the ability of U.S. companies to compete in a global marketplace. Congress's failure to pass high-skill immigration reform has exacerbated an already grave situation," said the Microsoft chairman. "The current base cap of 65,000 H-1B visas is arbitrarily set and bears no relation to the U.S. economy's demand for skilled workers."

The Labor Department projects that by 2014 there will be more than two million job openings in science, technology, engineering and math fields. But the number of Americans graduating with degrees in those disciplines is falling. Meanwhile, visa quotas make it increasingly difficult for U.S. companies to hire foreign-born graduates of our own universities. Last year, as in prior years, the supply of H-1B visas was exhausted on the first day petitions could be filed.

"Today, knowledge and expertise are the essential raw materials that companies and countries need in order to be competitive," said Mr. Gates. "We live in an economy that depends on the ability of innovative companies to attract and retain the very best talent, regardless of nationality or citizenship."

Lest you think Microsoft and other companies are making this stuff up, we direct you to two recent studies published by the National Foundation for American Policy. The first, entitled "Talent Search," found that major U.S. technology companies average more than 470 job openings for skilled positions, while defense companies average more than 1,200 such openings. In all, more than 140,000 skilled job openings are available today in the S&P 500 companies.

The second study, "H-1B Visas and Job Creation," reports the results of a regression analysis of H-1B filings and employment at U.S. tech companies. The objective was to determine if hiring foreign nationals harms the job prospects of Americans -- a common claim of protectionists. In fact, the study found a positive association between H-1B visa requests and the percentage change in total employment.

Among S&P 500 firms, "the data show that for every H-1B position requested, U.S. technology companies increased employment by 5 workers," according to the study. And "for technology firms with fewer than 5,000 employees, each H-1B position requested in labor condition applications was associated with an increase of employment of 7.5 workers." Far from stealing jobs from Americans, skilled immigrants expand the economic pie.

Mr. Gates said his software company exemplifies this phenomenon. "Microsoft has found that for every H-1B hire we make, we add on average four additional employees to support them in various capacities," he told lawmakers. "If we increase the number of H-1B visas that are available to U.S. companies, employment of U.S. nationals would likely grow as well."

The preponderance of evidence continues to show that businesses are having difficulty filling skilled positions in the U.S. By blocking their access to foreign talent, Congress isn't protecting U.S. jobs but is providing incentives to outsource. If lawmakers can't bring themselves to eliminate the H-1B visa cap, they might at least raise it to a level that doesn't handicap U.S. companies.

Source





19 March, 2008

U.S. boosts deportation of illegals

But how many stay deported? Not many of the Mexicans. Some of them have been deported 7 times. To quote an old song: "Dere'a hole in da bucket, Dear Liza, Dear Liza". And you know the rest

Illegals awaited prosecution last month in the Val Verde Correctional Facility in Del Rio, Texas. Law enforcement has implemented Operation Streamline in select regions along the U.S.-Mexico border, removing 280,523 persons in 2007, but the program needs funding, detention space and manpower. The Department of Homeland Security, continuing to enforce what it calls a "strict policy of arresting, prosecuting and jailing" illegal immigrants, deported a record number of those caught on the nation's borders last year - more than 280,000 in fiscal year 2007 compared with 186,000 a year earlier. It was the largest number of illegals ever removed from the country in a single year.

The increase is attributable to what veteran law-enforcement authorities said is a revised apprehension process, adding that the department no longer is targeting only criminal illegals for removal, but seeks eventually to apprehend, charge and deport all those who cross illegally into the United States. To that end, Homeland Security has initiated "Operation Streamline" along some sectors of the U.S.-Mexico border, which brings illegal immigrants into the U.S. criminal justice system, where they are prosecuted either for a misdemeanor on their first offense or a felony if they have been caught before. "Under this program, individuals who are caught at certain designated high-traffic, high-risk zones are prosecuted and, if convicted, are jailed," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said at a recent press briefing.

Mr. Chertoff noted that between October and December, the Justice Department prosecuted 1,200 cases under the new program and, as a consequence, apprehension rates dropped nearly 70 percent in those areas. "When people who cross the border illegally are brought to face the reality that they are committing a crime, even if it is just a misdemeanor, that has a huge impact on their willingness to try again and on the willingness of others to break the law coming across the border," he said.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) spokeswoman Ernestine Fobbs said the agency's Office of Detention and Removal Operations deported to 195 countries a total of 280,523 illegal immigrants during fiscal 2007 - which ended Sept. 30.

