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.
****************************************************************************************



21 May, 2007

Motivations behind the current U.S. immigration bill

Post lifted from Hugh Hewitt. See the original for links



The image you see above is of the still-not-completely-written immigration bill that Senators Kennedy and McCain rushed out to embrace yesterday. Next to it is the Holy Bible. That should give you some idea of the bill's scope and whether or not our Senators have actually read it.

I was talking to my mother earlier today, and she admitted to being perplexed regarding this immigration imbroglio. She understood why the Republicans were folding like a cheap suit - that's just what they do, sort of the way barking ferociously at the pizza boy is just what my otherwise adorable Cairn terrier does. But what was driving the Democratic Party? I told her to follow the votes.

It's always the same with the 21st century Democratic Party. I really believe it's true when I write that Markos Moulitsas is the ideological standard-bearer for the modern Democrats. It's therefore no small irony that in his book, Markos (along with Jerome Armstrong) candidly admitted to having no defined political ideology. Indeed, a linchpin of their plan for future Democratic dominance was to form the Democratic equivalents of the Hoover Institute to tell the Democrats what to think.

In the absence of any present guiding ideology, Democrats have latched on to what Markos calls "winnerism." They play the game to win elections. And what's the game? Everything, including the most important things like Iraq and the war on terror.

So again, to understand what's happening here, follow the votes. There are 12 million illegal immigrants in this country. Most of them are poor, most of them are people of color. In other words, they are the kind of people who, demographically speaking, predominantly vote for Democrats.

Right now, of course, they don't vote at all. That's part of the problem with being an illegal immigrant. You can't do neat things like vote or demand things from the government. But, if by some miraculous stroke of legislative fiat, they were able to cast votes, the Democrats have every reason to believe that most of those votes would wind up in their column.

Are Democrats bothered by the "illegal" part of illegal immigrants? You'd have to say no. This is the third time around the block where Ted Kennedy is spearheading an amnesty to cure our immigration woes. Since no one has made a convincing case to me how 370 miles of border fence will staunch the future flow of illegals, Teddy may be able to go for four if his liver holds outs. (Allah, in probably the best blog post of the year, has much more on this topic. I borrowed the Teddy joke from him, improving it slightly.)

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE REPUBLICANS? What are they thinking? I've got to be honest with you - this is a tougher nut to crack. I know everyone views everything Hugh and I say about John McCain through the prism of presidential politics. But both of us, Hugh especially, were harsh McCain critics long before Mitt Romney was even a glimmer in Iowa's eye.

Thus, wary of the audience's jaundiced views, I will tread carefully in analyzing the Arizona maverick. In private communications the past couple of months, I've offered a unifying theory of all things McCain with a few correspondents. Now, I will spring it on the world. McCain responds to all issues viscerally rather than intellectually. For instance, McCain/Feingold was a viscerally satisfying effort to drive money out of politics.

But because McCain doesn't make any cerebral efforts to complement his visceral ones, most of his initiatives are misguided. To return to McCain/Feingold, if its authors had bothered to ponder the matter, they would have realized that money will inevitably find politics the way Ted Kennedy will inevitably find a bar. It's literally a force of nature that when something means so much to so many people as our politics do, the interested parties will find a way to express themselves.

I think McCain's reaction to the situation with the 12 million illegals in the country is from the same school of non-thought. Yes, it's unsatisfying to have so many people living lives in a state of endless limbo. And closure would be nice. But McCain's pursuit of closure seems to preclude any thoughtful look at the consequences beyond the warm feelings that will sweep over Congress on the day our Solons pass the measure that they haven't even read.

As for the rest of the Republicans, I'm at a loss. My only explanation is they thought the media's approbation would make up for whatever anger they caused within their base. Boy, did they blow that one. That's bubble thinking for you. It's entirely possible that the Republican Party doesn't know how serious its base is about Border Security. Speaking from personal experience, I didn't know how much this issue meant to so many people until I began writing for this blog and getting 300 emails a day from members of that base.

But here's the good news. Thanks to the internet-led hue and cry that's come forth, I agree with the guy from NZ Bear: This bill is going nowhere fast. Even the most hide-bound Democrat (Hint: rhymes with "Schmarry Schmeid") today realizes that immigration "reform" without real border security is a remarkably unpopular idea. And the Democrats' would-be Republican enablers understand that any Republican who affixes his name to this bill, even a guy like John Kyl who we all love, would forever tarnish his image by doing so. If you out there in Blogistan keep the pressure up, this bill will likely die the gruesome death that it so richly deserves. It's up to you.

Source



The "Highly Skilled" fraud

Summary

Technology sector employers, who represent the largest share of H-1B visa users, tell the public that the H-1B program is vital to their ability to find the highly skilled workers they need. Yet Department of Labor data tell a different story. Previous studies have found that the H-1B program is primarily used to import low-wage workers.1 This report examines the most recently available wage data on the H-1B program and finds that the trend of low prevailing wage claims and low wages continues. In addition, while industry spokesmen say these workers bring needed skills to our economy, on the H-1B Labor Condition Applications (LCAs) filed with the Department of Labor, employers classify most of their H-1B workers as being relatively low-skilled for the jobs they are filling. This report compares prevailing wage claims and wages employers reported for H-1B workers in computer programming occupations in FY 2005 to wages for U.S. workers in the same occupation. Although the H-1B program stipulates that employers must pay H-1B workers at least the prevailing wage for their occupation and location, the results of this report clearly demonstrate that the regulation does not produce that result. The findings in this report clearly demonstrate that the legal definition of the prevailing wage requirement does not ensure H-1B workers are paid the actual market prevailing wage. Employer prevailing wage claims and reported wages for H-1B workers are significantly less than those for U.S. workers in the same occupation and location. This suggests that, regardless of the program's original intent, the H-1B program now operates mainly to supply U.S. employers with cheap workers, rather than with essential skilled workers.

Key Findings

* Very few H-1B workers are "highly-skilled." Employers who used the Department of Labor's skill-based prevailing wage system classified most workers (56 percent) as being at the lowest skill level (Level I) as did most State Employment Security Agency (SESA) wage determinations (57 percent). This suggests that most H-1B computer workers are low-skilled workers who make no special contribution to the American economy, or that employers are deliberately understating workers' skills in order to justify paying them lower salaries.

* According to the applications filed in 2005, it appears that employers may be significantly understating what U.S. computer workers are earning in order to justify paying low wages to H-1B guestworkers in those occupations. In FY 2005, H-1B employer prevailing wage claims averaged $16,000 below the median wage for U.S. computer workers in the same location and occupation.

* 90 percent of H-1B employer prevailing wage claims for programming occupations were below the median U.S. wage for the same occupation and location, with 62 percent of the wage claims in the bottom 25th percentile of U.S. wages.

* While higher than the prevailing wage claims, the actual wages reported for H-1B workers were significantly less than those of their American counterparts. Wages for H-1B workers averaged $12,000 below the median wage for U.S. workers in the same occupation and location.

* The reported wages for 84 percent of H-1B workers were below the median U.S. wage; 51 percent were in the bottom 25th percentile of U.S. wages.

* Many employers make prevailing wage claims using wage sources that are not valid under the law. The Department of Labor routinely approves prevailing wage claims based on these invalid sources.

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to examine the effectiveness of the prevailing wage requirements in the H-1B program and to determine whether there is a difference between wages for H-1B workers in computer programming fields and wages for U.S. workers in the same fields. This report uses the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) as the measurement of U.S. wages and the H-1B Labor Condition Application disclosure data to measure H-1B wages.

This report updates a December 2005 Backgrounder, "The Bottom of the Pay Scale: Wages for H-1B Computer Programmers."2 The previous report examined Labor Condition Applications filed in FY 2004. The procedures used in this report are nearly identical to those used in its predecessor.

There were three reasons for producing a new report based on the same type of data. First, this new report confirms that the results from 2004 were not a fluke. Repeating the same measurement on the subsequent year's data produced nearly identical results. Another reason for a new report is that new data became available. Last year, for the first time, the Department of Labor made available the skill-based wage data. This makes it possible to examine how employers classify the skills of the H-1B workers they are seeking. Finally, a second look allowed investigation in more detail on exactly how employers produce the extremely low prevailing wage claims.

More here



The current British immigration scene

"The people here are wonderful," says Jenny Sturgeon, a white Englishwoman who has lived in Slough for 30 years. "And the ethnic mix is wonderful. It's how the country should be. But we get a huge number of people coming in from all ethnic groups. A shortage of money can lead to tensions. The government has a lot to answer for." The town of Slough, which lies outside the M25 near Heathrow, has the greatest ethnic mix in the UK outside London. By comparison, even Leicester and Coventry seem blandly uniform.

Take Malinka, a Polish deli near the library. The large majority of shoppers are Polish but nonPoles go there too. One who enters to buy sausages while I'm there is Stephen Cordeiro, a Portuguese-Asian who was born in Kenya. And I notice that in the deli's window, among the job ads in Polish for nannies, waiting staff and handymen, that there's a card written in English, offering the services of an "African hair stylist".

Surveys carried out by the council show that a quarter of the town's businesses with more than 10 employees use the new migrant workforce because - businesses reported - they brought higher productivity and a better work ethic than indigenous workers. But inevitably there are tensions. One Polish woman, Aneta Kania, says she had never seen such diversity till she came to Slough. "I was very shocked by the mix. At first I thought it was a bit scary." Another Polish woman, an economist by training, told me darkly that she had recently been working in retail "for an Indian" but had stopped doing so "because they don't respect you".

A Sikh with a strong Indian accent lent credence to what that Polish woman said when he told me "there are too many immigrants in Slough". Polish drivers with no car insurance jump red lights, he muttered. And last week he'd been bothered by Bulgarians ringing his doorbell to beg for money.

Ted Cantle, who conducted the official inquiry into the cause of riots in Bradford, Burnley and Oldham in 2001, believes that migration to the UK can bring real benefits. "But building cohesive communities to harness the benefits long term takes resources. "It is important that councils like Slough are funded correctly for their population size and complexity to make sure they continue community cohesion work," he says. "Com-munity tensions are sometimes caused by the perception of competition between groups over resources and councils have to be able to demonstrate this is not the case."

Perhaps with that in mind, Slough last week formally protested to the Treasury that it had been severely underfunded because government statistics underestimated the number of immigrants coming to the town. Richard Stokes, leader of the council, describes official statistics as "not fit for purpose". "Estimates have failed to keep pace with what is happening on the ground and public services are suffering as a consequence," he says. "The migrants that come to Slough are hard-working and bring great benefit to the local economy but the council remains severely underfunded because of these poor statistics."

Andrew Blake-Herbert, Slough's strategic director for finance and property, says the council faces a 15m pound shortfall. It has managed not to cut crucial services but cannot make necessary improvements in areas such as children's services and recycling.

According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), Slough experienced the ninth-fastest population increase of any local authority in the country between 1991 and 2001. But since then, the ONS contends, the town's population has declined by 3.3%, to a total of 117,600. Slough's own data suggests the total is nearer 130,000. To support that figure, the council puts forward an impressive array of evidence. It points to substantial increases in new housing, the rapid rise in house prices, the increasing numbers of households from which the council tax is collected, the high fertility rate among women in Slough (66 births per 1,000 women, compared with 54 in the country as a whole) and even a substantial increase in the amount of sewage flowing out of town.

