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 November, 2007

Britain: Failed asylum seekers 'not being deported'

The number of failed asylum seekers being removed from the country has fallen to a five-year low, new figures have shown. Despite promises to clear a backlog of up to 285,000 foreign nationals, fewer than 1,000 were deported in September. At the same time, the number of asylum seekers arriving in the country was double that figure. In the three months to September, there were 3,120 removals - an 18 per cent fall on last year and the lowest number since the second quarter of 2002.

David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: "This is another sign that the Government's tough talk on immigration and asylum is not matched by effective action. "The fall in the number of removals means the Government is failing completely to make inroads into the backlog of half a million people who have no right to be in this country."

The Government claimed the reason for the drop was that officials were concentrating on deporting foreign criminals and illegal workers. Liam Byrne, the Immigration Minister, said overall deportations were running at around 45,000 for the year. But two years ago, ministers said they would remove more failed asylum seekers than there were unfounded new applications. This so-called ''tipping point" target has now effectively been abandoned, despite being a priority for Tony Blair, the previous prime minister.

Mr Byrne said: ''The first people we should send home are those who break British laws. ''We're removing record numbers of foreign criminals including illegal workers who risk undercutting UK wages." The Government says it will deport 4,000 foreign national prisoners this year.

Overall asylum applications are running at the lowest level for at least a decade, though they went up in the third quarter of this year. The total is expected to be around 20,000 by the end of the year - the lowest since the early 1990s.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch, said: "Removals are the lowest they have been for years and fall far short of the Government's target. "The pool of failed asylum seekers, already about a quarter of a million, will have grown by about 2,500 so far this year." He added: "This failure to remove undermines the integrity of the whole system."

Separate figures showed that east Europeans continue to pour into the country looking for jobs. Since May 2004 when eight former Soviet bloc countries joined the EU, three quarters of a million people have registered to work. Many thousands more who do not need to register, such as the self-employed, have almost certainly pushed the total above one million. But it is impossible to say how many have remained in the country for any length of time. Most of the east Europeans say they are only coming for a short period, such as three months. But a growing number are claiming child benefit and receiving tax credits. Nearly 80,000 have been approved for child benefit payments and 45,000 for tax credits. This is three times the number at the end of 2006 and is an indication that many east Europeans - mainly Poles - are staying on.

Once an EU migrant has been working here for 12 months, they are entitled to the same level of support as any British citizen. Child benefit is worth 18.10 pounds a week for the oldest child and 12.10 each of the others. British taxpayers are spending more than 1million a month in child benefit to the families of youngsters who live in the former Soviet bloc countries. Tax credits - which are effectively a benefit as well - are also generous. A worker with two children earning 165 pounds for a 30 hour week can claim credits worth many thousands of pounds a year. These benefits are paid to a worker in Britain even if his family stays at home, provided he has paid taxes.

Source



Official slur on immigration control group

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ from Las Vegas writes:

A number of calls and e-mails poured in last week about what purports to be Question 57 on the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department application form, asking "Have you, your spouse, any members of your family, or any members of your spouse's family ever been associated with gangs or subversive groups (Minutemen, Aryan Brotherhood, etc.)?"

The concern, of course, is that Jim Gilchrist's Minutemen have taken considerable pains to debunk the claims of radical immigration scofflaws that the Minutemen are a bunch of trigger-happy slope-brows, anxious to run down to the border and shoot themselves a Mexican. The Minutemen would like to see our immigration laws enforced, and argue that they accomplish this by calling in appropriate law enforcement authorities when they see the law being broken.

If Metro were refusing to hire people who cooperate with law enforcement agents and pitch in to help enforce the immigration laws -- lumping them in with racist prison gangs -- yet had no compunctions about hiring members of any number of radical "Aztlan" groups with long Hispanic names that actually oppose enforcement of the immigration laws, that would be a concern.

In fact, Metro spokesmen called me back Wednesday to assure me that -- although that question once appeared on a document Metro calls a "personal history questionnaire" -- the language naming those specific groups was removed in 2005, and was accessible on the department's Web site only because a link to the out-of-date form was mistakenly left active.

As late as Friday, a Metro spokesman could not confirm whether the "Minuteman" group referred to in the pre-2005 form was Jim Gilchrist's current group, or some earlier outfit with the same name.

"Our position as an agency is we don't target any group, any individual organization," says Metro personnel Lt. Charles Hank. "We evaluate everyone on their background and their merit; if they've done something illegal -- no matter whether they represented themselves by their name or by their organization -- they may not qualify" to work for Metro

Source





20 November, 2007

Worldwide disquiet about immigration

In the past three years, as Britain has experienced the largest wave of immigrants in its history, opinion polls have shown a big increase in the number of people who are alarmed about immigration. The Conservative Party accordingly pledges to cut migrant numbers. Rattled, the Labour Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, talks of "British jobs for British workers" - a slogan once linked to the far-right British National Party. The parties look to be vying with each other to build Fortress Britain. Yet it has not happened. Brown promises tighter migration quotas and better border control to reduce illegal immigration, but neither will dramatically affect numbers. The Conservatives struggle to specify what categories of immigrants they would cut.

It is not just Britain. Three in four Americans say they want more controls on immigration, the latest Pew Global Attitudes Survey shows. Yet neither main party in the US plans to seriously wind back legal immigration: the US continues to take a million migrants a year.

The Pew Research Centre polled 45,000 people in 47 rich and poor countries and found that in 44 of them, majorities believed "we should restrict and control entry of people into our country more than we do now".

Nevertheless, Spain, where 77 per cent of people want more controls, is running a huge immigration program, with 4 million newcomers since 1996. Immigration to Italy is even larger - 700,000 a year - and 87 per cent of people want more controls. Yet the Prime Minister, Romano Prodi, has urged Italians to embrace the first mass immigration in their history.

What is going on? Are politicians out of step with the public, and is a reversal of policy just a matter of time? Perhaps, but I doubt it. Immigration is a fact of modern life and, despite periods of public unease, almost certain to remain so. That unease is hardly new. Arthur Calwell, the architect of Australia's postwar immigration program, was terrified of a backlash to his policy. Polls in the 1960s regularly showed that eight in 10 Britons thought too many black people were entering the country.

If governments have dared defy public opinion, it is not out of brotherly love for foreigners, but for hard-nosed economic reasons: to run factories and farms, get streets swept. Since the factories closed in the 1970s and '80s, Europe has struggled to integrate a mass of unskilled migrant workers and their children, but even as it debates the perceived failures of integration the clamour for new workers in new industries resumes.

Romanians, whose 500,000-strong presence in Italy is provoking huge hostility, are vital to the country's agriculture and aged-care sectors. Without foreign doctors and nurses, the former prime minister Tony Blair once said, the National Health Service could not run.

Could this new mobility of global workers be stopped? Yes, but probably not while the economy is good. Many European countries are also experiencing high levels of emigration. Last year Holland took 100,000 people but lost 130,000, while 200,000 Britons left last year, the highest figure in its postwar history. Many of the leavers are skilled and must be replaced. Yet they are far less likely than earlier migrants to stay in their adopted countries. At least half the 400,000 Poles who have come to Britain in recent years are expected to go home.

It would be wrong to be utopian. Immigration comes with costs, most of all to immigrants, but also to the poorer communities among whom many settle. There is evidence immigration is driving down low-skilled wages in Britain. Working-class concerns that it frays old social bonds should not be simply dismissed as racism.

Understandably, governments will want to manage migration in hard economic times or to ease public concern. They also have the right to make demands of migrants, such as language learning, which most want to do anyway. As the Dutch sociologist Paul Scheffer says, if you demand nothing of migrants, "the veiled message is: you will never be part of this society". However, "when you make demands of newcomers, the receiving society also undertakes an obligation".

Source



Imigration a crucial issue for candidates

America's rugged, porous southern border has come to symbolize a broken immigration system, spawning a political debate especially fraught with perils. Nowhere is that more evident than in the presidential primary races. The highly charged immigration issues have tripped up veteran politicians such as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who recently appeared to waffle on whether to grant noncitizens driver's licenses, and Sen. John McCain, who's backed away from a long legislative history advocating a path to citizenship for the estimated 12 million to 15 million people who've slipped over the border or overstayed their visas.

Pundits dub the immigration issue "a minefield," "a new third rail," as well as a "megaissue" because of its complexity and the strong emotions it evokes. Even the language used - "undocumented worker" versus "illegal immigrant" - has become a potentially volatile touchstone. While immigration still comes in behind the war in Iraq, the economy, and healthcare issues when voters are polled about their concerns, it now beats out terrorism. "Even more important, it's the high-intensity issue on both sides, and in this [primary race], high-intensity minorities are more important than majorities," says John Zogby, president and CEO of Zogby International, a polling firm. "It's also the ultimate wedge issue, because it's a zero-sum game."

In general, the Democrats support shoring up the border, having tougher enforcement in the workplace, and creating a way for "undocumented workers" to earn citizenship. Their mantra is "comprehensive reform." For Republicans, it's "tough enforcement": All support more border security and tough workplace enforcement, and most are adamantly opposed to creating any kind of "amnesty" for "illegal aliens." The exception is Senator McCain. While he has backed off stands openly advocating a path to citizenship, he still says it's important to "recognize the importance of assimilation of our immigrant population," according to his website.