More here



Evil British bureaucracy again

The wife of a soldier faces deportation as her husband prepares to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan. Canadian-born Samantha Crozier, 23, has been given notice by the Home Office to leave the country by April 30, when her temporary visa expires after her application for British citizenship was refused. Mrs Crozier, who has a British mother, Antoinette, claims their children, Ethan, two, and Celeb, one, will have to be put into care while her husband, Lance Corporal Andrew Crozier, is sent on a tour of duty after he completes training. Mrs Crozier says she has spoken to 15 other Army wives facing deportation.

Mrs Crozier moved to England with her husband, also 23, in October last year. She said MoD officials failed to tell her of the complicated procedure to become a British citizen. Ethan and Celeb, who were born while her husband was posted to Osnabruck, Germany, were awarded full British citizenship and Mrs Crozier applied for a Status Stamp at the British embassy in Dusseldorf. The stamp allowed her to stay in Germany at the UK base for five years. She was stopped at Newcastle ferry port by Customs and Excise and advised to apply for citizenship. She said she was told that because she her husband was born in Northumberland her application would be successful.

However, Mrs Crozier received a letter last month, the day after her birthday, from the Home Office rejecting her application. It read: "You have applied for leave to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of your marriage to Andrew Douglas Crozier. "However, the immigration rules direct that a person seeking such leave is to be refused if they do not meet the requirements set out in the immigration rules. "This includes that the applicant has limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom other than where that leave is of six months duration or less. On 30 October 2007 you were granted limited leave to enter as a visitor for a period of six months from 30 October 2007 until 30 April 2008 therefore you do not meet the requirements. "You are not entitled to appeal this decision."

Mrs Crozier, living in Bordon, near Petersfield, Hants, said: "We rang the MoD to tell them we were coming over and they gave us no advice other then to tell us to have a nice journey. "I think it is disgraceful. I came here to start a new life with my husband and my two wonderful little boys. My husband is very patriotic and would gladly fight for his country but it seems his country won't fight for him."

A Home Office spokesman said: "Overseas nationals wishing to come to the UK on the basis of marriage should apply for entry clearance from abroad. They will be given leave to enter the UK for two years, after which they can apply for settlement."

Source





18 March, 2008

Idaho Panel Rejects Immigration Bill

For the second time this year, Idaho lawmakers have killed a proposal that would have cracked down on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. The Senate State Affairs Committee rejected a bill Monday similar to one that died in the House State Affairs Committee earlier this month. The proposal would have required employers to verify workers' immigration status. Companies who failed to comply could have had their business licenses suspended or revoked. The measure was modeled on an Arizona law that has caused scores of immigrants to flee to other states or back to their homelands.

Sen. Mike Jorgenson, R-Hayden, told the committee that he didn't expect his bill to pass the Legislature. He said he introduced it as a way to start negotiations with employers to create a guest worker program. "I think it's sad commentary that the state's not even willing to look at this," Jorgenson told The Associated Press on Monday. "It's abundantly clear that there are interests in Idaho that don't have the drive to put these checks and balances in place."

Source



Temporary work permits for immigrants heavily sought in Australia

Computing professionals led the list of top 15 occupations for primary 457 visa grants in 2006-07, the Immigration Department said. Britain contributed the most workers in the past six months, followed by India

As the new temporary foreign workers change the face of Australia's workplaces, business groups last week called for an immediate boost to skills training positions and unions expressed concern that increasing reliance on developing-country workers risked lowering general wages.

Immigration Department figures obtained by The Weekend Australian provide a snapshot of temporary foreign workers brought into the country on skilled migrant visas, which allow the employees to stay for up to four years. The figures show the breadth of the skills crisis runs across the economy, as industries ranging from the healthcare sector to communications, mining and manufacturing import skilled workers to fill vacancies.

Workers from India, China and The Philippines are flooding into Australia's hospitals, factories and construction sites as employers increasingly look to developing countries to combat chronic skills shortages. In 2006-07, 46,680 temporary permits, known as 457 visas, were issued to foreign skilled workers. Health and community services accounted for 16 per cent of all 457 visas issued, communication services 10 per cent, property and business services 10 per cent, manufacturing 9 per cent and construction 9 per cent. Professionals exceed the number of other 457 classes, making up seven of the top 10 skills categories.