Visiting Slough last week, I found plenty more evidence that the migrant population is getting bigger. I talked to officials, business figures, and residents from across the entire community - pale-skinned and dark, European, African and Asian. To start, I visited the busy road near Slough's massive trading estate - the largest in Europe - where coaches from Poland stop illegally to disgorge new arrivals. And I talked to a resident who watches that happen twice a day, sometimes more.

Tadeusz Chruscik is Polish but he's been living here since 1942, having served in the Polish Air Force. (Some 130,000 Poles settled in Britain during and after the war.) He says he's met some people who get off the coach without the slightest idea where to go, having got on after having too much to drink.

The sheer numbers arriving here simply can't be housed properly. The council is paid by central government to ensure that three-storey houses are not overcrowded but lacks the funds to check buildings with only two storeys. As a result, many migrants endure dangerously crowded conditions. Colin Rodgers, manager of the estate agency B Simmons & Son, says: "I've seen places where there are three beds in the lounge and three in the dining room. " I've also heard stories, from quite believable sources, about people using those beds in shifts."

Property, it hardly needs adding, has become unaffordable to many people. Baber Zafar is 21 and has lived in Slough all his life. In the town square, Zafar says immigrants have put so much pressure on house prices that he is moving to Spain. By a grim irony, the rising property market recently resulted in the closure of Slough's immigration counselling centre. It has now moved to Southall, west London, explains one of the counsellors, Qazi Anisud-din, because rising rents in Slough made the old premises unaffordable.

Of course, the borough council does what it can. In fact, it does more than most. In the past 18 months it has placed in schools some 900 children who arrived in Slough from overseas. In other towns, they might have had to wait weeks or months to be placed, but Slough established a special assessment centre to speed the process. But it's slow work: the centre can take only eight children a week. Last year two primary schools accepted 50 Polish children and 60 Somalis in just one term.

Not everyone welcomes the flood of pupils for whom spoken English is not easy. Aneta Kania sends her daughter to St Anthony's Roman Catholic school but says there are so many other Polish children there that seven-year-old Paulina is making slow progress in English. (Kania has poor English herself. Though trained as a nurse, she's obliged to work as a cleaner until her language skills improve. What with bringing up a child on her own, and her job, she finds it hard to fit in the lessons.) Another pioneering service set up by Slough council is devoted to dealing with Roma migrants who have been arriving by the hundreds since Romania joined the European Union in January.

Eighty-eight unaccompanied Roma children have asked for support from the town's children's services. Six have babies of their own, and seven are pregnant. To deal with these Roma children, Slough has set up a specialist team, at a cost of œ150,000 since January.

Fiona Mactaggart, Slough's MP and a former minister in the Home Office, says the flawed calculations "will not do". And the ONS itself recognises the shortcomings of its statistics. Karen Dunnell, the national statistician, wrote in May 2006: "There is now a broad recognition that available estimates of migrant numbers are inadequate for managing the economy, policies and services." Even the Poles don't relish the arrival of yet more Poles. Kania, the nurse who came to Slough just 18 months ago, says she dreads June, July and August because that's when Polish students come here for summer jobs. "There are too many people in Slough already," she says.

The legal tangle

Some days ago a newspaper published a photograph of 21 members of a Roma family. Apparently there are another 80, all relatives and all newly arrived since Romania joined the EU in January. A social worker in Slough explained she had nine teenage Roma girls, several of whom were pregnant, in her care. In theory, Romanians and Bulgarians are subject to a special regime for a transitional period of up to seven years. They can only come here to work legally if they are highly skilled, have been granted a work permit or come under a special quota for temporary agricultural workers. But there are no checks on the borders. They only have to show a valid ID card and walk in and they are entitled to stay as visitors for up to three months.

Back to our pregnant teenagers. Why can they not be sent home? The answer lies in a tangled web of legal obligations. Successive children acts have placed an obligation on local authorities to care for children in need. The Race Relations Act 1976 makes it unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of race or nationality; foreign children have to be treated as British. As for access to the NHS, pregnancy is regarded (rightly) as a medical emergency so treatment is automatic.

On top of that, the Free Movement Directive which came into force last year severely restricts the government's ability to expel EU nationals even if they have committed a crime. In expanding the EU to countries which are far poorer than our own, we have stumbled into a potential crisis. The free movement of labour has set in hand movements of workers to Britain on a greater scale than anticipated. At the same time "harmonisation" of social security has placed obligations on EU governments to provide benefits in the richer countries that greatly exceed wages in the poorer ones.

Source





20 May, 2007

US opens door to millions of Muslims

Post below from The American Thinker -- which see for links

The proposed immigration deal will throw open our doors to increased immigration from Muslim lands, not just Mexico. From the US State Department website:

"The fourth and most recent wave of Muslim immigration (into the US) has come after 1965, the year President Lyndon Johnson sponsored an immigration bill that repealed the longstanding system of quotas by national origin. Under the new system, preferences went to relatives of U.S. residents and those with special occupational skills needed in the United States. The new law was a signal act in American history, making it possible for the first time since the early part of the 20th century for someone to enter the country regardless of his or her national origin. After 1965, immigration from Western Europe began to decline significantly, with a corresponding growth in the numbers of persons arriving from the Middle East and Asia. In this era more than half of the immigrants to America from these regions have been Muslim."

Christopher Hitchens just wrote about Londonistan,

"Until he was jailed last year on charges of soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred, a man known to the police of several countries as Abu Hamza al-Masri was the imam of the Finsbury Park Mosque. He was a conspicuous figure because, having lost the use of an eye and both hands in an exchange of views in Afghanistan, he sported an opaque eye plus a hook to theatrical effect. Not as nice as he looked, Abu Hamza was nonetheless unfailingly generous with his hospitality. Overnight guests at his mosque's sleeping quarters have included Richard Reid, the man in whose honor we now all have to take off our shoes at the airport, and Zacarias Moussaoui, the missing team member of September 11, 2001. Other visitors included Ahmed Ressam, arrested for trying to blow up LAX for the millennium, and Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian who planned to don an explosive vest and penetrate the American Embassy in Paris. On July 7, 2005 ("7/7," as the British call it), a clutch of bombs exploded in London's transport system. It emerged that one of the suicide murderers had been influenced by the preachings of Abu Hamza, as had two of those attempting to replicate the mission two weeks later."

The new immigration bill will allow hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of Muslims to come into the United States over the next decade. Many of them have been indoctrinated all their lives to hate the United States, but that's not on the immigration qualifications. Nobody asks newcomers "have you been taught to hate the United States?" But that is exactly how France and Britain created their domestic terrorist threat: By importing hundreds of thousands of unassimilated people under the guise of multicultural love and peace. Almost all vote for the Left.

Socialists are the same all over. They don't believe in the nation-state, and sincerely try to bring about a more perfect world in which nations would not exist. They therefore knock holes in the bottom of our little lifeboat, in the belief that they're doing us all a big favor. They're nice saboteurs.

When the French Left imported millions of Muslims, with Gaullist help, they were trying to import Socialist voters who would then be rewarded with welfare benefits. Today we have nightly riots in the French burbs, with thousands of cars being torched by celebrating Muslim teenagers living on welfare. When the British Left decided to important two million Pakistanis straight from the badlands of Peshawar, they knew what they were doing. The cover story was "multiculturalism" but the reality was subversion. In their minds, the new European Union was going to be the model for an international order, just like the Soviet Union used to be. It's exactly the same mindset.

Whether the immigrants harbor a murderous mindset towards their host country doesn't matter at all to the Left. In fact, it makes the newcomers better revolutionary material. The first generation of Muslim immigrants to Britain felt much more favorably inclined toward their host country. Their children are being recruited by radical imams, and some of them suicide-bombed the London Underground two years ago.

Two million Pakistanis now live permanently in Britain. They vote Labour, and have a elected a floridly anti-Semitic Mayor of London. Hitchens writes:

"It's impossible to exaggerate how far and how fast this situation has deteriorated. ... I find myself haunted by a challenge that was offered on the BBC by a Muslim activist named Anjem Choudary: a man who has praised the 9/11 murders as "magnificent" and proclaimed that "Britain belongs to Allah." When asked if he might prefer to move to a country which practices Shari'a, he replied: "Who says you own Britain anyway?""

Will the United States follow the Brits to disaster?



Criminal problem ignored

It's old news that Presidente Vicente Fox exported Mexico's poorest citizens into the United States for a number of reasons: It relieved him of the responsibility of providing social and healthcare services for them; it provides his country's economy with an influx of US cash when these illegal workers send money they earn in the US back home; and it defuses problems with far-left groups who are usually successful in using the poor to advance their political agenda. So Presidente Fox gave his poor the "bum's rush" out of Mexico: "Here's your sombrero, here's a map, here's a bottle of water, now get out!"

But there is another benefit to the exportation of Mexicans into the US -- Mexico saves money on his criminal justice system by exporting his criminal population to the United States. Thus, Mexico's crime problem becomes our crime problem; his prison problem becomes our prison problem.

According to Lt. Steve Rogers, a decorated cop and award-winning writer, there are tens of thousands of murderers, rapists, child predators, robbers and drug dealers who are illegally in the United States. One study shows over 200,000 criminal aliens are preying on US citizens.

Border Patrol agents in the Tucson, AZ Sector have apprehended 27,834 illegal aliens with criminal records, 74 of which were for homicide. Last fiscal year, the Tucson Sector apprehended 14,506 illegal aliens with criminal records. These figures do not include the thousands of criminal aliens apprehended by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents or those in other Border Patrol sectors in other states. And it doesn't include the tens of thousands of criminal aliens who are able to escape detect at the border.

Meanwhile our political leaders are trying to scam Americans with phony reform legislation which will actually reward lawbreakers and increase the number of illegal who will flood our borders to partake of the giveaways. For instance, part of the Senate bill will allow illegals to pay instate (lower) college tuition, while citizens will have to pay higher tuition is they live out-of-state.

This scam goes beyond political parties -- Republicans and Democrats are both in on it.

Congressmen on both sides of the aisle repeatedly display how they can talk out of both sides of their mouths depending on whom they're addressing. For instance, recently in New York, Senator Hillary Clinton told a cheering crowd that the United States had to protect our borders and deal with illegal immigration. She acknowledged it was a key component of the US homeland security strategy -- to prevent terrorists and weapons, including nuclear weapons, from entering the US.

The former first lady blasted President Bush on border security in a statement posted to her official Senate Web site: "This administration has failed to provide the resources to protect our borders, or a better system to keep track of entrants to this country," she complained, adding, "I welcome the addition of more border security." In the past she has claimed to be "adamantly against illegal immigrants."

But, according to the Washington Times, Clinton and her fellow New York Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer turned thumbs down on two amendments to a Department of Homeland Security spending bill, which would have funded 2,000 new Border Patrol agents and more than 5,000 new detention beds to house illegal aliens.

"Our political leaders are talking one way, yet voting another way on the issues of border security and illegal immigration," warns Congressmen Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter. "These so-called leaders are playing politics with the most important issue of our time -- Homeland Security."