Fault lines for each party

Within those fairly clear stances, there are political fault lines for both parties. For Republicans, the biggest problem lies in alienating the fast-growing block of Hispanic voters. That presents a serious challenge not just to the candidates, but to the long-term prospects of the GOP, most political analysts say.

The reason is that more Hispanics are voting. In 1992, Hispanics made up 4 percent of voters in the presidential election, according to an analysis of the data by Mr. Zogby. In 1996, it was 5 percent; in 2000, 6 percent. By 2004, Latinos made up 8-1/2 percent of voters. And many of them are in swing states such as Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and Florida that President Bush won - some just barely - in 2004. "The Republicans are losing one of the great swing votes in American politics - Hispanics and Latinos," says Larry Sabato, a political analyst at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. "They're taking great offense at the Tom Tancredos of the world."

The presidential platform of Representative Tancredo (R) of Colorado says, "I am 100 percent opposed to amnesty.. I will secure our borders so illegal aliens do not come and I will eliminate benefits and job prospects so they do not stay." He also routinely ties the broken immigration system to the terrorist threat.

For many Hispanic voters, such adamant opposition to illegal immigration translates into opposition to Latinos in general. That became clear to them in the spring of 2006: Many Republicans abandoned Mr. Bush's efforts at comprehensive reform, and the House instead passed a bill that made it a felony to be an illegal immigrant and a felony to help one. That prompted mass demonstrations by legal and illegal immigrants and played a key role in that fall's election, which gave control of Congress to the Democrats. A recent report called "Hispanics Rising" done by NDN, a progressive Democrat-leaning think tank, notes there was "a dramatic reversal" of Hispanic voting patterns as a result. In 2004, 40 percent of Hispanics voted Republican, according to exit polls cited by NDN. In 2006, only 30 percent pulled the lever for the GOP. "This has been a catastrophic issue for the Republican Party because they've made a massive investment in something that's gotten them nothing," says Simon Rosenberg of NDN.

That trend also has some Republicans worried. "Republicans have given Democrats a way to take a free ride: Too many people in my party have chosen to demagogue on immigration, and that makes it easy for Democrats to say, 'We'd like to do better,' " says Tamar Jacoby, a political analyst at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank.

Supporters of taking a tough stance on illegal immigration disagree. Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a Washington-based advocacy group, argues that Hispanics still make up a relatively small percentage of the voting population. There are enough moderates angered by illegal immigration in both parties to offset the Hispanic vote, he says.

For proof, he points to New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's proposal to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. With 72 percent of New Yorkers opposed, he withdrew the idea last week - but not before it tripped up Senator Clinton on the campaign trail when she, in Mr. Mehlman's words, "tried to dance" around the issue by saying that it was a "sound idea" but that she opposed it. "It's a tougher issue for Democrats because to get the nomination you have to go farther out to the left," says Mehlman. "That's probably the only sector of the American public that doesn't want to see meaningful enforcement."

Therein likes the immigration pitfall for Democrats. Many Democrat voters, including blue-collar workers and some African-Americans, blame illegal immigration for driving down wages and increasing worker exploitation. They, too, want to see strict workplace enforcement and tighter border security. "Republicans are ready to pounce on Democrats for being soft and weak on illegals," says Zogby.

Polls show the majority of Americans support finding a way to allow the estimated 12 million to 15 million illegal immigrants to earn citizenship. But those poll outcomes depend very much on how the question is asked. "If you put the stress on the fact that these people are here illegally, that colors everything else. People say, 'They've already broken the law; they can't be rewarded for that,' " says Mr. Sabato, the University of Virginia political analyst. "But if you start out by saying, 'Should we create a path for citizenship for those that are here trying to build better lives for themselves and their families?' Then that brings out the compassionate side of the American public."

Since this is such an emotional, hot-button issue, voters can expect most of the main presidential candidates to stick very close to their scripted positions - and avoid getting entangled in specifics. "That's the dance we're going to see all the way through 2008," says Tom Patterson, a political analyst at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government in Cambridge, Mass. "If a Democrat does get elected, there will be a serious effort to come back to something that, ironically, won't be too different from what President Bush proposed [in 2006]."

Source





19 November, 2007

Japan cracks down

Given the famous safety of life in Japan, a desire to look carefully at people from less law-abiding countries would be perfectly rational

Japan has tried hard in recent years to shake its image as an overly insular society and offer a warmer welcome to foreign investors and tourists. But the country is about to impose strict immigration controls that many fear could deter visitors and discourage businesses from locating here. On Tuesday, Japan will put in place one of the toughest systems in the developed world for monitoring foreign visitors. Modeled on the United States' controversial U.S.-Visit program, it will require foreign citizens to be fingerprinted, photographed and questioned every time they enter Japan.

The screening will extend even to Japan's 2.1 million foreign residents, many of whom fear they will soon face clogged immigration lines whenever they enter the country. People exempted from the checks include children under 16, diplomats and "special permanent residents," a euphemism for Koreans and other Asians brought to Japan as slave laborers during World War II and their descendants.

The authorities say such thorough screening is needed to protect Japan from attacks by foreign terrorists, which many fear here because of Japan's support for the United States in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the measures, part of an immigration law enacted last year, have been criticized by civil rights groups and foreign residents' associations as too sweeping and unnecessarily burdensome to foreigners. They note that the only significant terrorist attack in Japan in recent decades was carried out by a domestic religious sect, which released sarin nerve gas in the Tokyo subway in 1995, killing 12 people.

Some of the most vocal critics have been among foreign business leaders, who say the screening could hurt Japan's standing as an Asian business center, especially if it is inefficiently carried out, leading to long waits at airports. Business groups here warn that such delays could make Japan less attractive than rival commercial hubs like Hong Kong and Singapore, where entry procedures are much easier.

The business groups also contend that the screening runs counter to recent efforts by the government to attract more foreign investment and tourism. "If businessmen based here have to line up for two hours every time they come back from traveling, it will be a disaster," said Jakob Edberg, policy director in the Tokyo office of the European Business Council. "This will affect real business decisions, like whether to base here."...

However, some civil rights groups worry that the government is using terrorism to mask a deeper, xenophobic motive behind the new measures. They say that within Japan, the government has justified the screening as an anticrime measure, playing to widely held fears that an influx of foreigners is threatening Japan's safe streets. These groups also note that fingerprinting of foreigners is not new here. Until fairly recently, all foreign residents were routinely fingerprinted. That practice was phased out after years of protest by foreign residents and civil rights groups.

"Terrorism looks like an excuse to revive to the old system for monitoring foreigners," said Sonoko Kawakami at Amnesty International in Japan. "We worry that the real point of these measures is just to keep foreigners out of Japan." ....

Only the Tokyo area's main international airport at Narita has agreed to set aside lines for foreign residents. Others, including the nation's second-largest airport, Kansai International near Osaka, will force these residents to line up with other foreigners, who even before the new screening often waited an hour or more to pass through immigration.

Source



Driver's licenses for migrants? Not in Mexico

The question of whether to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants ignited a national debate in the United States. But in Mexico, the largest source of U.S. immigrants, there's no question: Here, you must be a legal resident to get a driver's license. All of Mexico's 31 states, along with Mexico City, require foreigners to present a valid visa if they want a driver's license, according to a survey of states by The Arizona Republic. "When it comes to foreigners, we're a little more strict here," said Alejandro Ru¡z, director of education at the Mexican Automobile Association

Immigrant drivers zoomed into the national spotlight after presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton said a move by the New York governor to give licenses to illegal immigrants "makes a lot of sense" during an Oct. 30 debate. On Wednesday, Clinton backed off that plan. Proponents said the plan would have made the roads safer by ensuring that drivers are trained and insured, but the ensuing public outcry forced Gov. Eliot Spitzer to abandon the effort Wednesday. U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., planned to file a bill this week that would bar states from any future attempts to give licenses to illegal immigrants.

Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington allow drivers to get licenses without proving they are legal residents, according to the National Immigration Law Center. Most other states, including Arizona, require applicants to prove they are citizens or legal residents. Mexicans make up the bulk of illegal immigrants in the United States, accounting for an estimated 6 million of the 11.5 million undocumented residents as of March 2005, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

Mexico's Foreign Relations Secretariat declined to comment on the controversy this week, but the Mexican government has fought U.S. restrictions on licenses in the past. In 2004, the former Mexican consul in New York, Arturo Sarukhan, called such rules "a policy without a purpose" during a hearing in the New York State Assembly. Sarukhan is now the Mexican ambassador in Washington.

Yet, licensing offices in all of Mexico's 31 states, along with the Federal District, where Mexico City is located, said they require applicants to prove their citizenship, preferably by showing a federal voter-registration card issued by the Federal Elections Institute. Of those, 28 states and the Federal District said they would issue licenses to foreigners only if they present valid FM-2 or FM-3 residency visas. The central Mexican states of Morelos, Puebla and Guerrero are more lenient. Foreigners there can get a driver's license with a valid tourist visa, or FMT. Tourist visas are issued by federal immigration agents at airports and border crossing points. Foreign tourists who are in Mexico temporarily can also drive using their foreign licenses, states said. Most U.S. states, including Arizona, have a similar exemption for temporary visitors.