But as employers search for workers, Australia is increasingly turning to developing countries to fill its vacancies. Britain contributed the most workers in the past six months (6130), followed by India (3670), The Philippines (1870), China (1850) and the US (1570). British workers were most likely to work as doctors and nurses or in the property and business service sector. Americans were concentrated in communications.

But the use of Chinese workers grew rapidly, particularly in manufacturing. Indian workers were concentrated in communications and health, while workers from The Philippines were imported for building sites and manufacturing.

The rate at which the visas are issued continues to grow. While 46,680 visas were issued in the 12 months to June 30 last year, 25,750 were issued in the six months to the end of December - a 10 per cent increase on current trends. While the resource-rich states of Western Australia and Queensland have been driving the so-called "two-speed" economy, the slower growth states of NSW and Victoria took the greatest numbers of 457 visa holders.

The chief executive of the Australian Industry Group, Heather Ridout, said the 457 program had grown quickly and business had become "dependent on it". "But the economy is also very dependent on it and we're going to be very dependent on it if we want to keep the economy growing," she said.

The director of the Centre for Population and Urban Research at Monash University, Bob Birrell, said the most striking trend was the high take-up rate among citizens from the developing world. "In the six months since the end of the financial year, China has overtaken the US. That's a pretty good indication of where the program is going," he said. "Five or six years ago, that was not the case."

Source





17 March, 2008

More on immigrant crime

The writer below makes several good points. One is the great dishonesty of Leftist propaganda about immigrant crime. The Leftists in their statistics lump together both legal and illegal immigrants -- which are two very different populations. So the Leftist figures tell us nothing about the population of interest: illegals.

Probably wisely, he also fails to note that the level of native-born criminality is hugely inflated by the presence of blacks. Does anybody want to use blacks as an example of a law-abiding population? Obviously not. So the informative comparison would be with whites only. Leftists would shriek "racism" at that but screeching does not alter the facts.

Another point he may simply be unaware of is that the biggest problem with crime from illegals is not what they do themselves but what their children do. Illegals are usually too busy working to commit crimes but that is not true of their children. The children of illegals are much more likely than their parents to get involved in crime. Mexican-origin kids are EIGHT TIMES more likely than their parents to get locked up

Do illegal immigrants commit more than their share of crimes? According to a recent study that's been in the news, the answer is no. But if you look at crime statistics in Orange County, the answer can just as easily be yes.

For the sake of argument, let's dispense with the fact that every illegal immigrant in this country is, by definition, violating the law. Let's also set aside the fact that millions of illegal immigrants use fraudulent Social Security numbers to get work, which is also a crime. Instead, let's concentrate on crimes committed by U.S. citizens or legal residents and illegal immigrants alike - everything from murder to DUI to shoplifting.

The study mentioned above was published by the liberal Public Policy Institute of California. One of its seemingly startling conclusions is that U.S.-born men are statistically more than twice as likely to be incarcerated in prison as "foreign-born men" are - thus "proving" that immigrants are actually more law-abiding than non-immigrant U.S. citizens.

And that may be true when you're talking about "immigrants" in general, a vast population that includes everyone from World War II British war brides to Chinese-born math professors to illegal immigrant farm workers.

But the problem with the study - a problem that's common among pro-illegal immigration activists - is that it made no distinction between legal "foreign-born" residents and illegal immigrants. No one I know has ever suggested rounding up legal foreign-born citizens and residents and deporting them. The issue is people who are in this country illegally. So how do illegal immigrants - again, emphasis on "illegal" - stack up on crime? Let's look at some numbers in Orange County.

For more than a year the Orange County Sheriff's Department has had specially-trained deputies screening county jail inmates for immigration status. Arrestees who are determined to be in this country illegally are detained and turned over to federal immigration authorities after their criminal cases are resolved.

Out of about 68,000 arrestees who were screened between Jan. 2007 and January of this year, 4,683 were found to be illegal immigrants, or about 7 percent of all screened arrestees. (About 3,000 of them had been arrested for non-immigration-related felonies, the rest for non-immigration misdemeanors.)

That 7 percent figure would seem to be in line with the overall population of illegal immigrants in the county. Of course, that population is hard to document - pardon the pun - but a 2007 report by the Urban Institute put the number of illegal immigrants in Orange County at about 220,000, or about 7 percent of the county population. In other words, 7 percent of the population accounted for 7 percent of the people booked into the county jail system - which would mean that illegal immigrants are statistically no more or less likely to wind up in our county jail than citizens or legal residents.