Clinton, like so many Democrats and Republicans, attempts to appear as if she's a national-security hawk. The reality is many are trying once again to pull the wool over Americans' eyes. They are willing to trade public safety for votes.

Source



McCain shows how conservative he is not

With the White House's blessing, the Senate has reached a deal on immigration. And Sen. John McCain has handed his opponents for the Republican nomination a mighty club to wield against him -- if they choose to use it.

As Rudy Giuliani's lead over the Arizona senator slipped into the single digits in many national polls, McCain assumed a lower profile on the immigration issue. Sen. Sam Brownback went even further, repudiating his support for last year's Senate bill containing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Now there is a new bill offering such a provision and McCain, like fellow Arizonan Jon Kyl, is on board.

However the rest of the field responds, this much is clear: When Ronald Reagan revived his flagging 1976 presidential campaign by railing against the Panama Canal Treaty, many observers were shocked by the issue's resonance. Today, no one can be surprised when conservatives speak out against anything that can be construed as amnesty for illegal immigrants.

The reaction to the immigration announcement was swift. Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker and perhaps future presidential candidate, denounced it on Sean Hannity's radio show as "a sellout of every conservative principle." The Heritage Foundation agreed. Congressman Mike Pence issued a statement calling the bill an amnesty.

While the deal was being picked apart by talk radio and the blogs, John McCain was appearing on television with Ted Kennedy to promote it. Arlen Specter's presence -- and insistence that the Senate isn't talking about amnesty -- doesn't give McCain much cover with conservatives. Neither does the news that the bill was drafted with the help of liberal groups like the National Council of La Raza.

Is it amnesty? Like past versions of McCain-Kennedy, the bill offers illegal aliens a path to citizenship and creates a new guest-worker program. Supporters argue that the measure only applies to illegals who have passed a background check while paying fines and back taxes. In a new twist, guest workers could only be admitted and unlawful immigrants legalized after certain enforcement provisions have taken effect. And in the long term, the legislation may shift the immigration system's focus away from family reunification and toward employment skills.

But there are already concerns that the "enforcement triggers" may prove more fungible than advertised. If the Democrats win in 2008, do conservatives trust Hillary's Department of Homeland Security to certify that the borders are secure? Worse, the bill creates probationary "Z visas" for illegal immigrants present and working in the United States since the beginning of this year as well as their parents, spouses, and children.

The probationary period begins before any of the enforcement triggers are pulled. The visa-holders are eligible to stay in the country indefinitely, possibly undermining the appeal of the path to citizenship. And all this assumes that the country's existing immigration bureaucracy, with a backlog of 4 million unresolved cases, can properly determine the status of at least 12 million people in a timely manner.

It may be 1986 all over again. After that year's Immigration Reform and Control Act became law, nearly twice as many people applied as officials expected and over 90 percent were accepted. Today the numbers are even greater. So is the potential for amnesty to occur without the promised enforcement ever materializing.

Mitt Romney was quick to pounce. "I strongly oppose today's bill going through the Senate," he said in a statement. "It's the wrong approach." All eyes are on Rudy -- and the rest of the GOP contenders, all the way down to the bottom tier. McCain has helped give his rivals an opportunity to appeal to disaffected conservatives on a populist issue.

"Life is unfair," John F. Kennedy observed. However mistaken this deal, McCain is as much a conviction politician on immigration as Tom Tancredo. Giuliani once sued to block welfare and immigration reform laws he believed were too strict with New York City's illegal aliens. Romney took a position similar in principle to this bill's language as recently as Tuesday's South Carolina debate.

But conservative voters will remember the immigration partnership between John McCain and Ted Kennedy. In a Republican primary, that is dangerous company to keep.

Source



America the great is finished

The USA is a rare product of a particular population -- a population originating predominantly from the generally prosperous, law-abiding, creative and principled people of the British Isles and Northwestern Europe. The USA is now however being flooded by very different people who in their own countries regularly give rise to corrupt, brutal and economically disastrous regimes. So, like ancient Rome, the USA will soon become completely multicultural, lose its distinctiveness and fade away. Cato the elder foresaw what would happen as Rome became less Roman and modern-day conservatives see the same future for America, but, like Cato, they are ignored in favour of what is convenient at the time. The decay in Rome was slow. The decay of the USA is just around the corner. Details in the post below from Riehl World -- which see for links

Even as the largest minority group in America at just over 44 million, Hispanics represent less than 15% of the total population. However, they accounted for 50% of US population growth from July 1, 2005, to July 1, 2006. In all but nine states, the population of whites under age 15 has declined, while nationally, our Hispanic school age population surged by 21%.

The headlines today point out that America's minority population has reached 100 milllion, a third of our population. But the real story of recent growth is beneath the headlines and left out of some stories altogether. Experts have already predicted that America's current minorities will be in the majority by 2050 and, given current trends, it's only a function of time before America becomes predominantly Hispanic.

The white population has shrunk in 16 states this decade, including California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts.

The El Paso Times points to the differences current trends will bring about and suggests no change in immigration will reverse it, as so much of the increase is attributable to much higher birth rates among Hispanics as opposed to any other groups, particularly whites.

Out of the 300 million people in the United States, about one in three is now a member of some minority group -- a distinctive demographic change that experts say influences everything, including the food Americans eat, the clothes we wear and the music we listen to.

She added that increases in Hispanic population are likely to continue despite any changes to immigration policy, as Hispanics exponentially grow their numbers through a high rate of birth.

The Houston Chronicle on line is celebrating as Houston appears to represent the future face of America as a whole. There's no indication if article author Lori Rodriguez is related to the individual she quotes. I take it it's sort of a Smith, or Jones thing in Houston, now. ; )

With newcomers in tow, national immigration expert Nestor Rodriguez, of the University of Houston, has toured the city's most dazzlingly diverse pockets for the past decade. His message for visitors always is the same: "Look closely, because this is America's future."

But while one in every three Americans now is a minority, whites, with 66 percent of the population, accounted only for less than a fifth, or 18 percent, of the growth.

"The U.S. has the highest fertility rate of any developing country, with 2.1 children per women. That's because we do immigration right," said Texas A&M University sociology professor Dudley L. Poston Jr.

Whites are not in the majority in Hawaii, New Mexico, California and Texas and even in states where they remain a declining majority, demographics point to a surge in minority voters. Also, California and Texas together are home to 33% of the nation's entire minority population.

In Nevada, where the share of whites has declined to 59 percent from 66 percent since 2000, the voting-age population has soared 25 percent, with minorities accounting for 63 percent of that increase.

The Washington Post points out that DC may soon no longer be a majority-Black city. They cite whites and gentrification as the primary reason.

The 14 percent increase in non-Hispanic white District residents and 6 percent decrease in blacks from 2000 to 2006 are probably the result of the gentrification of once-affordable city neighborhoods, demographers said.

But that isn't what's talking place in state after state throughout the country. Minnesota, Indiana and North Carolina, as with most of the country, is changing due to Hispanic immigration and birth rates.

Hispanics are fanning out to more states across the nation, creating a sharp contrast between their predominantly young numbers and those of an aging white society, according to census population estimates out today.

Hispanics remain the largest minority group, at 44.3 million, and accounted for almost half the nation's growth of 2.9 million from July 1, 2005, to July 1, 2006. As Hispanics settle in areas where whites are aging and fewer are being born, they're transforming classrooms, workplaces and entire communities.

The non-Hispanic white school-age population grew 4 percent since 2000, while the number of Hispanic school-age kids surged 21 percent. The white under-15 population declined in all but nine states since 2000.

More from the New York Times:

As a result of immigration and higher birthrates among many newcomers, the number of Hispanics grew by 3.4 percent nationwide and Asians by 3.2 percent. Meanwhile, the black population rose by 1.3 percent, and that of non-Hispanic whites by 0.3 percent. (The number of American Indians and Alaska Natives increased by 1 percent, and Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders by 1.7 percent.)

19 May, 2007

From the grassroots

Below is an email just received from one of my correspondents:

Suffice to say, I've been enraged since hearing yesterday evening about the proposed immigration bill. I think the paragraph below, from National Review's strong editorial condemning it, says it all -- along with the fact, I might add, that Ted Kennedy and other socialist bloodsuckers and bottom-feeders can count on at least 400,000 new socialist/Democrat votes per every 1 million illegals to whom they grant citizenship; the remainder who vote conservative -- if they vote at all -- is negligible. This will bankrupt our country. And God knows what will happen to the status of people's accumulated savings/wealth and private property down the road -- not to mention how this will thus affect this country's republican theory of government:

"The enormous cost of granting legal status to millions of illegal aliens is being wholly ignored. Nearly two-thirds of illegal immigrants are low-skilled workers. Based on a detailed analysis of the net cost of low-skill households, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation estimates that the typical illegal-alien household receives $19,588 more in benefits than it pays in taxes each year. He explains that these costs would increase dramatically when an illegal alien reached retirement. Rector estimates that if all current illegal aliens were granted amnesty, the net retirement costs (benefits minus taxes) could be over $2.5 trillion."

This bill probably won't go through -- but it certainly doesn't augur well for whatever our spineless politicians come up with in replacement of it.

Either way, I think we lose. No politician wants to vote against immigrants, legal or illegal, because the Left, via our schools, has been SO successful over the past century in promulgating the belief that anti-immigrant = racism. No politician wants to be remembered as a bigot.

Thanks for ruining sealing the fate of our country, George W. Bush!! You idiotic, cowardly, loathsome son of a bitch.



No to Bush-Kennedy

"The fight over legalization, or `amnesty,' is all but over," exults the Manhattan Institute's Tamar Jacoby, and the "yahoos" who oppose it have been routed. She is right about who has won, at least as far as the Senate is concerned. The Bush-Kennedy immigration "reform," which is now expected to win broad bipartisan support in that chamber, provides legal status for an estimated 12 million illegal aliens. In exchange for the massive, unpopular amnesty, Senator Kennedy is willing to engage in a little "border dressing" that purports to beef up enforcement of current laws barring illegal entry and the employment of illegal workers. As in the past, supporters of border and workplace enforcement will get the rhetoric, illegal aliens the prize, and taxpayers the huge tab.

The 1986 immigration reform, with amnesty provisions that were implemented and enforcement provisions that weren't, is instructive. But there is no need to hark back 20 years to illustrate the bad faith of "comprehensive" immigration reformers. Before last year's elections, the Secure Fence Act, providing for the construction of a 700-mile fence at the southern border, handily passed Congress. In this week's Republican presidential debate, Rep. Duncan Hunter, the fence bill's House sponsor, angrily noted, "We have $1 billion cash on hand at the Department of Homeland Security right now for building the border fence. . . . They have done two miles. I think they want to drag their feet and hook this up with amnesty." They do and they now have.

The Bush administration's price for its modestly beefed-up border security and workplace enforcement is amnesty for millions and a temporary-worker program for a few hundred thousand more each year. And the proposal's conservative features vanish upon inspection.