Mexican officials said the application rules are strictly enforced, especially in southern states that have a problem with illegal immigrants from Central America. "Last week a man came here (with a tourist visa) and said he was working as a deliveryman," said Denia Gurgua, manager of the driver's license office in Tuxtla Guti‚rrez, the capital of the southern state of Chiapas. She said she denied him a license because he did not have a visa to work in Mexico. "Our constitution has certain restrictions for foreigners," she said.

U.S. proponents of tougher restrictions worry that having a driver's license helps legitimize illegal immigrants, making it harder to detect and remove them. "The fact that all 31 states in Mexico would have such a common-sense position . . . shows to me a certain hypocrisy on the part of the Mexican government, because they are constantly criticizing those of us in Congress who want immigration laws to be tougher up here," said King of New York.

But immigrant advocates says the two countries don't compare. U.S. states are trying to protect other motorists from millions of illegal immigrants who are already driving, said Tyler Moran, an expert on driver's licenses at the National Immigration Law Center. Mexico's pool of foreign residents is much smaller, about 492,000 people in a country of 105 million, according to the 2000 census. "It may be a bit like comparing apples and oranges," Moran said. "The (U.S. states) are dealing in reality, and it's better public policy to have people actually have licenses, have identification, have insurance than not."

Source





18 November, 2007

New Zealand doesn't want fatties

A British woman planning to start a new life with her husband in New Zealand has been banned from entering the country - because she is too fat. Rowan Trezise, 33, has been left behind in England while her husband Richie, 35, has already made the move down under leaving her desperately trying to lose weight. When the couple first tried to gain entry to the country they were told that they were both overweight and were a potential burden on the health care system.



Mr Trezise managed to shed two inches from his sizeable waistline to fulfil criteria set out as part of his visa application to work as a technician in the country. His wife however has had no such luck and faces a desperate battle to shed the pounds before Christmas, at which point the couple say they will abandon their overseas plans. New Zealand officials assess people's weight using Body Mass Index which measures fat by comparing the height and weight of an individual.

Mr Trezise, a submarine cable specialist and former member of the army said his BMI was measured at 42 making him well over the limit of 25 which is regarded as overweight. "My doctor laughed at me. He said he'd never seen anything more ridiculous in his whole life," he said. "He said not every overweight person is unhealthy or unfit. The idea was that we were going to change our lifestyle totally and get outdoors and on mountain bikes and all sorts of activities."

Robyn Toomath, a spokesman for New Zealand's Fight the Obesity Epidemic and an endocrinologist said that obese people should not be victimised, but agreed with the restrictions. "The immigration department can't afford to import people who are going to be a significant drain on our health resources. "You can see the logic in assessing if there is a significant health cost associated with this individual and that would be a reason for them not coming in."

While the New Zealand Immigration Service could not say how many people had been refused entry on similar grounds, the Emigrate New Zealand website revealed that many people had been banned for being obese.

Source



Employer-sanctions law faces federal test today

As Arizona's employer-sanctions law goes under the legal microscope today, it is attracting a national spotlight for its potential effects on jobs, workers and policies nationwide. "If it passes federal muster here, it'll be coming to a state legislature near you," said Farrell Quinlan, who represents a coalition of business groups working to make sure the law gets stopped in court. The hearing begins at 10:30 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Neil Wake in the downtown Phoenix federal courthouse. Late Tuesday, court officials scheduled the hearing for a larger courtroom to accommodate what is expected to be a big crowd.

A key issue in the case is whether Arizona is within its constitutional limits to use the state's business licenses as the way to punish any employer found to have knowingly hired illegal workers. Arizona is in the vanguard of states trying to curb illegal immigration by shutting off the job magnet they believe entices millions to enter the country illegally. Georgia and Oklahoma have similar laws targeting employers.

Arizona's law is slated to take effect Jan. 1. It calls for up to a 10-day suspension of a business' state-issued licenses for the first violation of having "knowingly" hired an illegal worker. A second offense would require revocation of those licenses.

The case is being closely watched by groups such as the National Conference of State Legislatures, which has added a discussion of the sanctions law to the agenda of its fall meeting to be held later this month in Phoenix.

Today's proceedings should give panelists plenty to talk about. "States are trying to test their boundaries because this is a gray area between federal and state law," said Ann Morse, a program director at the legislative group. "The immigration issue has just skyrocketed. The number of bills introduced (in legislatures) this year has doubled, and that had doubled over the year before."

A report compiled by the legislatures group found that immigration legislation was introduced in each of the 50 states this year, for a total of 1,404 bills. Of them, 182 survived to become law, including Arizona's House Bill 2779. Most business groups opposed to the law make the same argument that underpins their lawsuit against the state: The law is unconstitutional because it calls for the state to intrude into employment law, which is a federal responsibility. State attorneys have argued in briefs filed in advance of today's hearing that federal law clearly gives states authority to regulate businesses through the licensing process.

The outcome, expected next month, is likely to touch off national repercussions. If the law is upheld, it could set off a wave of similar bills in other states. It could even get a divided Congress to act, said Hector Chichoni, an immigration and employment attorney who practices out of Miami, Fla., and objects to the Arizona law. "I think Congress will hurry up and enact some law to stop pandemonium in other states," he said. If the law is struck down, there would be "relief" among many employers and immigrant groups, he predicted. But whatever the outcome, it's likely to be appealed by the losing party, leading to the prospect of a protracted legal battle and continued debate here and nationally over how to cut illegal immigration.

The bill's prime sponsor, state Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, tried for years to enact sanctions legislation. It passed easily this year amid growing public frustration with illegal immigration, although some lawmakers have since said they regret their votes in favor of it. Gov. Janet Napolitano signed the bill into law on July 2, even as she expressed reservations about some of its provisions. Business groups sued 11 days later.

Wake, appointed to the federal bench by President Bush, has promised a ruling on the case before the law's Jan. 1 effective date. The case may mark the first time the merits of a sanctions law has been taken before a federal court, said Mark Kirkorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Policy, which backs a strong enforcement-first approach to the nation's immigration problems. And a verdict in the case could break through the sound barrier that often blocks Washington, D.C., from paying attention to what's happening west of the Potomac, he said. In his view, the legal debate over sanctions laws hasn't drawn much attention. For example, earlier this month a federal judge in Oklahoma rejected a request for an injunction against that state's immigration law, which includes employer sanctions. The action drew little notice in Washington, he said. Oklahoma's law took effect on Nov. 1, although the challenge to the law's merits - brought by Latino groups and clergy - is continuing.

Source





17 November, 2007

Republicans winning new citizens for 2008 vote

Minutes after taking the Pledge of Allegiance, new American citizens are urged to register as voters by Democratic activists who see them as natural party supporters who could hold the key to the 2008 election. But with increasing illegal immigration threatening the economy and security of the United States, many legal immigrants anxious to uphold the laws of their adopted country are moving towards the more hard-line immigration stance of Republicans.

Even in California's Democratic-controlled San Diego, sizeable numbers of America's newly-minted potential voters said that illegal immigrants should be penalised rather than given an easy route to citizenship as most Democrats advocate. "For a long time, immigration was OK," said Sarah Wright, 49, a seamstress from Mexico who arrived in the US legally in 1986. "But now, no more. A lot of really bad people come from Mexico and commit crimes. "People are coming in and having two, three, four babies and going on welfare. Some are making money here and spending it back in Mexico. "That's not right. They should go back to Mexico and get a permit."

Mrs Wright, whose American-born husband Ed served in the US Navy, was one of 1,591 people from 89 countries who became citizens at a ceremony in San Diego's Golden Hall on Tuesday. Nearly two thirds of them were from Mexico, whose border is just 17 miles from the city. During the 40-minute ceremony, performed by a judge, the new citizens waved American flags, sang "America the Beautiful" and raised their rights hands as they repeated the oath to "abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty" of another nation.

More here



Italy, Denmark, Switzerland . . . all around us we are having to deal with the consequences of immigration

Below is about as far as a British mainstream newspaper can go at the moment. It's improving!

I pity the poor immigrant," wrote Bob Dylan, "Who wishes he would have stayed home/ Who uses all his power to do evil/ But in the end is always left so alone." The minstrel-poet from Minnesota was chronicling attitudes a generation ago, but his words seem especially apposite today.

Immigration is toxic now in most of the developed world. In Britain, Gordon Brown's Government seems eager to test to destruction its insistence that tolerance is the essential facet of what it means to be British. The incomparable bungling that resulted in illegal immigrants being hired among other things to police border security would surely be parody if it were not prosaic reality. It certainly suggested a rather new take on Mr Brown's famous promise of "British jobs for British workers" a couple of months back.