But wait! Of the 4,683 illegal immigrants found in the jail, only a statistically insignificant 169 of them were women. So if you subtract the women from the illegal immigrant population, and you also subtract the estimated 16 percent who are children, it means that - hold on, let me consult my calculator here - it means that male illegal immigrants are arrested for crimes at a rate more than twice their percentage of the overall population.

So if we're concerned about crimes committed by illegal immigrants, the answer is obvious: Keep the women and deport the men. Now, I'm being somewhat facetious here. The truth is that anyone can massage crime and immigration statistics to arrive at any desired conclusion.

But the question is, so what? What difference does it really make if illegal immigrants commit less or more of their "fair share" of street crimes? They're still breaking the law, and they're still creating an impoverished and widely abused and exploited underclass - and somehow that has to be resolved.

Meanwhile, the fact remains that because of stricter immigration enforcement, thousands of accused felons in the Orange County jail - not to mention more than 19,000 convicted non-citizen felons currently serving time in California state prisons - either have been deported or are facing deportation when the criminal legal system is done with them. And would anybody argue that this country isn't better off without them?

So be wary of researchers and advocates - and to be fair, newspaper writers - who toss statistics around to obscure the real issues. Because the old saying is true. Sometimes figures lie. And liars can certainly figure.

Source



U.S. tries to shut revolving door of illegal reentry

The effort includes combing California prisons and jails for illegal immigrants who have previously been deported.

Federal authorities are cracking down on immigrants who were previously deported and then reentered the country illegally -- a crime that now makes up more than one-third of all prosecutions in Los Angeles and surrounding counties, a Times review of U.S. attorney's statistics shows. The surge in prosecutions reflects the federal government's push in recent years to detect illegal immigrants with criminal records in what may seem the most obvious of places: the state's jails and prisons.

Immigration authorities have long combed inmate populations for illegal immigrants, but additional money and cooperation with local law enforcement have fueled an increase in such cases by the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles. The illegal reentry charge is the single most prosecuted crime in the office. Prosecutors filed 539 such cases in fiscal year 2007, making up 35% of the caseload, compared with 207 in 2006 -- 17% of all cases. Statistics for the first four months of this fiscal year show the trend continuing.

Federal authorities touted the recent effort, saying the prosecutions serve as a deterrent for those who see the border as a turnstile. They said they were targeting violent gang members, career criminals and drug dealers who have returned to the country after being deported -- many of them repeatedly. "They are some of the worst of the worst," said Julie L. Myers, assistant secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Washington. "They are people that citizens of any community would want off the streets."

"I just wish that were true," said Jerry Salseda, a deputy federal public defender who has represented scores of illegal immigrants charged with reentering the country after having been deported. He and other critics say people who committed minor crimes years ago have been caught up in the wave of prosecutions.

Bruce J. Einhorn, a former immigration court judge, said the U.S. attorney's office should spend more resources going after smugglers rather than illegal crossers. "That would do more to stop dangerous illegal immigration than by prosecuting a few more undocumented people who have reentered illegally," he said. Einhorn also questioned the efficacy of the prosecutions, because people's motivations to return -- reuniting with small children and escaping poverty -- often outweigh time behind bars.

In years past, many of those now being prosecuted for illegal reentry would have simply been deported. Now they are being sent to prison first. Sentences can be as long as 20 years, but most defendants receive three to five years, prosecutors said.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials in Los Angeles are largely responsible for the recent spike in prosecutions. In 2006, they created a nine-person team to scrutinize inmate populations for potential prosecution. ICE officials also placed an officer in the U.S. attorney's office to serve as a liaison with immigration officials on these cases. In addition, ICE agents look for possible defendants -- primarily gang members -- in communities around Southern California.

Prosecutions are likely to continue increasing nationwide as ICE expands its work in jails. Congress recently appropriated $200 million for the agency, which Myers said would be used to develop technology and to work with local and state officials to identify more illegal immigrants behind bars.

The effort in Los Angeles was recently cited by U.S. Atty. Gen. Michael Mukasey, who said Justice Department officials were reviewing it "with an eye toward expanding it to the Southwest border districts" and elsewhere.