Bush-Kennedy includes some enforcement "triggers" that increase resources at the border and establish an employment-verification program before amnesty or the new temporary-worker program can take effect. But there is no requirement that these measures be proved effective before the full implementation of Kennedy's wish list, and the reform does not include critical provisions to prevent identity theft and the use of fraudulent documents. Granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens without first securing the border and ensuring a reliable system of workplace enforcement invites millions of others to follow their example in the hope of being granted amnesty during the inevitable next round of immigration reform.

The proposal contemplates ending "chain migration" by extended family members in favor of a merit system based on needed skills - eventually. The current waiting lists for family members must first be eliminated, and immigration advocates can be expected to aggressively lobby for the status quo. Tamar Jacoby is already arguing against moving to merit. Not even yahoos will be fooled by the bill's empty promise.

Finally, the enormous cost of granting legal status to millions of illegal aliens is being wholly ignored. Nearly two-thirds of illegal immigrants are low-skilled workers. Based on a detailed analysis of the net cost of low-skill households, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation estimates that the typical illegal-alien household receives $19,588 more in benefits than it pays in taxes each year. He explains that these costs would increase dramatically when an illegal alien reached retirement. Rector estimates that if all current illegal aliens were granted amnesty, the net retirement costs (benefits minus taxes) could be over $2.5 trillion.

As bad as the status quo on immigration policy is, it is preferable to this bill. Recent improvements in border security have apparently reduced the number of illegal crossings, and well-publicized raids on workplaces can be expected to have a chilling effect on employers who are in violation of immigration laws. But we suspect that this increased enforcement was largely designed to win passage for amnesty and a guest-worker program, and will end once this goal is achieved. We urge senators to cast protest votes against this bill, and House members to do their best to defeat it.

Source



AMNESTY $$$$$

Tomorrow, The Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector will share the following analysis in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. Virtually no attention has been paid to the enormous costs involved in legalizing millions of low-skilled illegal aliens. One problem is that immigration reform is being negotiated by Judiciary Committee lawyers who typically have little experience in budgetary issues. Some Members who might be expected to blanch at a potential price tag of $2.5 trillion on their handiwork are kidding themselves by naively expecting that government benefits will be denied to the newly-legalized. Some know so little about tax burdens and benefit costs that they wrongly believe low-skilled workers are a net benefit to the social security system.

"Giving amnesty to illegal immigrants would increase the costs outlined in this testimony. Some 50 to 60 percent of illegal immigrants lack a high school degree. Granting amnesty or conditional amnesty to illegal immigrants would, overtime, increase their use of means-tested welfare, Social Security and Medicare. Fiscal costs would go up significantly in the short term but would go up dramatically after the amnesty recipient reached retirement. Based on my current research, I estimate that if all the current adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. were granted amnesty the net retirement costs to government (benefits minus taxes) could be over $2.5 trillion.

The calculation of this figure is as follows. In March 2006, there were 9.3 million adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. Most illegal immigrants are low-skill. On average, each elderly low-skill immigrant creates a net cost (benefits minus taxes) for the taxpayer of about $17,000 per year. (This includes federal state and local government costs.) If the government gave amnesty to 9.3 million illegal immigrants, most of them would eventually become eligible for Social Security and Medicare benefits or Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid benefits.

However, not all of the 9.3 million adults given amnesty would survive till age 67. Normal mortality rates would probably reduce the population by roughly 15 percent before age 67. That would mean 7.9 million individuals would reach 67 and enter retirement.

Of those reaching 67, the average life expectancy would be around 18 years. The net governmental cost (benefits minus taxes) of these elderly individuals would be around $17,000 per year. Over eighteen years of expected life, costs would equal $360,000 per elderly amnesty recipient. A cost of $306,000 per amnesty recipient times 7.9 million amnesty recipients would be $2.4 trillion. These costs would hit the U.S. taxpayer at exactly the point that the Social Security system is expected to go into crisis. This is a preliminary estimate based on my ongoing research. More research should be performed, but I believe policy makers should examine these potential costs carefully before rushing to grant amnesty, "Z visas" or "earned citizenship" to the current illegal immigrant population.

Amnesty proponents may argue that some of these individuals will go home without getting benefits, or before they reach retirement age. Though perhaps valid, that argument only emphasizes how expensive amnesty recipients would be; the longer they remain in the country the greater the cost to the taxpayer.

Little wonder that supporters of "comprehensive" immigration reform are racing against the clock. They best hurry up and pass this EXPENSIVE bill before taxpayers already opposed to amnesty realize what it's likely to cost them.

Source



Australia: Migrants' diseases not followed up

MIGRANTS with serious illnesses - including lepers and more than 100,000 people with tuberculosis - have been allowed into Australia despite authorities' inability to carry out proper medical supervision. An audit of the Immigration Department has found that it knowingly allows migrants to enter Australia with serious contagious diseases but frequently fails to check up on whether they have sought medical attention.

The Australian National Audit Office revealed yesterday that since 2000-01 more than 100,000 immigrants with tuberculosis had entered Australia on the condition that they submit to medical supervision. The damning report said that, despite imposing the conditions, the department was unable to follow up and check whether the medical advice had been sought. The report comes just a month after John Howard questioned whether migrants with HIV-AIDS should be allowed to come to Australia. It said the department admitted its errors and had agreed to overhaul its systems. The audit said the current health screening procedures had "limitations and gaps", which weakened the Department of Immigration and Citizenship's ability to protect Australians from public health threats. The system relied largely on the honesty of visa applicants to disclose whether or not they had a disease that could be a public health risk, the audit said.

Opposition immigration spokesman Tony Burke said he was shocked by the audit and urged the Government to implement the recommendations quickly. Australian Medical Association vice-president Choong-Siew Yong said it was "quite concerning" that visa-holders were not complying with their undertaking and urged the Government to do more to address the situation.

Under the Migration Act, visa applicants must meet health requirements that protect the community from public health risks and safeguard Australians' access to health services. Applicants for permanent visas undergo a medical examination, while short-stay visa applicants - including temporary skilled migrants and holidaymakers - answer a series of questions about their health history and status. "As a result, DIAC cannot be certain of detecting all people who pose health risks," the audit found.

It was also highly critical of the way the department administered and monitored exemptions from the health requirements which have allowed foreigners with diseases such as tuberculosis, hepatitis B and C and leprosy to enter Australia. Visa applicants who fail to meet the health requirements can secure an exemption if they sign a "health undertaking" to report to a designated health authority in the relevant state or territory for a follow-up health assessment. Up to 20,000 undertakings are issued each year - about 90 per cent for people with tuberculosis. The audit revealed that a quarter of the 5535 health undertakings issued in 2002-03 were non-compliant. There are no formal arrangements between DIAC and state and territory authorities to check whether people have honoured their commitment to undergo further health checks.

The audit also found that, even when visa-holders were caught breaching their health undertaking, they were still allowed to stay in the country. The audit was also critical of the federal health department for failing to provide DIAC with "timely advice" on potential health risks. DIAC figures contained in the audit show that since 2002-03 nine people with leprosy had signed health waivers and secured visas to Australia. Since 2000-01, 101,468 health undertakings had been given to people with tuberculosis.

The Government agreed to adopt all eight recommendations made by the ANAO including a memorandum of understanding between DIAC and the Health Department. A spokeswoman for Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews said the Government would also ensure that co-operation across government agencies improved.

Source





18 May, 2007

Immigration Bill: Good Principles, Questionable Enforcement

Below is a comment by one U.S. blogger about the long awaited great compromise bill on immigration. Most other comments from conservatives have been much more negative -- with particular dissatisfaction over the watering down of border fencing provisions

It took me an hour just to scan the text of the proposed Immigration Bill. Reading, studying, analyzing it all would take dedicated weeks at a minimum. There's the first problem with it: It's being rushed through Congress without due deliberation and understanding. For an issue that not only affects the 12 or so million illegals here but the other 300 million Americans, and the future economics and culture of the country, that's too hasty.

My first impression of the Immigration Bill is that it contains most of the principles, or parts thereof, that conservatives have sought: Qualifying for citizenship rather than automatic amnesty; Shifting priorities toward those with education and skills that can contribute most, rather than the uneducated and elderly who cost more than they contribute; Stricter enforcement of employer hiring; Increased border security. Notably missing is restriction of automatic citizenship to those born here, which is an enormous loophole for those seeking to stay along with their children. In the border states, many pregnant Mexicans purposely come across to give birth here.

I'm struck that most of these principles are dependent on future appropriations or mere administration certifications. There's little reason to have faith in these future requirements occurring with adequacy or stringency. Some portions may occur, but less than even the minimal included in the Bill. I could go along with the Bill if these requirements were sufficiently pre-funded in the Bill, with a 2/3rd's or so vote by Congress required to reduce the appropriations and, similarly, to find the certifications adequate. Short of that, I do have to fall in with skeptics who expect much less enforcement than promised.

As to the 12-million illegals here now, they're here and there's no prospect of expelling them. The uneducated have less prospect of meeting the new qualifications of obtaining regular qualifying employment, but there's little prospect of their leaving as long as there's a huge off-the-books economy for the unskilled, and as long as even that is better than where they come from. They will continue to arrive in droves.

The educated and skilled may have arrived illegally, but their normalization at least will contribute to our competitive economy.

This Bill, as it appears, seems to have its primary justification in fixing politics, for the varying benefit of Democrat and some Republican politicians (pandering to or insulating from Democrat-leaning pro-illegals lobbies, respectively), than in actually solving the problems of too many ill-suited uneducated immigrants whose impact on our economy is less desirable, and of their economic impact on citizens whose opportunities and wages are consequently depressed.

Will I go bonkers if the Bill passes as presently written? No. Even having the shift in principles is better than now. But, it doesn't seem by much, without included funding guarantees. And, Republican officeholders who hypocritically say otherwise are transparently denigrating themselves and further reducing the allegiance of those voters who esteem integrity.

Source



EU Targeting illegals!

Tougher than Texas?

European businesses caught employing illegal immigrants face jail sentences under new proposals from the European Commission to control immigration. Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini also wants a five-fold increase in the number of spot checks on companies. As much as 16% of Europe's business is done off the books, Mr Frattini says. It is estimated that there are 3-8m illegal immigrants in the EU, a figure increasing by up to 500,000 every year because of easy access to illegal work.

New penalties are also proposed for individuals who hire workers, such as cleaners. Employers would have to check that anyone they hired had a residence permit, and businesses would have to notify national authorities. Fines for offenders would include the cost of repatriating the worker, as well as payment of any unpaid tax or social security.

Criminal penalties would be imposed on employers who knowingly hired victims of trafficking, who were caught hiring several illegal immigrants, or who were "particularly exploitative". "The possibility of finding illegal work is the main driving force behind illegal immigration. The EU must act together," Mr Frattini said.

BBC Europe business correspondent Alex Ritson says there is little doubt why illegal workers are attractive for many companies - they earn a fraction of the regular wages and the penalties for companies caught breaking the rules are rarely severe. But the proposals may face resistance from some member states, he says, as traditionally the EU does not interfere with matters of criminal law.

Mr Frattini said that the risk of getting caught employing illegal immigrants in Europe was "practically non-existent", because only one in 50 businesses was checked each year. Under his proposal this would be increased to one in 10 per year. The Commission says illegal migrants are most likely to be employed in construction, agriculture, housework, cleaning, catering and other hospitality services. Officials say the sanctions are designed to hit employers who exploit people "for their own greed" - putting them to work unprotected with harmful pesticides, or on unsafe building sites, or forcing them to work more than 12 hours a day for negligible pay.