In Italy, Romanians are in the cross-hairs, after one of them was charged with beating and sexually assaulting a teacher. Last week the Danish Government won re-election only with the continued support of the anti-immigrant People's Party. Last month the Swiss party that goes by the same name got more votes than any party in that country since 1919, with the help of a campaign that included imagery such as a flock of white sheep kicking a black sheep off a Swiss flag. Anti-immigrant sentiment continues to boil in France and the Netherlands.

This week its saliency was underlined when Eliot Spitzer, the Governor of New York, was forced to withdraw an ill-conceived proposal to give driving licences to illegal immigrants. This was the issue that got Hillary Clinton into so much trouble recently when in the last Democratic presidential debate, she gave a classic non-committal, nuanced, focus-grouped answer.

With 12 million or more illegal immigrants in the country, voters are in no mood for overt displays of generosity. Populist anger defeated efforts to give them amnesty a few months ago, and the issue looks set to become perhaps the biggest issue of the presidential election campaign - especially if, as it is currently, progress in Iraq takes the war off the front pages.

Our political, intellectual and media elites ponder this turn of events with a disdainful eye. They shake their heads at the irredeemable bigotry of the masses and wring their hands at the primitive ignorance that drives the popular mood. But our leaders should instead be looking hard at their own role in helping to create this rising backlash against immigration. It comes after 50 years in which, against their own will and better judgment, the masses have been directed to shed anachronistic and dangerous notions of national identity. In Europe especially, the multicultural worldview insisted that we should look with benign neutrality on global cultural diversity, to think of other cultures as no worse than our own, and in many respects quite a bit better. Patriotism equalled racism. National identity was incompatible with global peace.

So what happens when you spend decades suppressing national identity? Do you actually succeed in pouring us all into a great big melting pot? Or do you, in fact, simply nurture a subterranean sense of national selfhood; steadily curdling it over the years so that, when it reasserts itself, it is angry, illiberal and ugly? In Europe we see the consequences everywhere. The current mood, of course, is partly economic - the cheap immigrant stealing our jobs. It partly reflects heightened insecurity, especially the very specific threat posed by Islamists, the vipers in the bosoms of too many Muslim communities. But, as the Italian-Romanian incident shows, it goes much farther, and can take the unprepossessing form of raw and ancient hatreds.

America has, to its great fortune, been spared the worst excesses of multiculturalism. But it has not been completely immune. The current antipathy towards illegal immigrants is apparently about economics, but it isn't really. The US continues to enjoy solid growth, low unemployment and rising incomes for most Americans. As in Europe, the current sentiment is partly about security concerns. It is partly about a simple sense of fairness that asks: why should millions of people be able to break the law with impunity? But it also reflects a rising worry that the new wave of immigrants - mostly from Mexico - are not like previous waves of immigrants who made this country. Those earlier generations may have proudly asserted their ancient heritage, but they quickly integrated as Americans. There is an unsettling impression that many of the new immigrants are not following this model.

A small minority are actively separatist, trying to create little outposts of Mexico in the heartland. But even in its milder form - the refusal to learn English, for example - this modern immigrant mentality is troublingly different.

So now we have one hell of a mess. We - all of us - need immigration. We can't close our doors. In Europe, mountainous demographic challenges mean the only plausible supply of labour is from overseas. But even America cannot afford to be autarkic. It needs strong and steady flows of immigrants to power the world's most dynamic capitalist system. Neither should we regard immigrants as merely a source of cheap labour. They can and do enrich our societies, feeding a diversity that broadens and deepens us all.

But our clumsy efforts to create deracinated "global communities" have badly backfired. In the end, we should not forget that immigrants are immigrants. That means they have come to us, not we to them, because of the opportunities and intrinsic appeal of our own societies. Only by insisting that our own national identity and sovereignty is non-negotiable will we be able to continue both to welcome new immigrants and to maintain our chance at prosperity, and even survival, in a competitive and dangerous world.

Source





16 November, 2007

Emigration soars as Britons desert the UK

Britain is experiencing the greatest exodus of its own nationals in recent history while immigration is at unprecedented levels, new figures show. Last year, 207,000 British citizens - one every three minutes - left the country while 510,000 foreigners arrived to stay for a year or more. The British made up more than half of the 400,000 moving abroad - yet only 14 per cent of immigrants were UK nationals coming home. The figures do not include hundreds of thousands of east Europeans who have come to work in Britain in the past two years. This is because most are coming for less than 12 months and do not show up on the statistics.

The figures from the Office for National Statistics suggest that only one sixth of the immigrants in 2006 were from the states that joined the EU in 2004. The biggest influx was from the New Commonwealth - India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka - with more than 200,000.

Since Labour came to power in 1997, 1.8m British people have left but only 979,000 have returned, Over the same period, 3.9m foreign nationals have come to Britain while 1.6m have left. More than 50 per cent of the British emigrants moved to just four countries in 2006 - Australia, New Zealand, France and Spain. Eight in every 100 went to the USA.

The ONS said that overall last year there were 591,000 immigrants to the UK and 400,000 emigrants, both the highest figures ever recorded. Net immigration - the difference between those leaving and arriving - was 191,000.

The departure of so many Britons is exacerbating the demographic and cultural changes caused by high levels of immigration. Recent figures showed that despite high levels of emigration and a low birth rate, the population is still growing rapidly because of immigration. It is growing by the equivalent to a city the size of Bristol every year. Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch, said: "Two thirds of yet another record level of arrivals come from outside the EU. They could and should be subject to much tighter controls." He added: ''This gives the lie to claims that nothing effective can be done about immigration because of our membership of the EU."

Damian Green, the Conservative spokesman, said: "These figures prove that immigration is still running at unsustainably high levels. "This is the direct result of the Government's 'open door' approach which has totally failed to consider the impact of immigration on public services, housing and community cohesion." Sir Simon Milton, chairman of the Local Government Association, said the Government had no clear idea of where all the immigrants were going and their impact on services. "No-one has a real grasp of where or for how long migrants are settling so much-needed funding for local services isn't getting to the right places," he said. "The speed and scale of migration combined with the shortcomings of official population figures is placing pressure on funding for services like children's services and housing. ''This can even lead to unnecessary tension and conflict."

While immigration is the highest in the country's history, the emigration of UK nationals is running at its greatest level since before the First World War. Little research has been done into the reasons for the exodus of Britons, though it appears more are going abroad to retire though many younger people are leaving to work. A study last year by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) suggested that one in 12 UK nationals may now be living abroad. There are 250,000 second homes owned by British nationals in France alone. Surveys indicate that another one million are set to pack their bags for good over the next five years and a further 500,000 live abroad for part of the year.

Danny Sriskandarajah, of the IPPR, said: "The UK is seeing revolving turnstiles and not over-run floodgates. "More people are on the move than ever before, with a million emigrants and immigrants crossing our borders last year." He added: "It is also clear that immigration is an economic phenomenon, with almost half of those immigrating and emigrating doing so for work-related reasons."

More British live abroad than any other nationality. There are 41 countries with more than 10,000 British living there and another 71 countries with more than 1,000. The levels of emigration are now back to those last seen in the late-1950s and early 1960s, when the "10 pound Poms" left in their droves for Australia, enticed by subsidised travel and settlement.

The last exodus on a similar scale was before 1914, when the outflow was running at 300,000 per annum and more young men were leaving the country every year than died on the battlefields of Europe. Between 1853 and 1913, more than 13 million British citizens left, mainly for North America, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. Some came back; but cumulative net emigration was equivalent to 13 per cent of the population, mostly those aged between 18 and 45. However, there was little immigration then: the population grew because of a high birth rate.

The difference of around three million between the emigration of British nationals and immigration of foreigners represents a five per cent turnover of the entire population in ten years. Previous immigrations did not exceed one per cent over fifty years. This turnaround in population has inevitably changed its ethnic composition. Over the last 20 years, the white British population has decreased slightly while the number of ethnic minority Britons has doubled. Looking ahead to the next 10 years, the white ethnic group will remain static while the number of Asian non-dependents alone will increase from 1.5 to 2.5 million

Source



ID Cards for all Residents Pass a Vote in San Francisco

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors has given preliminary approval to an ordinance allowing municipal identification cards to be issued to anyone living in the city, regardless of their legal status. The proposal passed the first of two required votes on Tuesday night, putting San Francisco, with a population of 725,000, on track to become the largest city in the nation to issue identification cards to anyone who requests one and proves residence. In June, New Haven, Conn., passed a similar measure, believed to be the first in the nation. Since then, several other cities, including New York, have floated the idea.

In San Francisco, supporters said that the ordinance was intended to make life easier for the large number of illegal immigrants working in the city, many of whom cannot get access to services because they have no formal identification. The city already has a "sanctuary" policy forbidding local law enforcement or other officials to assist with immigration enforcement. "I think it's admitting the reality of the situation that we depend on, our tourist and hotel industry depends on, a labor force that's supplied by, for lack of a better term, undocumented residents," said Tom Ammiano, the supervisor who sponsored the bill. Mr. Ammiano described the measure as "a passport of sorts," to "take the kid to the library or open a bank account, or report a crime without being deported."

Supporters and opponents of such measures said states and cities were more likely to take up issues like this one since Congress rejected a comprehensive immigration bill this year. "The brass ring collapsed in Congress, so the people on the ground are still trying to think of things that are going to help this issue down the road," said Steven A. Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, which advocates stronger enforcement of current laws.