Thom Mrozek, spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles, said the cases make up a large percentage of the overall number prosecuted by the office, but they do not represent an undue drain on resources or hinder other types of prosecutions. That's because the reentry cases are easy to prove, he said, rarely go to trial and don't require much time. To win a conviction, prosecutors need to prove three things: that the defendant is in the United States, that he or she is not legally permitted to be here and that the person had been formally deported in the past.

A side benefit of such easy-to-prove cases is that they can be made when there isn't enough evidence to convict illegal immigrants on other charges, said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates tighter enforcement of immigration laws. It's the same idea as when "you send Al Capone to jail for not paying his taxes," he said.

Curtis Kin, chief of the Domestic Security and Immigration Crimes Section of the U.S. attorney's office, which was created in 2006 in part to prosecute illegal reentry cases, chafed at the notion that most defendants are sympathetic. "The people we go after are demonstrated threats," he said. "The No. 1 reason to do this is to protect the community."

Source





16 March, 2008

New Zealand immigration bureaucracy pretty poisonous too

You can understand them getting things wrong but why do they have to stick to their guns until the bitter end? Why can't they look again when challenged? But bureaucracies often do refuse to consider that they may have got it wrong. They are so in love with their own wisdom and power

The Department of Labour has been ordered to pay $66,000 in costs to a Chinese immigrant after a judge ruled it had a blinkered approach in deciding her application. Xiufang Xi applied under the business investor category, but immigration officers told her they were not convinced the $1 million she had to transfer into a New Zealand bank as part of her application was from her own account in China.

Justice Simon France upheld her appeal against the Residence Review Board having declined her challenge to the Immigration Service decision. He said the plaintiff satisfied the immigration criteria and the department's failure to reach the same conclusion was due to a blinkered approach

Source



The Canadian version of a crackdown

The federal government has proposed sweeping changes to Canada's immigration policies that would give it greater selection powers to limit the number of new applicants. The proposed changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which the government says are aimed at reducing backlogs of immigration applications, are embedded in a 136-page budget-implementation bill tabled Friday in the House of Commons. The budget-implementation bill is a confidence motion. More than 800,000 prospective immigrants are on waiting lists. The changes would:

* Give the immigration minister the authority to instruct immigration officers to set limits on what types of immigrants - "by category or otherwise" - can have their applications processed each year.

* Require an otherwise ineligible person who wants to immigrate on humanitarian grounds to already be in Canada for their application to be processed.

Citizenship and Immigration Minister Diane Finley said the government was acting to clear up the backlog left by the previous Liberal government, which she said had allowed the list to grow more than 15-fold since 1993. The legislation merely gives the government power to set priorities and speed things up for the skilled workers this country needs, she said, and added that any future policy changes will be transparent and announced in Parliament. "My priority right now is to get the legislation through first," Finley said in an interview with the Canadian Press on Friday.

Finley said it takes three to six years for someone to even get an application looked at - let alone processed. But she declined to speculate about which immigration categories could be banished to the lower rungs of the priority list.

Opposition parties immediately accused the Tories of trying to shut the door on immigration at a time when Canada's labour force needs a boost in numbers. Liberal MP David McGuinty said the government was reverting to failed closed-door policies similar to "short-sighted and misguided" measures introduced and then promptly abandoned by former Tory prime minister John Diefenbaker in 1959. "Why does the minister insist on closing Canada's doors to the newcomers we desperately need to fuel our labour and our population growth, even though history shows this is absolutely the wrong approach?" McGuinty asked in the House Friday.

NDP MP Olivia Chow said Canada needs to increase the target number of immigrants into the country to one per cent of the population - or 330,000 people - in order to renew the country's workforce and drive its economy. "Instead of allowing families into Canada, the Conservative government seems intent only to bring in massive numbers of temporary foreign workers who are vulnerable to mistreatment and abuse," added Chow, who is her party's immigration critic.

The proposals were tabled on the same day as the federal government announced that more than 400,000 newcomers came to Canada last year, setting a record for the number of temporary and permanent residents allowed into the country. Citizenship and Immigration Canada said that - according to preliminary data - in 2007 Canada admitted 429,649 permanent residents, temporary foreign workers and foreign students. The department said this number represents an increase of 60,000 from four years ago. Of the 2007 total, 251,000 permanent resident visas were issued, the department said.

But opposition members have dismissed the figures as being artificially inflated by the number of temporary residents, which includes students and seasonal workers. They also noted that more permanent residents - 262,000 - came in 2005.