Three years ago, 21 Chinese immigrants lost their lives at Morecambe Bay in the north of England. They were gathering shellfish on the mudflats for an illegal gang master but the tide came in suddenly and they drowned.

The proposed measures add to the EU's growing list of policies in the field of immigration, which are designed to attract skilled workers and other legal immigrants, while discouraging illegal immigration. Another new proposal is to seek "partnerships" with third countries, providing their workers easier access to the EU job market in return for help to stem the flow of illegal immigrants. Mr Frattini also wants to encourage circular migration, where migrant workers return temporarily or permanently to their country of origin, taking their new skills with them.

Source



Voter Fraud in San Antonio, Texas

Hundreds of illegal immigrants have registered to vote in Bexar County in recent years and dozens of them have actually cast ballots, canceling out the votes of U.S. citizens, 1200 WOAI news will report Thursday morning.

Figures obtained by 1200 WOAI news shows 303 illegals successfully registered to vote, and at least 41 cast ballots in various elections.

Bexar County Elections Administrator Jackie Callanan confirmed the figures, but she says a new form of voter registration card, which requires people to swear they are citizens when they register, should help cut the problem, because people who vote illegally can be charged with perjury.

And the county has some sly ways to catch them. "Maybe they have received a jury summons, the jury wheel relies on registered voters. They send a statement to the jury room that says they are not U.S. citizens and then we get that report immediately," Callanan says.

It's a hot issue in the Texas Legislature, where republicans are pushing a bill that would require voters to show some form of identification before voting.

"Considering that a photo ID is required to buy Sudafed, I can't understand why anyone would argue that the same standard, if not a higher standard, should apply to voting," Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst said. "Why would any Texan oppose legislation that ensures only U.S. citizens vote in elections?"

...

Considering how many races have been decided by slim margins including the 2000 Presidential election in Florida it does not take many fraudulent votes to make a difference. That must be why Democrats oppose doing anything to stop it. The kerfuffle over the firing of the US Attorneys is largely driven by the Democrats desire to make it more difficult to prosecute voter fraud. Their opposition to voter ISD is to make voter fraud easier for their voters.

Source



17 May, 2007

Voters wrong -- says ACLU

Latino activists and civil liberties advocates asked a federal judge Tuesday to block a voter-approved ordinance that would prohibit landlords from renting apartments to most illegal immigrants in the Dallas suburb of Farmers Branch. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the American Civil Liberites Union, which have already sued the city over the regulation, asked for the temporary restraining order in U.S. District Court. A group of merchants also suing Farmers Branch in federal court filed a separate request Tuesday to stop the ordinance's enforcement, said activist Carlos Quintanilla. "It is unfortunate that the residents of Farmers Branch have chosen to implement a law which is not only bad policy, but is likely also unconstitutional," said Lisa Graybill, legal director for the ACLU of Texas. "Now the issue will have to be resolved in federal court."

The ACLU and MALDEF contend poor families could be thrown out of homes because of the ordinance. And, the groups say, families in which some people are undocumented and others are citizens or legal immigrants could be forced to either move or split up.

Matthew Boyle, an attorney representing Farmers Branch, said the request for the restraining order isn't surprising and that the city is preparing a response. "I think they're wasting their time. I think we have legal grounds ... moral grounds," councilman Ben Robinson said of the groups' request.

Farmers Branch voters became the first in the nation Saturday to prohibit landlords from renting apartments to most illegal immigrants. The ban was approved by a vote of 68 percent to 32 percent, according to unofficial results. The ordinance, scheduled to take effect May 22, requires apartment managers to verify that renters are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants before leasing to them, with some exceptions. Violators would face a misdemeanor charge punishable by a fine of up to $500. City council members first approved the ban in November without discussion, taking comment from the public only after their vote. The policy was revised in January to include the exemptions for minors, seniors and some mixed-status families.

Since 1970, Farmers Branch has changed from a small, predominantly white bedroom community with a declining population to a city of almost 28,000 people, about 37 percent of them Hispanic, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. It also is home to more than 80 corporate headquarters and more than 2,600 small and mid-size firms, many of them minority-owned.

Councilman Tim O'Hare, the ordinance's lead proponent, contends the city's economy and quality of life will improve if illegal immigrants are kept out. O'Hare declined to comment Tuesday.

Civil rights groups, residents, property owners and businesses filed four separate lawsuits, saying the ordinance puts landlords in the precarious position of acting as federal immigration officers and discriminates poor and Latino residents. Their attorneys also say the ordinance attempts to regulate immigration, a duty that is exclusively the federal government's. Three of the suits were consolidated in federal court. One lawsuit in state court alleges the council violated the state open meetings act when deciding on the ordinance.

Around the country, more than 90 local governments have proposed, passed or rejected laws prohibiting landlords from leasing to illegal immigrants, penalizing businesses that employ them or training police to enforce immigration laws.

Source



Latest from CIS

1. Mass Immigration vs. Black America

Statement of T. Willard Fair, President and CEO, Urban League of Greater Miami; Center for Immigration Studies Board Member Before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives May 9, 2007

EXCERPT: "Of course, none of that means that individual immigrants -- or particular immigrant groups -- can be blamed for the difficulties facing black men. Being pro-Me should never make me anti-You. Nor can we use immigration as a crutch, blaming it for all our problems. The reality is that less-educated black men in America today have a variety of problems -- high rates of crime and drug use, for example, and poor performance at work and school -- that are caused by factors unrelated to level of immigration.

"But if cutting immigration and enforcing the law wouldn't be a cure-all, it sure would make my job easier. Take employment -- immigration isn't the whole reason for the drop in employment of black men; it's not even half the reason. But it is the largest single reason, and it's something we can fix relatively easily."

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

2. Low Salaries for Low Skills: Wages and Skill Levels for H-1B Computer Workers, 2005 By John Miano Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, April 2007

EXCERPT: "Technology sector employers, who represent the largest share of H-1B visa users, tell the public that the H-1B program is vital to their ability to find the highly skilled workers they need. Yet Department of Labor data tell a different story. Previous studies have found that the H-1B program is primarily used to import low-wage workers. This report examines the most recently available wage data on the H-1B program and finds that the trend of low prevailing wage claims and low wages continues. In addition, while industry spokesmen say these workers bring needed skills to our economy, on the H-1B Labor Condition Applications (LCAs) filed with the Department of Labor, employers classify most of their H-1B workers as being relatively low-skilled for the jobs they are filling."

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

3. Illegitimate Nation: An Examination of Out-of-Wedlock Births Among Immigrants and Natives by Steven A. Camarota Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, May 2007

EXCERPT: "The argument is often made that immigrants have a stronger commitment to traditional family values than do native-born Americans. However, birth records show that about one-third of births to both groups are now to unmarried parents. Moreover, unmarried immigrants are significantly more likely than unmarried natives to give birth. Illegitimacy may be especially problematic for children of immigrants because they need strong families to adjust to life in America."

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

4. Illegitimacy and Immigration Panel discussion transcript, April 24, 2007

Speakers:

Mark Krikorian, Executive Director, Center for Immigration Studies

Steven A. Camarota, Director of Research, Center for Immigration Studies

Nicholas Eberstadt, American Enterprise Institute

Robert Rector, Heritage Foundation

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

5. Immigration's Impact On American Workers

Statement of Steven A. Camarota before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives May 9, 2007

EXCERPT: "As discussed above, the impact of immigration on the overall economy is almost certainly very small. Its short- and long-term impact demographically on the share of the population that is of working age is also very small. It probably makes more sense for policymakers to focus on the winners and losers from immigration. The big losers are natives working in low-skilled, low-wage jobs. Of course, technological change and increased trade also have reduced the labor market opportunities for low-wage workers in the Untied States. But immigration is different because it is a discretionary policy that can be altered. On the other hand, immigrants are the big winners, as are owners of capital and skilled workers, but their gains are tiny relative to their income.

"In the end, arguments for or against immigration are as much political and moral as they are economic. The latest research indicates that we can reduce immigration secure in the knowledge that it will not harm the economy. Doing so makes sense if we are very concerned about low-wage and less-skilled workers in the United States. On the other hand, if one places a high priority on helping unskilled workers in other countries, then allowing in a large number of such workers should continue. Of course, only an infinitesimal proportion of the world's poor could ever come to this country even under the most open immigration policy one might imagine. Those who support the current high level of unskilled legal and illegal immigration should at least do so with an understanding that those American workers harmed by the policies they favor are already the poorest and most vulnerable."

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

6. Real Immigration Reform: The Path to Credibility

Statement of Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., Cornell University; Center for Immigration Studies Board Member before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives May 3, 2007

EXCERPT: "In its final report to Congress in 1997, the Commission on Immigration Reform defined what `a simple yardstick' for `a credible immigration policy' is: `people who should get in do get in, people who should not get in are kept out; and people who are judged deportable are required to leave.'

"The standard cannot be clearer. Congress and the Administration at that time did not listen and, sure enough, things have gotten far worse.

"It time to put aside the selfish pleas of special interest groups and to enact real immigration reform.

"Although some of my recommendations address issues not mentioned by CIR, all are consistent with those about which it did speak. All are intended to assure that our immigration policies are fair but firm and that they are congruent with the welfare of the nation's most valuable resource: it labor force."

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

7. Proposals to Improve the Electronic Employment Verification and Worksite Enforcement System

Statement of Jessica M. Vaughan before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives April 26, 2007

EXCERPT: "If the program were to be made mandatory tomorrow, most businesses would be able to comply. Even most small businesses already use the Internet and can access the system. Companies who don't want to do it themselves can pay their own accountant or lawyer or hire one of the many private-sector 'designated agents' to verify their workers."

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

8. Shortfalls of the 1996 Immigration Reform Legislation

Statement of Mark Krikorian before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives April 20, 2007

EXCERPT: "But there was one very large mistake made by Congress in the 1996 law, and that was rejecting the late Barbara Jordan's recommendations to cut overall legal immigration. The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, headed by Jordan during most of its existence, spent years examining all aspects of the immigration issue and delivered reports on illegal immigration, legal immigration, refugees, and Americanization policy. .

"With regard to legal immigration, the Jordan Commission recommended a reduction of about one-third in total immigration, in particular focusing the family portion of the immigration flow more tightly and eliminating categories outside the nuclear family of husband, wife, and young children. Jordan's recommendations would also have eliminated the small but unjustifiable unskilled worker category (the Commission noted that `Unless there is another compelling interest, such as in the entry of nuclear families and refugees, it is not in the national interest to admit unskilled workers') and the egregious visa lottery."

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

9. Cease Citing Bible to Defend Bush's Immigration Bill By Steven Steinlight Forward, April 29, 2007

EXCERPT: "Leviticus 19 commands us to love the stranger. Bush's cynical, reactionary bill, you can be certain, is not about love, and Leviticus 19 surely does not command us to exploit strangers as cheap labor or for political gain. Cherry-picking the Bible to support a shameful scheme to exploit poor immigrants at the expense of impoverished Americans to engorge the wealth of rich employers is a sacrilege. Why not just cite the Wall Street Journal?"