And while Mr. Camarota said the card's uses would be largely symbolic, he said passage of the ordinance might force Democratic presidential candidates to talk more about immigration, an issue that public opinion polls show is of concern to many voters and has already been part of the Republican campaign. "It keeps the issue on the front burner," he said.

Supporters of the ordinance say it has more practical effects, including crime prevention. John Trasvina, the president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund in Los Angeles, said he had recently received several reports of so-called SOM, or Sock on Mexican, attacks in the Los Angeles area, crimes he hoped might be reduced if victims came forward. "The victims are living in a cash economy, and they are reluctant to go to the police," Mr. Trasvina said. "Having an ID card addresses both of those issues: it reduces the reliance on cash, because it opens up the opportunities for banking, and it takes away a barrier between community and police."

Mr. Ammiano said the card would also be useful to other groups without government-issued identification, including the elderly, students and transgendered people, who have long found a sympathetic home here.

The bill, which passed the first vote by 10 to 1, will be taken up by the board again before going to Mayor Gavin Newsom, who has indicated his general support. If the experience in New Haven is any indication, the demand for the card here could be strong. More than 4,800 cards have been handed out since late July, said Kica Matos, the New Haven community services administrator, with a "significant number" going to illegal immigrants. "The second day there was a line halfway down the block, and by the third it was all the way down," Ms. Matos said.

Source





15 November, 2007

British scandal gets worse

10,000 in security industry could be illegal, says Smith

Jacqui Smith, facing her first political crisis as home secretary, was forced to admit yesterday that as many as 10,000 non-EU nationals licensed to work in the security industry may be illegal immigrants and that one of them had been responsible for overseeing then-prime minister Tony Blair's car while it was being repaired.

Smith, well supported by backbenchers and cabinet colleagues after being forced to come to the Commons, appeared to have survived, after Downing Street privately said she had not made a mistake in failing to tell Gordon Brown of the news as soon as she discovered the security lapse in the summer. The row was sparked by the leak of Home Office internal emails showing that Smith had accepted Home Office press office advice in August not to disclose the number of illegal immigrants cleared to work in the security industry, on the basis that "the lines to take" would not be good enough for the public and media.

Smith denied Conservative accusations of "blunder, panic and cover-up", insisting: "My approach was that the responsible thing to do was to establish the full nature and scale of the problem, taking appropriate action to deal with it, rather than immediately to put incomplete and potentially misleading information in the public domain. There was no fiasco, there was no blunder, there was strengthened and improved action."

The shadow home secretary, David Davis, owner of many previous Home Office ministerial scalps, attacked Smith, saying she had put avoiding political embarrassment ahead of solving the problem and informing the public.

In an attempt to show that her notoriously malfunctioning department was on top of the problem, Smith disclosed that an initial inquiry by the Security Industry Authority between April 2005 and December 2006 of 3,000 non-EU nationals working in the industry showed that only 41 were illegal workers.

However, ministers were first told in April 2007 that a Border and Immigration Agency operation had found 44 illegal migrants working for the police as security guards, including one at a site where the prime minister's car had been repaired. The home secretary confirmed that she had been told about the problem on July 2, days after she had taken over the job of home secretary, when SIA licences were changed to include a check on immigration status. The full-scale exercise to determine exactly how many illegal migrants there are among the 40,000 foreign nationals licensed to work as security guards before July will not be completed until next month.

Smith's Commons statement left open the possibility that up to 10,000 illegal migrant workers may have been licensed to work in the private security industry either as guards or "close protection" personnel - twice as many as the Conservatives claimed yesterday.

MPs were told that preliminary checks on 6,000 out of the 40,000 workers licensed before July 2007 had shown that only 77% of them had the right to work in Britain. A further 10.5% had been established to be illegal migrants. In a further 12.5% of cases further checks were still being made, raising the possibility that up to 23% could be illegal migrants. As about 40,000 non-European workers have been licensed, the number of illegal workers could be as many as 10,000.

Nick Clegg, of the Liberal Democrats, said Smith seemed to have learned nothing from the failure of her predecessors: "Perhaps if the Home Office was more worried about getting things right and less worried about spinning, these mistakes would not happen at all."

Source



Spitzer backdown

New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer has decided to abandon a plan to issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, officials familiar with the decision told The Associated Press Tuesday night. The governor is due to meet Wednesday morning with New York's congressional delegation, many of whom openly oppose the program. Debate over the issue also has spilled into New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign. The governor's office signaled to New York lawmakers Tuesday that Spitzer will say at the meeting that he is shelving the plan and that immigration is a federal issue to be handled by Washington, according to congressional aides who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because no formal announcement had been made.

Last month, Spitzer sought to salvage the license effort by striking a deal with the Department of Homeland Security to create three distinct types of state driver's licenses: one "enhanced" that will be as secure as a passport; a second-tier license good for boarding airplanes; and a third marked not valid for federal purposes that would be available to illegal immigrants and others.

Clinton has been criticized by her Democratic and Republican rivals for her noncommittal answers on the subject. She has said she sympathizes with governors like Spitzer who are forced to confront the issue of immigration because the federal government has not enacted immigration reform. She has not taken a position on the actual plan offered by Spitzer.

A Spitzer spokeswoman did not immediately reply to an e-mail seeking comment. The governor introduced the plan with the goal of increased security, safer roads and an opportunity to bring immigrants "out of the shadows." Opponents charged Spitzer would make it easier for would-be terrorists to get identification, and make the country less safe. Many New Yorkers agreed with them.

About 70 percent of New Yorkers oppose the license plan, according to a Siena College poll of 625 registered state voters released Tuesday. The poll, conducted Nov. 5-8, had a sampling margin of 3.9 percentage points.

"As I've said on numerous occasions, this is a tough issue," Spitzer said Tuesday in New York City. "And it's one where we're continuing to try to talk to the public, explain why we took the position that I have thus far, and explain what issues we're trying to address. But I understand - you don't need to see the most recent poll to understand that this is an issue that has touched a nerve in the public and we're trying to address that in a thoughtful, modulated way, and then we'll see where we go."

Source





14 November, 2007

Even illegals can pass security vetting in Britain!

The Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, has been accused of covering up the fact that thousands of illegal immigrants were given clearance to work for the government in sensitive security posts. A report in the Daily Mail has quoted emails which show Ms Smith was aware of the error in July, however only admitted the fact to reporters on Sunday in answer to questions. The scandal is centred around the revelation that the Security Industry Authority, a Home Office body, gave security clearance to 5,000 illegal immigrants to work as government security guards.

Opposition Leader David Cameron called on Ms Smith to explain. "I think there are some really big questions for the Home Secretary to answer and she needs to come to the House of Commons today and give a statement and answer those questions," he said. "In particular, I think the real problem for the Government here is that it looks like they put the convenience of when they wanted to announce things to the press and Government spin ahead of public safety and telling the public what was happening." He added, "Until we have a proper Home Secretary announcement and the chance to ask her questions in the House of Commons, it is difficult to get to the truth."

The Home Secretary is to make a statement to the House of Commons later today.

Source



Costly immigrants in Britain

Town halls will have to raise council tax or cut services to pay for the care of thousands of child asylum-seekers, which costs up to 45,000 pounds a year per child, council leaders say today. Nine councils will introduce a report at Westminster showing that they are losing out on 35 million a year, because the Home Office and the Department for Education are not providing the cash.

More than 3,200 unaccompanied asylum-seekers under 18 entered Britain last year, some as young as 4 or 5. Many are orphans or have been smuggled out from their home countries in an act of desperation and councils have a legal duty to look after them. The councils for Birmingham, Hounslow, Hillingdon, Hammmersmith and Fulham, Kent, Manchester, Oxfordshire, Solihull and West Sussex, claim that foster care can cost as much as 900 pounds a week, and that older teenagers often have to be put up in bed and breakfast accommodation. Paul Carter, leader of Kent County Council, said: "In Kent alone we have accumulated 7.5 million to 8 million in debts in care for unaccompanied minors."

Source





13 November, 2007

Dems look for ways to fool voters on immigration

Top Democratic elected officials and strategists are engaged in an internal debate over toughening the party's image on illegal immigration, with some worried that Democrats' relatively welcoming stance makes them vulnerable to GOP attacks in the 2008 election.

Advocates of such a change cite local and state election results last week in Virginia and New York, where Democrats used sharper language and get-tough proposals to stave off Republican efforts to paint the party as weak on the issue. In Virginia, for instance, where Democrats took control of the state Senate, one high- profile victory came in the Washington suburbs, where the winner distributed mailings in the campaign's closing days proclaiming his opposition to in-state college tuition for illegal immigrants.

The party's calibration could also be seen in New York, where a number of Democrats won local elections in part by opposing a plan by Democratic Gov. Eliot Spitzer to issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, and in the presidential campaign, in which party front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has struggled to explain whether she supports the Spitzer plan or not.