Source





15 March, 2008

Canada: Fixing the Liberals' immigration mess

There are credible arguments that Canada needs a great deal more immigration than it allows now in order to secure its future prosperity. And there are credible arguments that Canada could do with a lot less. An honest person can defend either position. But here's one that can't be defended: that Canada should accept far more immigration applications than it ever intends to process. For two decades or more, the backlog of immigration paperwork has been growing, and waiting times for acceptance lengthening, without any serious attempt to shrink the gap. The Conservative government now finally intends to do something about it, while continuing to keep overall immigration at or above current levels. And the Liberals, who are mostly responsible for creating the problem, are not happy.

Family-class immigration may be the closest thing to a core principle that the Liberal Party of Canada possesses. It is universally acknowledged that the long chains of humanity that the family reunification regulations pull into Canada, free from official-language requirements and completely outside the points system imposed on economic-class immigrants, are a key to guaranteeing both the continued growth of the party's voter base and the loyalty of existing supporters who hope to transplant networks. The Liberals fear that any cap on applications will end up being applied more firmly to the family class, since the Conservatives are openly seeking to make immigration conform better to the labour market needs of Canada. It is hard to blame them, given their interests, for being afraid -- assuming their interests don't include what is actually best for the country.

That includes recent immigrants and low-skill Canadian workers, who face the toughest wage pressures from continuing mass immigration. In recent years it has become clear that the Liberal bargain with new Canadians has had a diabolical quality: they are let in the door, and no one warns them about the millions who will storm through it behind them, competing for the same work. In 1980, according to census figures, Canadian immigrants who had been in the country for 10 years enjoyed full wage parity with the Canadian-born. The same measurement in 1990 showed that they were earning 90% as much as natives. In the year 2000 it was 80%.

The math is easy to do, it's fixing the problem that requires some mettle. The Conservatives have pumped large amounts of money into helping immigrants use their professional and technical credentials here, recruiting foreign graduates of Canadian post-secondary schools, and building a better infrastructure for official-language education.

But what we get from the Liberals are the same platitudes we have been hearing for generations: complaints of veiled racism, and phony appeals to the mass immigration of a bygone age when unskilled labourers could homestead unbroken land or make a living supplying muscle power to technologically backward industries.

Liberal immigration critic Maurizio Bevilacqua had the chutzpah to say yesterday that "family reunification attracts many skilled workers to come here." The skilled workers we need are, practically by definition, in the economic category -- and their wives and children are officially counted in it, too. Mr. Bevilacqua presumably means to say that some of the best and brightest are attracted to Canada because of the chance that family reunification offers them to bring their parents, grandparents and dependent relatives here in the future.

If so -- and it is probably true -- then those newcomers might not offer such a good deal to a generous welfare state that will allow their older family members full eligibility for Canadian social benefits, old-age support and health care without contributing a lifetime of taxes to the treasury. And there is evidence that the sponsorship arrangements under which family-class immigrants come to Canada often fail, leaving provincial treasuries on the hook for heavy social service obligations. Maybe the Conservatives do intend to discriminate in favour of the immigrants more interested in founding new Canadian families than airlifting their existing ones here. And maybe it's about time

Source



Self deportation working in DC suburb

Months after Prince William County began one of the country's toughest crackdowns on illegal immigrants, officials and residents report signs that substantial numbers of people have left the county, particularly from Hispanic neighborhoods.

Dave Whitlow, town manager of Dumfries, said officials started noticing the change a few months ago when they canvassed communities popular among Hispanic families and found roughly 165 residences vacant among 1,600 houses and town houses. Shopkeepers and teachers of English as a second language also have noticed a drop-off. "We are having many more leaving," said Mr. Whitlow, who could not estimate what percentage of those leaving were in the United States illegally. "It's been just in the past few months."

In July, the Board of County Supervisors unanimously agreed to have the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) train six police officers and one resident for a Criminal Alien Unit.

The detail began enforcement March 1 and is assisting officers who find probable cause that a suspect in a crime is in the country illegally. Before then, officers were not authorized to make arrests for illegal immigrationIllegal-Immigration-Ruling Dec-07 .

Board Chairman Corey A. Stewart said this week he was not surprised about signs that illegal immigrants were leaving. "There's no question the police have had the effect," said Mr. Stewart, a Republican who is planning to run for lieutenant governor.