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

10. Speaking Out on Immigration By Steven Steinlight The Jewish Advocate, April 23, 2007

EXCERPT: "Only Muslims are more anti-Semitic than foreign-born Hispanics according to solid survey research. Latino anti-Semitism hovers in the upper 40th percentile. Latinos loathe us less, but they'll have infinitely more power. If the Bush bill passes, Hispanics will soon control the American political system. Better to be hated by 2-3 million Muslims than strongly disliked by 100 million Latinos, a third of the population, who will outnumber us 50-1."

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

11. Immigrants Are People, Too Moral decay doesn't stop at the Rio Grande. By Mark Krikorian National Review Online, May 2, 2007

EXCERPT: "The point is not that immigrants are worse than we are, any more than the open-borders crowd's claims that immigrants are better than we are. Instead, they're just like we are, subject to the same temptations of modernity, polluted by the same filth of popular culture, making the same bad choices with the freedom we can enjoy here.

"This may not be an argument for reducing immigration (there are plenty of those). But it certainly explodes any rational basis for arguing in favor of mass immigration based on a special immigrant commitment to traditional morality. There is no "family values gap," and the sooner policymakers understand that, the sooner we're likely to get an immigration policy consistent with our nation's interests rather than one marinated in myths and nostalgia."

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

12. Not a Dime's Worth of Difference: What kind of people does the White House think we are? By Mark Krikorian National Review Online, April 10, 2007

EXCERPT: "The administration's calculation that it can make amnesty and increased immigration palatable if only they are packaged with enough anti-immigrant measures is an insult to immigration hawks. Our response must be unequivocal: No Amnesty. No Guestworkers. Period."



16 May, 2007

Britain: True immigration levels could be twice as high

The only surprise about local council complaints that immigration figures are ''flawed'' is that anyone is surprised. Figures on this subject are the least trustworthy of all government statistics, and that is saying something. How do we tell the scale of immigration to the UK?

For years, the Office for National Statistics relied upon the International Passenger Survey (IPS) which, as its name suggests, is a survey not a number check. When immigration was at fairly low levels from the early 1970s to the mid-1990s, this somewhat hit-and-miss approach was adequate. For many years, it was almost in equilibrium - showing little net immigration into the UK. But since 1997, immigration has shot up. Even measured by the (IPS) the net figure - the difference between those arriving and leaving - has averaged 180,000 or more for five years.

These figure do not include asylum seekers who have been through all their legal procedures and have been turned down but have stayed on. There could be 400,000 of these. They do not include illegal immigrants, either clandestine entrants or people who have arrived on visas and have not gone home. It is simply unknown how many there are of these. It does not include the 600,000 who have arrived from eastern Europe since the exapansion of the EU and have registered to work. And this latter figure does not include those from eastern Europe who are not required to register, for example the self-employed, or those have chosen not to.

So, the true levels of immigration could easily be twice as high as the official IPS showed. Even if the figures for arrivals are accurate there is now way of knowing how many have left because embarkation controls at the border were scrapped in 1997. Anyone who lives in London or another major city can simply see with their own eyes how the number of overseas workers has grown in recent years. Yet, this was the very moment the ONS decided to replace one suspect set of statistics with another. Instead of the IPS, they are now relying on the Labour Force Survey. This covers just 0.2 per cent of the population and asks migrants where they are actually working.

These figures are then used to calculate the funds needed by local authorities to provide essential services. Coun Mark Loveday, cabinet member for Hammersmith and Fulham, said: "I didn't think it was possible, but this new method for counting migration is actually worse than the old one - which was also a disaster. "The Government's new figures suggest that we have fewer migrants than three years ago. "This methodology will still not account for those spending less than a year in the country. The Labour Force Survey will also not pick up those staying in hostels or living in houses of multiple occupancy."

Coun Merrick Cockell, leader of Kensington and Chelsea Council, said: "We don't find the Office of National Statistics' latest figures credible - 20,800 people cannot simply have vanished." Local authorities now say that they should collect the data and tell the Government how many immigrants they have. Whether that will make them more accurate is anyone's guess.

Source



Dallas suburb bans renting to illegals

Comment below

I wouldn't advise anyone's coming down too hard on the voters of Farmers Branch, Texas, who last weekend approved, two to one, a measure that bans the leasing of apartments to illegal immigrants. Which -- don't we all know it? -- sounds like a nativist slap at hardworking folks who just want to get on in the world. Yes, and who happen to be living in violation of the laws of the country in which they are trying to get on.

The new Farmers Branch ordinance, if legal challenges to it fail, seems less likely to send illegals scampering back across the border to Mexico than to some other Dallas suburb. And yet this whole business concentrates the mind wonderfully, forcing thought about the idiocy of present U.S. policy and the desirability of a more rational policy. One aligned more or less with present-day realities would be nice, one sensitive to the U.S. economy's voracious demand for labor, sensitive as well to the need for a meaningful distinction between the non-American and the American

I speak as one less in tune with America's large, let's-fence-off-the-border constituency than with those who see the need for regular replenishment of a labor force diminished by the effects of, among other things, abortion-on-demand; expected, moreover, by a neglectful Congress to produce more, always more, taxes for bailing out Social Security and Medicare.

I still propose not coming down unduly hard on the voters of Farmers Branch. I think one can see easily enough what they are getting at: They don't think it's a real nice idea to privilege outsiders over the native-born in terms of obligations to the majesty of the law. As the city's mayor pro tem told The Dallas Morning News, "[Voters] are fed up with the fact that illegal immigration is being overlooked in all parts of our life. We think it is within our rights to take action for our city."

It's "nativist" to expect general adherence to democratically enacted rules? I don't think so. What kind of rules, then? Maybe the one saying you don't get to come and live here absent some prior arrangement with the U.S. government. Saying you ask permission before barging in.

It goes a little further than that, actually. If you do come without permission, you anticipate consequences. The non-emergence of consequences for illegal immigration is a constant irritant for many. It offends the common sense of justice. That the U.S. government fails to enforce the rules and many Americans agitate against their application only make matters worse.

For instance, why the ad hoc spread of bilingualism: the appearance everywhere in Texas of Spanish as, seemingly, the logical complement to English? The Latin-derived language of Madrid, and even of Nuevo Laredo, is lovely enough, but it is not easy to forget that knowledge of English is a requirement of citizenship. For whom are those ubiquitous Spanish notices meant? Clearly, for the non-English speaking. Meaning non-citizens? Of course. But why?

Why, too, in Texas, free public schools for the children of illegal immigrants? Why in-state tuition rates at state colleges and universities for these same children's older siblings? These are claims by the illegally domiciled against their hosts, whose sense of justice is duly outraged, as in Farmers Branch. Thus people resolve on forms of action meant -- as in Farmers Branch -- to redress the oversights of Those In Charge. Those In Charge ought to listen better than they have been. They are losing -- as in Farmers Branch, as in the Congress of the United States -- the respect and acquiescence of those whose interests they supposedly advance.

It is one thing to accept, even welcome, the historic human phenomenon of immigration. It is another thing to see disrespect for law, for process, for rational modes of doing things, and not fear that a crisis of legitimacy is fast growing among us. Congress this year -- one reads -- may finally do something halfway sensible about illegal immigration. Congress -- one knows -- has a lot of making up to do for squandered time.

Source



15 May, 2007

The attraction of the status quo

After months of negotiations, Congress appears no closer to a consensus on an overhaul of immigration policy. But competing interests are starting to agree that leaving the dysfunctional system unchanged for now might not be the worst idea. For example, the proposals in the House and Senate are full of enforcement measures that Jessica Vaughan would love to see pass. She's with the Center for Immigration Studies, which wants to reduce immigration. But the congressional bills would also legalize millions of undocumented workers, something Vaughan opposes. So, if that's the option, she will be just as happy to stick with the status quo.

Vaughan says the current atmosphere has evolved dramatically in recent years, even without congressional action. She sees a policy she's long advocated playing out de-facto - it's called "attrition through enforcement." "If we can induce people to go home on their own because they can't get a job, or can't get a driver's license, or can't get a tax ID number, to get themselves a mortgage, that's what's gonna cause people to give up and go home on their own," Vaughan said.

It's virtually impossible to say how many immigrants are leaving on their own. But in recent years the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has exponentially increased workplace raids. Spurred by this, more businesses are scrambling to check employees' legal status. In the past two years, some 20,000 firms have signed onto an Internet program to scan their payroll for false Social Security numbers. At a recent Congressional hearing, Rep. Ken Calvert, a California Republican, said a record 16,000 companies now use another federal computer program, Basic Pilot. Calvert recently said that 50 employers a day are signing on to Basic Pilot and predicted use of the program will double in the next year. "We have several large employers, I mean by large, mega-employers, that are looking on putting this program on voluntarily," Calvert said.

This no doubt will mean more illegal workers weeded from payrolls. But in the absence of congressional legislation, it will also mean more mistakes. Critics say Basic Pilot has a worrisome error rate, something immigration bills try to address. The head of the House immigration subcommittee, Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, points out that Congress uses Basic Pilot. And the program wrongly disqualified her aide, a longtime U.S. citizen. "It took her seven days, three trips to the Social Security office, three trips to the House employment office, three trips to the Judiciary Committee," Lofgren said. "She was successful in getting this straightened out, but I am mindful that there are people who are not immigration lawyers, who might actually give up."

Immigrant advocates like Christina Lopez, of the Center for Community Change, have no doubt stiffer enforcement will continue. Lopez points out that many states and localities are also taking it upon themselves to crack down. She says if Congress does nothing, there will be a terrible human impact. "So we're going to see more families torn apart, more people dying at the border," she said. "It's going to be greater suffering, more hardship, on the millions who are already here."

And yet, Lopez says it's better to endure this a while longer, than to pass some of the harsher measures lawmakers are considering. For example, one proposal out of the White House would scale back the number of family members that could join immigrants here. It would also impose a $10,000 dollar fine for gaining legal status. In the meantime, Lopez dismisses the notion that illegal immigrants will stage a mass voluntary departure. "They have families, they have children, in many cases they have property," she said. "You know, they're just gonna look for another way to make it."

No one may like the current dysfunctional immigration system, but so far, there's only bickering over congressional efforts to change it.

Source



Michael Barone, The Immigrant Invasion, And Our Posterity

By Steve Sailer

Here at VDARE.com, we've had some fun over the years at the expense of both the Wall Street Journal editorial page and of Michael Barone. Still, Barone's May 8th Wall Street Journal Op Ed The Realignment of America: The native-born are leaving 'hip' cities for the heartland is worthy of congratulation.

From its tagline "Demographics Is Destiny" to its illuminating use of statistics to its frankness about the effects of immigration-"The economic divide in New York and Los Angeles is starting to look like the economic divide in Mexico City and Sao Paulo"-Barone's essay reads more like a VDARE.COM contribution than the disingenuous Open Borders cheerleading for which both the WSJ and Barone have been notorious. May this mark a turning point!