In Congress, a group of conservative Democrats, led by freshman Rep. Heath Shuler of North Carolina, introduced legislation last week calling for more Border Patrol agents, heightened surveillance and additional requirements that employers verify the legal status of workers. The proposal does not include measures to create a path to citizenship for millions of illegal workers, measures that recently had been supported by Democrats nationally.

With polls showing broad discontent with the government's handling of immigration, some Democrats argue that the party can toughen its image without moving too far away from its traditionally pro-immigration leanings -- for example, by supporting heightened security at the Mexico border, opposing benefits for illegal immigrants, and pushing for harsher penalties against businesses that hire illegal workers.

"If Democrats turn a blind eye to the public concerns about immigration, it would be a mistake," said Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Texas), who won reelection last year in his conservative district by taking a hard line against illegal immigration while backing what he said were "practical" ideas for dealing with the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. "If Democrats are seen as strongly supporting the protection of our borders and not supporting a vast array of welfare benefits for people here illegally, and combine that with a responsible approach toward earned citizenship for those who have been in our country for a number of years, then it can be a winning issue for Democrats."

The internal debate has grown emotional in recent days, boiling over on Friday during a tense encounter on the House floor between Rep. Joe Baca (D-Rialto), chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.). The caucus was upset because some House Democrats had backed a Republican measure protecting employers that impose certain English-only rules -- the latest in what Baca called a series of frustrations with the party leadership's approach to immigration. "We're tired of people trying to scapegoat the immigrants or Hispanics as a platform," Baca said. "Republicans have done it, and Democrats have followed . . . because they're afraid they're going to lose their elections. But we got elected to represent all communities, not to vote based on whether we're going to get reelected."

The party's dilemma comes in the wake of the Senate's defeat this summer of a major immigration overhaul that would have created a path to citizenship for illegal workers....

The headline in the LA Times was "A fine line for Democrats on border issues." That is a hint as to how they are trying to fool both sides on the issue. It is more evidence that the Democrats are a party whose core beliefs are found in the latest polling data. It is also a party that is largely on the wrong side of the issue trying to please one of its constituency groups that is out of touch with the rule of law when it comes to immigration.

Source



Poll says Brits want less immigration

More than four-fifths of the public believe immigration in Britain should be cut substantially, according to a poll. A majority also dispute the Government's assertion that those coming into the country have helped the economy. The research, carried out by YouGov for pressure group Migrationwatch, emerged as politicians battle to dominate the immigration agenda.

David Cameron was boosted when another poll suggested he was more trusted to deal with the controversial issue than Gordon Brown. The Tory leader has condemned ministers for "incompetence" and called for an overall limit on immigration levels. He has also attacked the Prime Minister for echoing the BNP with his "British jobs for British workers" slogan.

The latest study found 85% of people thought that immigration was putting too much pressure on public services, with only 10% disagreeing. Some 81% supported the view that the level of immigration should be reduced substantially, while 14% rejected it. When asked if they believed immigration had been generally positive for the UK economy, 35% said it had compared to 54% who thought it had not.

Migrationwatch chairman Sir Andrew Green said: "These figures show that now the scale of immigration and its consequences are now being better understood and people are deeply concerned at what is going on."

Source



Australia: Head-in-the-sand Immigration bureaucrats

Years in jail for nothing and not even an apology two years later! This is rivalling the incompetence of the U.S. immigration bureaucracy!

Details have emerged about the wrongful detention of a man who remains a stateless citizen despite an Immigration Department admission of error. Tony Tran, who was living in Brisbane with his wife and son, was detained in December 1999 when immigration officials told him his visa had been cancelled years earlier. The Department admitted a mistake and released him after five-and-a-half years, but because he and his son have no permanent resident status they still face possible deportation.

Mr Tran had been in Australia for seven years, and after applying for a spouse visa for his wife he was detained. This was despite the fact that a letter notifying him of his cancelled visa had never been properly delivered to him. David Manne, director of the Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre, told ABC's Lateline that is illegal. "He should never have been in there in the first place. He should never have been locked up," he said. "Under Australian law, if you're not properly notified of a decision, it is unlawful for you to be detained."

His wife and two-year-old son Hai were not detained, but when faced with detention, his wife willingly left the country. She returned two years later and left her son in Queensland, before returning to South Korea. Mr Tran has not heard from her since.

While Mr Tran was in detention the Immigration Department had his son put in foster care and tried to have him deported, despite his repeated attempts to keep in contact with his son. In 2005 Mr Tran was released with a letter from the Government admitting that he had actually had valid visas since 1993. But two years after his release, there has been no resolution of his or his son's ability to stay in Australia.

Even though he has no rights of citizenship anywhere else and has now been in Australia for 14 years, Mr Tran and his son could still be deported unless they are given permanent residence. Mr Manne says Mr Tran is in legal limbo. "Their future fate is completely uncertain," he said. "They have nowhere else to go, and yet in Australia they have no permanent status." A suit has been filed in the Victorian Supreme Court seeking damages for the unlawful detention, and the reinstatement of Mr Tran's visa.

Source





12 November, 2007

The Dems' Immigration Dilemma

By Gloria Borger

For the past year or so, the Republicans handed the Democrats a gift that kept on giving: immigration reform. The GOP was divided-with the president standing firmly against most of his party, calling for a "path to citizenship"-as the Democrats watched the squabbling from the sidelines. Even more to the point, they were absolutely delighted at the prospect of picking up the support of Hispanic voters outraged at the efforts of some Republicans to deport 12 million illegal immigrants. It was a free ride, and Democrats were happy to take it.

Until the wheels came off. Hillary Clinton didn't mean to be the one to do it, but she was. Her struggle with herself over how to handle the issue of driver's licenses for illegal immigrants the other week changed everything. Not only was she caught without a clear idea of how to handle the matter; the entire dais of Democrats sharing the debate stage with her seemed to be a tad undone by the question-and pleased that she had been called on first. That way, they could jump on her for taking both sides of an issue (a fair critique, to be sure) but delay their own answers long enough to figure out how to straddle the matter. And they're still doing it.

It's not hard to figure out why. Immigration is a killer issue, one that cuts so many ways it's hard for a pol to figure out just how to pander: Liberals are against building that fence to keep illegal immigrants out; conservatives are worried the fence won't be tall enough. Most Americans want some form of reform, yet the solutions are literally all over the map, largely constituency-driven. If you're from New England, for instance, your view is likely to be different from that of someone who lives in the Southwest. "I could empathize with Senator Clinton," Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, told me. "I've had to think my way through about what makes sense."

That's a nice way of saying that the Democratic Party-and its candidates-had better get started. And here's the key reason: Independent voters are unhappy that nothing has been done on the matter, and anyone who wants to be president needs to keep independent voters happy. In fact, a recent survey by Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg shows that the top issue underlying the discontent of independents is "unprotected" borders. For these voters, the matter of illegal immigration is a question of breaking laws and not a stalking horse for something else-like racism. The public is practical and wants tougher enforcement. And if the Democrats can't find some way to embrace the principle of the rule of law, then they've got a problem. "We need to have a strategy beyond saying the Republicans are awful," says one top Democratic strategist. "And we don't."

Tough political call: So it's no surprise there's a debate raging within the Democratic Party about what to do. And the sticking point isn't about enforcement; everyone agrees that needs to be stronger. It's about benefits for illegal immigrants. Should taxpayers provide any? And, if so, what are the parameters? It's not an easy political call. "The push for more benefits is a killer," says one Democratic strategist involved in discussions about immigration. "The public doesn't want that, but it's a problem with some Hispanic leaders." Ipso facto, some Democrats-like the ones running for president-are unwilling to take it on.

That's a mistake. There's a smart analogy being offered by Greenberg, and Democrats ought to listen. Given voters' dissatisfaction with the lack of immigration reform, he says, why not actually offer a proposal to do something? It could be, he says, a "welfare moment." As in: Bill Clinton's end-welfare-as-we-know-it pledge in 1992. That plan was a major component of Clinton's success-not only because it painted him as a new kind of Democrat but also because he seemed fearless in his eagerness to tread into waters Democrats had once avoided. Clinton's willingness to take on the issue was essential to changing-and shaping-the debate. It also transformed him into a leader. Now Hillary Clinton has the opportunity to do something similar, if she has the guts. The first candidate who gets there should get the credit.

Of course, that could well be Barack Obama or any other Democrat if Hillary Clinton's penchant for caution remains. That is, unless her husband can talk her out of it.

Source



British Tory leader in immigration poll boost

David Cameron has been boosted by signs that the public support his stance over immigration. The Tory leader has forged ahead of Gordon Brown when people are asked who they trust to deal with the controversial issue, according to an ICM poll for the Sunday Express. The Conservatives also hold an 8-point lead over Labour when it comes to voting intentions - on 43% compared to 35%.

Immigration has moved to the fore of the political debate over recent weeks, with Mr Cameron condemning the Government for "incompetence" and calling for an "overall limit" on those coming into the country. He attacked the Prime Minister during the Queen's speech debate for echoing the BNP with his "British jobs for British workers" slogan. The poll also suggests the Tories have escaped damage from the row involving Nigel Hastilow, who was forced to quit as a Parliamentary candidate after suggesting that Enoch Powell had been right over immigration.