This is another demonstration of the effect of self deportation and the wrong headedness of people like Barack ObamaClinton-and-Obama-Economic-Plans Mar-08 who claim that people who support tough immigration enforcement want to round up everyone and deport them. If we enforce the laws they will do it themselves saving them and the government money. Obama is using a straw man argument to support a position that would encourage more illegal conduct. He would be offering incentives for people to come here while ignoring the path to citizenship that already exist in the law.

Source





14 March, 2008

The disgraceful ICE bureaucracy again

Pennypinching costs a man's life. An SCC is perfectly treatable if treated early

In a stinging ruling, a Los Angeles federal judge said immigration officials' alleged decision to withhold a critical medical test and other treatment from a detainee who later died of cancer was "beyond cruel and unusual" punishment. The decision from U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson allows the family of Francisco Castaneda to seek financial damages from the government.

Castaneda, who suffered from penile cancer, died Feb. 16. Before his release from custody last year, the government had refused for 11 months to authorize a biopsy for a growing lesion, even though voluminous government records showed that several doctors said the test was urgently needed, given Castaneda's condition and a family history of cancer, Pregerson said.

But rather than test and treat Castaneda, government officials told him to be patient and prescribed antihistamines, ibuprofen and extra boxer shorts, the judge wrote in a decision released late Tuesday. In summary, the judge wrote, the care provided to Castaneda "can be characterized by one word: nothing."

Pregerson blasted public health officials' "attempt to sidestep responsibility for what appears to be . . . one of the most, if not the most, egregious" violations of the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment that "the court has ever encountered."

At this stage of the proceedings, "the only question is whether" the plaintiffs' allegations, if true, show that government officials "were deliberately indifferent to his condition. The court finds that they do," Pregerson said. "Everyone knows that cancer is often deadly. Everyone knows that early diagnosis and treatment often saves lives," the judge wrote. The government's own records, he emphasized, "bespeak of conduct that transcends negligence by miles. It bespeaks of conduct that, if true, should be taught to every law student as conduct for which the moniker 'cruel' is inadequate," Pregerson concluded in permitting the case to move forward.

Conal Doyle, an Oakland attorney who is co-counsel for Castaneda's family members, said the Salvadoran immigrant spent eight months in custody on a charge of possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell, then was transferred to immigration custody because he did not have legal residency. He first informed the Immigration and Customs Enforcement medical staff at the San Diego Correctional Facility on March 27, 2006, that "a lesion on his penis was becoming painful and growing," the judge wrote. The next day, a physician assistant at the facility examined Castaneda and issued a treatment plan calling for a consultation with a urologist "ASAP" and a request for a biopsy, according to government records cited by the judge.

Over the next 11 months, several doctors, with increasing urgency, made the same recommendations. For example, after conducting an examination June 7, 2006, Dr. John Wilkinson, an oncologist, wrote a report saying he strongly agreed that Castaneda had an urgent need for a biopsy and an assessment by a urologist because he might have "penile cancer. . . . In this extremely delicate area . . . there can be considerable morbidity from even benign lesions which are not promptly treated."

That same day, Pregerson said, Dr. Esther Hui of the Division of Immigration Health Services acknowledged Castaneda's condition but said the government would not admit him to a hospital because her agency considered a biopsy "an elective outpatient procedure."

Pregerson, who became a federal judge in 1996, said evidence presented by the plaintiffs suggested that Hui, one of the defendants, characterized the surgery as elective so the federal government would not to have to provide or pay for it.

In February 2007, after the American Civil Liberties Union intervened, a biopsy was finally scheduled. A few days before the procedure, however, Castaneda was abruptly released, the judge wrote. He went to the emergency room of Harbor-UCLA Medical Center and was diagnosed with metastatic squamous cell carcinoma. His penis was eventually amputated, and chemotherapy ultimately proved unsuccessful.

Four months before he died, Castaneda testified at a hearing held by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law, as his teenage daughter listened. "Mr. Castaneda's case was just outrageous," Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose), chairwoman of the subcommittee, said in an interview Tuesday. Lofgren said one of the things she found most troubling was that "bureaucrats" at Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Washington have the power to overrule recommendations of doctors who have actually seen the medical problems of detainees. "That is a recipe for disaster," she said.

Doyle said Castaneda's death "would have been prevented by the exercise of basic human decency."

Source<