Our criticism over the years of Barone's immigration writings has been driven by the frustrating awareness that he could do far better. Whereas, say, Main Stream Media quotemonger Tamar Jacoby has never demonstrated much sign of being capable of grasping the immigration issue-and thus, annoying as she is, she may actually be sincere-Barone can't plead invincible ignorance.

Many columnists never displayed much expertise on anything. But Barone is the editor of the biennial Almanac of American Politics. He has visited every one of the 435 Congressional Districts. He has earned his pundit spurs through his prodigious knowledge of local demographic and voting patterns.

Barone's methodology in the WSJ essay is straightforward and insightful. He compares the top 50 metropolitan areas (home to 54 percent of America's population) in 2000 and 2006, and divides them into four categories based on the causes of their population changes.

* Six grim old Rustbelt Cities, such as Detroit and Pittsburgh, in which natives are moving out, immigrants aren't moving in, and nobody is having many children.

* Eighteen Static Cities in which not much is happening in terms of population changes. They include Philadelphia, Minneapolis, and Denver.

* Eight Coastal Megalopolises. As Barone puts it: "New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco [and San Jose], San Diego, Chicago (on the coast of Lake Michigan), Miami, Washington [which is only marginally coastal] and Boston. Here is a pattern you don't find in other big cities: Americans moving out and immigrants moving in, in very large numbers ." From 2000 to 2006, six percent of the American-born residents left and were replaced by an equal number of immigrants.

Barone continues:

"This is something few would have predicted 20 years ago. Americans are now moving out of, not into, coastal California and South Florida, and in very large numbers they're moving out of our largest metro areas. They're fleeing hip Boston and San Francisco, and after eight decades of moving to Washington they're moving out. The domestic outflow from these metro areas is 3.9 million people, 650,000 a year. High housing costs, high taxes, a distaste in some cases for the burgeoning immigrant populations-these are driving many Americans elsewhere."

(Few "would have predicted" it, eh? Well, Peter Brimelow actually reported this trend, based on census data, in his much-denounced book Alien Nation some twelve years ago. Barone seems to have missed this, apparently because he was so scandalized by its single sentence noting that Brimelow's son Alexander has blue eyes and blond hair, although it merely illustrated the way the interaction between immigration and affirmative action whipsaws Americans who don't belong to the "protected classes".)

John Kerry easily carried the Coastal Megalopolis vote, Barone notes:

"Both secular top earners and immigrant low earners vote heavily Democratic.Democratic politicians like to decry what they describe as a widening economic gap in the nation. But the part of the nation where it is widening most visibly is their home turf, the place where they win their biggest margins (these metro areas voted 61% for John Kerry) and where, in exquisitely decorated Park Avenue apartments and Beverly Hills mansions with immigrant servants passing the hors d'oeuvres, they raise most of their money."

* Sixteen Interior Boomtowns, such as Las Vegas and Orlando, where housing is cheaper, so Americans are pouring in and having children. These cities voted 56 percent for George W. Bush in 2004.

My 2005 VDARE.com article Affordable Family Formation-The Neglected Key To GOP's Future explained the logic underlying the political patterns Barone has now noticed. Coastal cities have, by definition, a smaller supply of dry land for suburban expansion, so housing prices are higher. This discourages people from getting married and from having children, which means the GOP's "family values" stances strike them as irrelevant or irritating. In contrast, in inland parts of the country where it is economical to buy a house with a yard in a neighborhood with a decent public school, you'll generally find more Republicans.

Barone begins his article with this horrifying reflection on a once-great American city

"In 1950, when I was in kindergarten in Detroit, the city had a population of (rounded off) 1,850,000. Today the latest census estimate for Detroit is 886,000, less than half as many."

Now, Detroit is actually being reclaimed by the forest-an amazing phenomenon lovingly chronicled by the fascinating Detroitblog, for example here and here.

Unfortunately, by the end of piece, Barone is back to his usual optimism about how this demographic turmoil is good for the GOP as voters abandon the old Democratic cities like Detroit and San Francisco for GOP-friendly new cities like Phoenix and Dallas etc. etc.

We've analyzed the voting arguments before here at VDARE.COM. Basically, they're nonsense. The GOP is committing suicide by immigration policy and by being too timid to appeal directly to its white base-an option we have dubbed the "Sailer Strategy".

So, for a change, let's look at the quality of life question. Are the Americans who are being driven from the Coastal Megalopolises to the Interior Boomtowns better off because their old cities are filling up with immigrants who outbid them in the housing market-typically, because the foreigners don't mind living with an entire extended family under one roof?

Many conservatives these days have tried to make a virtue out of economic necessity. They insist that, say, cheap Las Vegas with its endless expanses of new suburbs, is a better place to live than, oh, expensive Boston, with its complicated coastline, parks, campuses, and restrictions on development in the name of preserving its ancient small towns.

For some people, no doubt, Sin City is better. But when did it become a betrayal of conservative values to appreciate a city such as Boston, with its nearly four centuries of tradition? Which city would Edmund Burke have preferred?

It's a remarkable achievement of Americans that they are constantly building a civilization from the dirt up out on the exurban frontier as they flee the high cost, bad schools, congestion, and crime of their old homes.

Yet, by necessity, these are thin, poorly rooted civilizations, better endowed with power malls than symphony halls. Maybe you don't care about culture. But what about weather? Coastal Megalopolises generally have milder climates than Inland Boomtowns due to the moderating effect of water. Even in Chicago, the lakefront is notably warmer in winter and cooler in summer than the inland suburbs.

America is a huge country, but the fraction of it blessed with a Mediterranean climate is comparatively miniscule. The Mediterranean zone's advantages for human habitation are not just the famous sunshine in winter, but also the absence of humidity, mosquitoes, and excessive heat in summer. It's found only in Southern California (between the beach and the mountains) and in Northern California (in the first valley inland from the foggy coast).

So why has our government chosen to turn much of this thin strip over to foreigners?

Barone's article inspires the question: Where do you want your children and grandchildren to live when they grow up? My answer is: "I want them to be able to afford to live wherever they want."

Ideally, they'll make lots of money (they sure aren't going to inherit it). But, you know, that might not happen. So I'd appreciate it if our government would help out what the Preamble to the Constitution calls "our Posterity" by protecting affordability-which means passing good immigration laws and enforcing them. Is that so much to ask?

Source



14 May, 2007

Bush pushes bipartisan immigration talks

President Bush, promoting bipartisan immigration talks as they reach a critical stage, said Saturday that Republicans and Democrats are building consensus that could produce a bill this year. "I am optimistic we can pass a comprehensive immigration bill and get this problem solved for the American people this year," Bush said in his weekly radio address. Bush used the address to put pressure on senators as they prepare to hold a vote on the contentious issue next week. Signing an overhaul into law would be viewed as a marquee domestic achievement for the president.

He has dispatched two members of his Cabinet, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, to Capitol Hill for almost daily closed-door meetings with a handful of Republicans and Democrats to cut an immigration deal. The group is eyeing a Tuesday deadline for a compromise. "These meetings have been productive. We've been addressing our differences in good faith, and we're building consensus. Both Republicans and Democrats understand that successful immigration reform must be bipartisan," Bush said.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., thanked Bush for "addressing the nation on this critical issue and emphasizing the common goals that we share. "The American people will be watching and waiting to see if the Senate can come together on immigration reform and strike the right balance between strengthening our security and our economy and enacting laws that uphold the humanity and dignity of those who come here seeking a better life," Kennedy said.

Both sides have an interest in addressing the topic, which polls show is among Americans' top concerns. It's also a top issue for Hispanic voters, a fast-growing segment of the electorate that is being hotly contested by the two parties. "The politics are pointing to action. What's difficult is that squaring the circle on the policy differences between the two parties is hard," said Frank Sharry, the executive director of the National Immigration Forum. "Politically it makes sense for the key players to get it done this year, and before the next election season kicks in," Sharry said.

Still, the negotiations have proceeded in fits and starts, with key players agreeing on broad principles but not always specifics, and both parties' core constituencies becoming increasingly nervous that their leaders will compromise too much on an emotional and highly complicated issue. Talks were to continue throughout the weekend on a possible deal that would first secure the U.S.-Mexico border and implement an elaborate high-tech identification system for immigrant workers, and only then give an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S. a chance at legal status - after paying high fines, returning home and waiting as long as 13 more years.

The proposal would also create a guest worker program for new arrivals, but it would prevent many of them from staying in the U.S. The ability of immigrants to bring their families into the country would be limited.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has set a vote for next week to bring up an alternative plan that passed the Senate last year with wide support from his party but substantial GOP opposition. Republicans have said they would block the move, arguing that the bipartisan talks should be given time to bear fruit. Without a deal by Tuesday, the stage would be set for a partisan clash over immigration when the vote occurs, expected on Wednesday.

Bush has long called for an immigration overhaul that would create a guest-worker program and allow illegal immigrants a chance at citizenship, as well as bolstering border security. He supported the 2006 measure, which died in the House amid opposition from his own party's conservatives. The potential compromise being discussed now is an effort to meld key elements of that plan, including allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S. legally, with tougher provisions that could draw GOP support.

Source



America Should Exchange its "Progressives" for Mexican Immigrants

Rather tongue in cheek below but he has a point

My argument is that America should exchange "progressives" or "liberals" for Mexicans. This would resolve the immigration debate plus make America a more successful country.

I have previously blogged that "liberals" or "progressives" are disloyal to the United States and that their heated opposition to the War in Iraq coupled with their confused arguments are evidence. The reason is that in order to take a position opposed to the war, the left needs to show that an alternative strategy (no response to terrorism; an alternative kind of military response to terrorism) would be more effective in furthering the security and progress of the United States. Such an argument is conceivable but the left has not articulated one.

At the same time that "liberals" hate the United States, some Mexicans have been eager to come. Many conservatives have argued for limitations on immigration. But I think that even the most anti-immigration conservative would agree that if we could exchange Mexicans for "liberals" the nation would be better off. Therefore, I propose an exchange program.

Universities should be asked to move to Mexico. This could be done by making continued tax exemption contingent on relocation to Mexico. In addition, educators, trial attorneys, newspapers and television stations should be encouraged to move to Mexico, again, using tax incentives. In addition, New York City, Los Angeles and San Francisco could be asked to secede and to merge with Mexico City. Much as Alaska is separated from mainland America, so can New York, LA and San Francisco be separated from a nation in which their "progressive" residents can believe. This would also have the side benefit of sending Nancy Pelosi and Charles Rangel to the Mexican Congress.

In exchange for Mexican citizenship, the people of New York City, etc., and the relocated university professors, television personalities and Hollywood producers, could be replaced by equal numbers of Mexicans. In addition, all other "progressives" should be given the chance for a tax exemption if they choose to relocate to Mexico. That way, even more Mexicans can replace them. If done properly, perhaps millions of "progressives" can be relocated to Mexico, and millions of eager Mexicans can be relocated here. The George Washington Bridge would become a border crossing. Border guards on the outbound side would be careful not to allow "illegals" out of New York City.

American "progressive" traitors would be replaced by Mexican immigrants. The immigrants would be required to go to American schools, which, since the "progressive" educators will have emigrated, would teach principles on which America is based. These include freedom, tolerance, and respect for those with whom we disagree. The schools would encourage loyalty. Most importantly schools would teach reading, writing and arithmetic properly for the first time in a century. Once the "progressives" go, our math and reading scores will shoot up because incompetent education will go with them.