When people were asked which of the two main party leaders they trusted most to get the issue of immigration "right", 45% named Mr Cameron while just 30% plumped for Mr Brown. As well as receiving the backing of 82% of Conservative voters, Mr Cameron also gleaned support from 23% of Labour voters. And he was regarded as the more likeable of the pair by a margin of 46% to 33%.

However, there was better news for the Prime Minister in other areas of his personal ratings, where he maintained a lead. Despite efforts to brand him as a "bottler", half of respondents believed he was a stronger leader, compared to 29% for Mr Cameron. He was regarded as more of a conviction politician by 44% to 30%, more courageous by 39% to 33%, and better at handling the economy by 53% to 28%.

Source





11 November, 2007

Border crossers now risk jail

Arizona could become the first state to prosecute every adult caught at the border crossing illegally from Mexico. Authorities in the Yuma sector, in the western part of the state, have been prosecuting people caught at the border since December. The Del Rio sector of Texas introduced the policy a year earlier. Both areas phased in the crackdown over six months and saw dramatic drops in the number of border arrests.

Now, federal agencies are discussing expanding the policy, known as Operation Streamline, in January to include the Tucson area, the busiest human-smuggling route in the country. Last week, the Laredo sector in Texas introduced the policy. To make it happen, the Department of Homeland Security would lend acting Arizona U.S. Attorney Dan Knauss four lawyers to work exclusively on Streamline cases. "These are serious discussions. You need to get cooperation of a number of parties," Knauss said. "We still need judges, defense counsel and prison space."

Prosecutions are normally reserved for foreigners with criminal records or people who had been repeatedly caught sneaking into the country. Knauss said his office prosecutes about 2,000 such cases a year in Arizona.

Operation Streamline marks a significant departure from the Border Patrol's historical methods, which let sector chiefs develop their own guidelines for when to refer cases to the immigration courts and when to return illegal immigrants to Mexico quickly, voluntarily and without legal process. Before Operation Streamline, a border crosser in Yuma without a criminal record would have had to be caught three times before being jailed. In Del Rio, it was customarily five times. Since the policy was introduced in Del Rio in December 2005, the Border Patrol has referred 23,000 cases for prosecution. In about 22,000 of them, the illegal immigrants were convicted and deported.

First-time offenders are guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 180 days in jail. In Del Rio, the average jail time for first-offenders is 34 days. Minors, critically ill people and asylum-seekers are exempt, as are those caught after spending 14 days in the country. Border Patrol agents say the prospect of jail is a deterrent.

About a year ago, the Del Rio sector lent Border Patrol agents to the overwhelmed Tucson area. While there, those agents arrested illegal immigrants who had traveled 600 miles from Piedras Negras, which is across from the Del Rio sector, to cross instead in Nogales. The immigrants said they made the longer trip to avoid going to jail if caught, said Hilario Leal, supervisory Border Patrol agent in Del Rio. "The word of mouth gets out. They trek pretty far to get here, and all their efforts go for nothing," he said.

A few weeks in detention may not sound like much when illegal immigrants, who typically pay "coyotes" $1,500 to $2,000 to guide them across the border, risk their lives to trek through the Sonoran Desert. But a second offense under Operation Streamline can mean up to two years in prison.

Arrests in the Del Rio sector dropped dramatically in the first nine months of fiscal year 2007 compared with the same period the year before. From October 2006 to July 2007, agents made 20,000 arrests, 35,000 fewer than the year before. Leal said the agency attributes the drop exclusively to the new policy because it is much sharper than the 30 percent decline in arrests borderwide and Del Rio didn't see the boost in personnel, equipment and fence-building that other areas did.

Source



A censored immigration debate in Britain

Enoch Powell was not right about immigration. But it is wrong to hound out a Conservative candidate for suggesting that he was. Whatever the parties think about immigration, honesty is the best policy and free speech the way to protect a free society. Which is why, as an old libertarian Marxist who supports open borders, I disagree with the attempt to close down the debate.

Nigel Hastilow, Conservative candidate in a Midlands marginal, wrote in a newspaper in Wolverhampton (where Powell was MP when he made his infamous “Rivers of Blood” speech in 1968) that most local people think immigration is our biggest problem, and that “Enoch was right” to say mass immigration would change Britain “irrevocably”.

Last week David Cameron said he wanted a “grown-up debate” about the need to restrict immigration. This week Gordon Brown will announce plans to restrict immigration. Yet everybody agreed that Mr Hastilow must resign for using incorrect words to make the same point. This seems less like a grown-up debate than an all-party attitude of Not in Front of the Children ? and for children, read citizens.

The complaints were not about Mr Hastilow criticising immigration, but the “unwise”, “insensitive” language he used to do so. Speaking for many, George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, said that candidates of all parties “have to exercise great caution in the language they use about immigration”. By contrast, Mr Cameron was praised by Trevor Phillips, the anti-racism tsar, for the “deracialised” tone of his call to reduce immigrant numbers.

This is a tiff about etiquette, not a debate about immigration. It is apparently fine to talk about the alleged problem in coded terms ? the “demographic challenge” or “carbon footprint” ? but not to offer blunt arguments about the supposed cultural impact of immigrants. Why do our leaders insist on this etiquette? Because they think we kiddies are so unstable and ignorant that we might start a pogrom if we get a glimpse of Enoch's shroud?

If politicians had the courage to trust people's intelligence and start a truly grown-up discussion, they might be surprised by the response. Immigration has re-emerged as a focus for public insecurities. But there is no prospect of the sort of racist backlash seen in Powell's day. It is unlikely that Mr Hastilow planned to contest Halesowen & Rowley Regis, as the Tories did successfully in Smethwick in 1964, on the unofficial slogan: “If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour.”

Unlike Messrs Powell, Brown, Cameron and Hastilow, I don't believe that immigration is to blame for social problems. But if our leaders imagine that a Not in Front of the Children policy can defuse the issue then, to paraphrase Powell, we must be mad, literally mad.

Source





10 November, 2007

A Watershed Moment on Immigration

October 2007 may turn out to be the month that immigration became a key issue in presidential politics. It hasn't been, at least in my lifetime. The Immigration Act of 1965, which turned out to open up America to mass immigration after four decades of restrictive laws, wasn't one of the Great Society issues Lyndon Johnson emphasized in 1964. The Immigration Act of 1986, which legalized millions of illegal immigrants but whose border and workplace provisions have never been effectively enforced, was a bipartisan measure unmentioned in the debates between Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale. There was no perceptible difference on immigration between George W. Bush and Al Gore in 2000. Both favored a comprehensive bill with legalization and guest-worker provisions. John Kerry in 2006 and 2007 voted for immigration bills along the lines supported by Bush.

Now, things look different. In the Democratic debate on Oct. 30, Tim Russert demanded to know whether Hillary Clinton supported New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's policy of issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. The forthright answer: yes and no. A clarifying statement by the Clinton campaign later in the week did not much clarify things: a hedged yes. It was one of several issues on which Clinton seemed to take calculating and ambiguous non-positions. But it is one that may have major reverberations in the presidential campaign -- and in congressional races, as well.

The reason is that the Democrats -- and Bush -- are out of line with public opinion on the issue. That became clear as the Senate debated a comprehensive immigration bill in May and June. Most Republicans and many Democrats, in the Senate and among the public, turned against the bill. Supporters of the bill tended to ascribe that to something like racism: They just don't like having so many Mexicans around.

But if you listened to the opponents, you heard something else. They want the current law to be enforced. It bothers them that we have something like 12 million illegal immigrants in our country. It bothers them that most of the southern border is unfenced and unpatrolled. It bothers them that illegal immigrants routinely use forged documents to get jobs -- or are given jobs with no documents at all.

You don't have to be a racist to be bothered by such things. You just have to be a citizen who thinks that massive failure to enforce the law is corrosive to society. That was apparent to me as I listened to a focus group of Republican voters in suburban Richmond, Va., conducted by Peter Hart for the Annenberg School of Communications. One voter after another complained that the immigration laws were not being enforced. None of them made any derogatory remarks about Latino immigrants -- two said they admired how hard they work. They don't want to see Latinos banished from this country. They want the immigrants here to be legally here.

Which leaves Democratic politicians and political candidates out on a pretty flimsy limb. Most of them reflexively back a comprehensive bill, and some of them (like Bush and a number of Republicans backing such a bill) have dismissed opponents as racists. Most Democrats have also been backing bills extending various benefits to illegal immigrants, like the Dream Act for college education for illegals brought over as children. There are appealing arguments for such bills. But most voters reject them. And most voters certainly reject driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. That was one of the issues that led to the recall of Gov. Gray Davis in California in 2003.

The Republican presidential candidates have taken note. Only John McCain, a longtime backer of a comprehensive bill, stands apart, and he concedes that voters are demanding tougher enforcement. In the special congressional election in Massachusetts on Oct. 5, the Republican was able to hold the Democrat to 51 percent by stressing immigration as one of his two top issues. Other Republicans are likely to echo that theme next fall. And the Democratic presidential nominee (unless Chris Dodd gets the nod) is going to have to explain why she or he believes it's a good idea to give illegal immigrants driver's licenses.