The result would be a large number of Americans of Mexican extraction who have replaced traitorous "liberals". Freed of "progressives", the American economy would explode. We would become fabulously wealthy. It would be like the late 19th century. New ideas would transform the world.

At the same time, with even more left wing kooks than it has now, Mexico would deteriorate rapidly. In a few generations the descendents of the new Mexican "progressives" would begin to try to return here. But the future Americans, including those descended from Mexican immigrants, would not let them. They are not fools. The "progressives" would be required to remain in Mexico. Their descendents would have the chance to eat what their "progressive" ancestors served.

Source



13 May, 2007

Bush Sets Criteria For Immigration Reform

President George Bush set five criteria he says must be met for comprehensive U.S. immigration reform to become a reality. In remarks prepared for his weekly national radio address, the Republican president said the United States must: keep trying to improve border security; hold employers accountable for the workers they hire; create a temporary worker program; resolve the status of millions of illegal immigrants already hear "without amnesty and without animosity;" and "finally, we must honor the great American tradition of the melting pot."

Bush said talks with leaders from both parties in recent weeks have been productive. "We've been addressing our differences in good faith, and we're building consensus," Bush said.

The president said the nation needs a system that "meets the legitimate needs of workers and employers" and one that "treats people with dignity and helps newcomers assimilate into our society." Bush said all of the elements must be addressed "or none of them will be solved at all."

Concerning the American "melting pot," Bush cited the need for Americans to share ideals, appreciate the country's history, "and an ability to speak and write the English language."

Source



More on immigration and Fort Dix

Post lifted from The Corner. See the original for links

It's too early to say for certain, but the Fort Dix plot begins to look as though it could have significant implications for immigration policy. VDH has commented on the link to illegal immigration, yet that's only part of the story. Although we don't yet have enough information, today's NYT story makes it seem pretty likely that the Duka family at the heart of the plot (and what the Times calls the entire "extended Duka dynasty") arrived though a process of chain migration based on the principle of "family unification." Most new legal permanent residents in the United States now enter via family unification.

Chain migration through extended family unification is a potentially huge barrier to assimilation. My recent two-part study of cousin marriage and failed Muslim assimilation in Britain is essentially the story of how the loophole of family reunification was turned by in-marrying extended Muslim clans into an immigration disaster. (See "Assimilation Studies," and "Assimilation Studies, Part II."

Today's NYT story seems to tell an at least somewhat similar story. The same pattern of immigration based on extended clan ties, and the maintenance of links with clan-dominated villages in the originating country, seems to apply. This pattern is a recipe for failed assimilation.

It's far from clear that the Duka family consolidated it's kinship and immigration links via cousin marriage. The Macedonian village of Debar, where the Duka's come from, sits by the border with Albania. My best understanding is that this is the region where Muslim cousin marriage begins to peter out. Certain Muslim enclaves in Albania practice it, while others do not. Nor do I have detailed knowledge of kinship structure in and around Debar. But it sounds like we're probably dealing with an extended clan with perhaps some consolidation through intermarriage, whether or not that includes first cousin marriage. (Alternatively, we may be looking at the practice of village endogamy.) One of the non-Duka plotters is related by marriage, and it's common for clans to extend fictive ties (a kind of honorary membership) to such alliances, and to seek to tighten the links with further intermarriage.

I am not saying that anyone in the Duka family, outside the plotters themselves, was involved here. The point is, when you bring over a vast extended clan through chain migration, and when that extended family group maintains constant ties with an originating village, it becomes vastly more difficult to assimilate. For one thing, chain migration means a constant supply of new family members who don't know English and are unfamiliar with Western ways. For another thing, you are least likely to give up traditional practices, notions of honor, etc., when you are surrounded by people who know you from your home village. In England, it's gotten to the point where marriage-based chain migration has resulted in entire Pakistani villages almost literally being picked up and transferred whole to Britain. Today's Times article paints an all to similar picture, whether cousin marriage per se was involved or not.

The problem here is not that extended-family-based immigrants entirely fail to assimilate. It's more complicated than that. These young Muslim men may at first discard or downplay Islam and seem to fit into American culture. Yet the tension between their larger and relatively unassimilated extended family, on the one hand, and American society, on the other, eventually radicalizes a small group of them.

We need much more information to draw clear conclusions from this particular case. But in principle, "family unification" is liable to be transformed by extended kinship systems into an engine of failed assimilation. Regardless of what we eventually find out about the Duka family and Debar, it would be a very good idea to drastically limit our current family unification provisions and move toward a policy of legal immigration based on individual skills and national needs.

Yuval Levin has a very smart and important article on immigration policy in the May issue of Commentary (not currently available online). Not everyone will agree with Yuval's precise immigration solution, but his discussion of the deeper problems with our legal immigration policy (like family unification) is very helpful indeed.

Based on the European case, I am even more concerned about family unification immigration than Yuval. The problem might (or might not) be less pronounced with Hispanics, but now we may have our first important indication that the European pattern of extended family chain migration among Muslims is beginning to cause serious problems in America. To me, that means we've got to cut back as far as we reasonably can on family unification-based immigration. It's also critical that we begin to gain awareness of the problem. There's a lot more at stake here than illegal immigration. Our legal immigration rules are also flawed and dangerous. Check out my Assimilation Studies series, along with Levin's piece, if you want to learn more.



12 May, 2007

Border bill on Senate's to-do list

Tighter rules for immigrants, patrol expected to pass quickly

Lawmakers, who return to work today, will tighten immigration and border patrol rules that allowed terrorists responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks to enter the country and live here virtually undetected. The Senate is expected to vote next week on a sweeping border security and immigration reform bill that passed the House in December. The measure may be among the first to pass the Senate this year, as the parties are expected to continue bickering over how best to stimulate the economy.

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said Tuesday that he hopes to bring up an economic stimulus plan today that includes unemployment benefits, rebates for low-income workers, fiscal relief for states and modest business tax breaks. But the measure may go nowhere because Republicans charge that broader corporate tax breaks are needed to have a stimulative effect. The border security bill, on the other hand, has bipartisan support and is expected to pass quickly. It would require foreigners visiting the United States to carry identification documents that contain biometric data, such as fingerprints and retina scans, by October 2003. State Department background checks on those coming from countries that sponsor terrorism would be required. And all foreign students would be tracked once they're in the country. At least one of the Sept. 11 terrorists came to the country on a student visa but never showed for classes.

The bill also would authorize collection of fees and new federal funding to hire additional immigration officers, and pay for training and salary increases for border patrol agents and Immigration and Naturalization Service inspectors. Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy said the measure would "strengthen immigration laws and increase border protections without obstructing the entry of the more than 31 million foreign nationals who legally enter the U.S. each year."

After the attacks -- in which terrorists hijacked and crashed commercial aircraft into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon -- lawmakers from both parties put aside partisan budget disagreements to draft several major anti-terrorism bills. And even though partisan bickering over the deteriorating budget situation is expected to prevent agreement on major policy changes, lawmakers expect to complete needed anti-terrorism legislation drafted last year.

The Enforced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act was drafted in late November by Kennedy, a Massachusetts liberal, and Republican Sen. Sam Brownback, a Kansas conservative. It is backed by the Bush administration and has 39 Senate co-sponsors, including Texas Republicans Phil Gramm and Kay Bailey Hutchison. The Senate was unable to finish the bill before adjourning at the end of last year because Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., put a hold on it. Democratic aides say the powerful chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee continues to block quick passage of the bill because he is angry with President Bush for killing $20 billion in homeland security money Democrats pushed late last year. Part of that money would have gone toward implementing Kennedy's bill.

Daschle has committed to bringing up the border security bill as soon as possible, his spokeswoman said Tuesday. And Kennedy's spokeswoman said he had hoped for Thursday, but doesn't expect it to come up until next week. Congressional sources said the measure should pass overwhelmingly and, if no changes are made, it could be sent directly to the president for his signature.

The package does not include an extension of the so-called 245(i) provision, which allows some undocumented foreigners to seek legal status while remaining in the country. The Senate passed an extension on Sept. 6 as a goodwill gesture to Mexican President Vicente Fox, who was visiting the United States at the time. The House was scheduled to take up the measure Sept. 11, but legislative business was suspended because of the terrorist attacks. Supporters of the measure tried to attach a 245(i) extension to the House version of the border security bill, which was sponsored by Reps. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., and John Conyers, D-Mich. But several Republicans objected, including the head of an anti-immigration task force, Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado. They threatened to prevent quick passage of the bill if the 245(i) provision was included. On Dec. 19, the House unanimously approved the border security measure, without the extension provision.

Source



The Fort Dix plot and illegal immigrants

So three of the men arrested for plotting to massacre American soldiers in New Jersey were here illegally. Here's a dumb question: Why are there any people here in this country illegally? It's possible to argue back and forth about the economic and social impact of illegal immigration into the United States. But surely there can be no argument about the undesirability of terrorism. And, since we have just been reminded yet again that illegal aliens can be terrorists, we should ask a further question: Do we really have to wait for an A-bomb to go off in a U.S. city before we get curious as to who is in our midst?

Now, of course, some might say we should target only certain groups, such as Arabs and Muslims - the Fort Dix Six are all Muslim - for special surveillance. But that would be profiling, and we can't have that! Moreover, as CBS News reported Tuesday, four of the six accused terrorists are from the former Yugoslavia, a European country. So here's a better idea: Let's simply recognize that the most dangerous elements in our society, by definition, are those who are illegal and unknown. Those unknown illegal immigrants might be honest and hard-working busboys. But they also could be mass murderers: The point is we don't know.

Coincidentally, on Tuesday night's broadcast, CBS went from news about catching terrorists before they strike to news about tracking floods before they rise. According to correspondent Nancy Cordes, the National Weather Service, reacting to the big floods of 1993 that killed dozens, has established a high-tech early-warning system. And it seems to be working: Federal meteorologist Dennis Feltgen displayed computer projections, illustrated by color-coded maps, identifying floods along the banks of the Missouri River. In other words, Uncle Sam seems to be doing pretty well at monitoring water levels - better than he is at monitoring possible terrorist cells.

Note to presidential candidates in both parties: There are votes, lots of them, to be gained by the candidate who presents himself or herself as being tough on homeland security. From securing our borders to ascertaining the legal status of everyone who abides within our borders, the American voters will reward the White House hopeful who offers them what they want - safety. (And if the next president were actually to deliver on that promise, that would be a great argument for re-election.)

But, in the meantime, we might pause to consider further the ethno-religious origins of these six accused terrorists. As noted, four of them are Albanian Muslims, from the former Yugoslavia. That country has now been broken into seven countries, plus the semi-country of Kosovo. Americans will remember Kosovo as the place we tried to help; back in 1999, President Bill Clinton used military force to stop the Serbs from slaughtering and oppressing the locals, who were mostly Albanian Muslims. Americans were told, at the time, that our actions were earning us gratitude from Muslims around the world. Well, maybe yes, maybe no. But we sure don't seem to have earned much gratitude from the Albanians and Muslims who allegedly plotted to kill Americans at Fort D