The last several Democratic nominees could have said that they're just taking the same position as their Republican opponent. The 2008 nominee won't be able to say the same of hers or his (unless McCain gets the nod). "The centrality of illegal immigration to the current discontent about the direction of the country may be taking us back again to a welfare moment," write the shrewd Democratic strategists James Carville and Stanley Greenberg. Yup.

Source



Muslim Somalis flood one small Kansas town

And many of the locals don't like the transformation of their city into a taxpayer-supported Muslim center. Post below from American Congress for Truth represents that viewpoint. See the original for links

Emporia, Kansas is a small city of perhaps, 28,000 people, near the eastern Flint Hills in the sunflower state. Emporia has a major beef processing plant for Tyson Foods with over 2,000 employees. Dolly Madison Bakery and Hopkins Manufacturing are other major employers, as well. Emporia is going through an influx of Somali Muslims, who may account for upwards of 1,000 residents in this small city. It is also, according to this Emporia Gazette article, about to have an influx of upwards of another 400 Somalis. About 400 Somali refugees currently work at Tyson.

For the calendar year ended September 30, 2007, more than 7,500 Somali refugees came to the U.S, out of a total of 17,000 African "humanitarian refugees" Because the Somalis are certified as `humanitarian refugees' under our State Department rules, they are supported by social services provided by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The ORR in turn contracts via state Departments of Social Services with providers such as Catholic Charities to deliver services. U.S. Taxpayers are picking up the tab, so food processors like Tyson couldn't be happier, given the tightness of the low skilled labor pool in the vicinity.

Emporia is rapidly becoming a major destination for these tough foot soldiers of Islam. Because of its size, not unlike what happened to Lewiston, Maine another small city that has experienced difficulties with Somali immigrants, this influx will have a substantial and taxing impact. We have written about problems of assimilating Muslim Somali refugees in other heartland cities such as Indianapolis, Indiana, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Lincoln, Nebraska, Kansas City, Kansas, Nashville, Tennessee to name a few.

What is consternating is that the Somalis are being recruited for what is clearly the lowest of low end jobs-butchering and meat packing - at Tyson's processing plant in Emporia, The previous pool of workers, Hispanic immigrants, aren't taking the positions. It is a pattern that occurred in Lincoln, Nebraska at another beef processor, Swift & Co. There, in May of this year, 70 of 120 Somali butchers and meat packers quit their jobs because of insufficient "prayer time" was given them. While they subsequently returned, this eruption of Muslim resentment left the locals, flummoxed as to what to do. As noted in the Lincoln Star Journal:

Similar requests for workplace accommodations of Muslim religious obligations have become common around the country, says Muslim advocates. "I don't know how it's going to work, and I feel bad about it," said Dan Hoppes, president of Local 22 of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union.

Will the experience in Lincoln be repeated on a larger scale with the significant Somali work force at Tyson's in Emporia? Probably so. Islamist Mosques will sprout up and Imams will doubtless deliver fire breathing Friday sermons filled with the usual incitement to hate against the Somalis welcoming hosts. the `unbelievers' or kuffirs in Emporia. Perhaps Tyson meat packers might succeed in extracting prayer time and wudus or foot baths, will follow. Just as their Somali cousins did in Lincoln with able assistance of Muslim Brotherhood front group, CAIR. Who knows, even female genital mutilation, spousal abuse and other traits common to the Somalis will burst forth upon the local scene in Emporia. To quote the Emporia Gazette article:

The news cheered Fardusa Council, community liaison for Tyson, and Emporia Refugee Resettlement Alliance members laughed when she responded, "Hurry up and bring 'em so I can shut off my phone."

Steven Weitkamp as director of refugee and migrant services for Catholic Community Services a branch of Catholic Community Charities in Kansas City, Kan that will administer a $104,495 grant from the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services had these benighted remarks in the Emporia Gazette article:

"It was, in a way, almost overwhelming . and yet another opportunity for me to be humbled," Weitkamp said of the registration. "I got a sense of the potential impact of this (Somali) community on a town the size of Emporia. Weitkamp said he expects Emporia to become home to a "pretty substantial community" of refugees. The refugees can maintain that status for five years; they can become permanent resident aliens in one year and, with an unusual amount of effort, can become citizens in five years.

So, these tough foot soldiers of Islam from Somalia get into the US on humanitarian refugee certifications, receive social assistance from the ORR delivered by Catholic Charities to obtain green cards within a year and US citizenship in five years. All of this on your taxpayer dollars and mine.

The barbarians are truly in the gates and American businesses like Tyson in Emporia, Swift in Lincoln, Nebraska and Opryland and Dell Computers in Nashville, Tennessee are facilitating this influx of Somali Islamists in America's heartland. If the Emporia Gazette's famed Pulitzer Prize winningeditor, William Allen White were alive today, I wonder what he would say about all this?





9 November, 2007

Dangerous racket stopped

In a string of early morning raids today, federal and local authorities cracked down on a wide-ranging scheme to provide illegal aliens with fake ID badges that allowed them to work at O'Hare Airport. The fraudulent security badges gave the illegal or undocumented immigrants access to the tarmac at O'Hare, where they loaded pallets, freight and meals onto commercial airliners. The badges were issued by the city's Dept. of Aviation.

Authorities arrested 23 illegal aliens, who now face state felony charges for possession of fraudulent state identification. Two employees of Ideal Staffing Solutions, an employment agency in Bensenville, have been charged with federal crimes and were scheduled to appear in court late Thursday afternoon. The two Ideal Staffing employees were identified as Mary Gurin and Norinye Benitez.

The raids included agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement - a division of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security known as ICE - as well as Cook County sheriff's deputies. "This case illustrates ICE's resolve to ensuring unauthorized workers are not employed at our nation's critical infrastructure facilities," said Elissa Brown, special-agent-in-charge for the ICE Office of Investigations in Chicago.

The issue of illegal or undocumented immigrants working at O'Hare is not new. Elvira Arellano, who conducted a year-long standoff with U.S. immigration authorities by seeking sanctuary in a Chicago church, once held a job at O'Hare cleaning airplanes.

Source



Paper rebuts reports of farm labor shortage

A new paper issued by a University of California, Davis, agricultural economist challenges recent media reports suggesting that farmers are suffering from escalating labor shortages. Farm industry groups have cited the reported shortages as evidence that immigration policy changes are urgently needed.

The paper - by UC Davis economist Phil Martin - was presented Monday by the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C., think tank that favors reducing legal immigration and dismisses arguments that U.S. farms need foreign workers. Farm groups and labor advocates - often adversaries - joined in questioning the substance and relevance of Martin's paper.

Growers and advocates both argue that the United States needs immigration changes because most farm laborers are probably undocumented. They say that foreign workers have been filling a void in the U.S. labor market, and that there is no viable visa system to admit these workers legally. "It may be that Phil Martin is right that there is not much of a shortage now," said Bruce Goldstein of Farmworker Justice, a Washington, D.C., advocacy group. "So what?" Goldstein said "the real question" facing the country is what to do about undocumented farmworkers, who are needed but vulnerable and stuck in the United States because they can't legally travel back and forth to home countries seasonally even if they want to.

Martin's paper, "Farm Labor Shortages: How Real? What Response?" was released this week just as the Senate gears up to consider attaching an agriculture-specific immigration proposal to the new farm bill. Backed by labor advocates and agribusiness, the AgJOBS proposal would allow certain farm laborers to earn U.S. residency if they keep working in agriculture for three to five years after registering with the U.S. government. A new guest worker program would admit future workers only for short periods and would not allow them to earn residency.

Martin said his report doesn't debate the merits of AgJOBS. The report, he pointed out, reveals that plantings of U.S. fresh fruits and vegetables have increased in recent years, a sign that growers are not fearful of labor shortages. Martin said, too, that real shortages would have caused wages to increase more. If wages were increased by 40 percent in fresh produce, he added, consumers would pay only about $8 more a year.

Goldstein said he accepts that growers could afford to pay workers more. But the answer, he said, is to make undocumented workers legal so they are less afraid to demand higher pay.

In his paper, Martin also suggested that if a real labor shortage were to occur and wages were to rise, agribusiness would feel urgent pressure to mechanize jobs and reduce the need for workers. Mark Krikorian, director of the Center for Immigration Studies, said Martin's paper bolsters the argument that U.S. farms don't need "Mexican high school dropouts," and could supplant foreigners with a combination of mechanization and by luring back U.S. workers.

Martin, however, said his paper doesn't reach this conclusion. "I don't want to get drawn into people's speculation," he said. His paper says: "If current trends continue, the farm workers of tomorrow will continue to grow up somewhere outside the United States." The "big argument," he said, is going to be how much access farmers should have to those foreign workers.

Craig Regelbrugge, lobbyist for the pro-AgJOBS Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform, said evidence is strong that individual farmers have suffered losses due to labor shortages. He said, too, that while the industry is always inventing ways to mechanize, human beings are inevitably needed for some jobs. Agricultural economist Jim Holt, who works for the coalition, argued that the U.S. economy is producing more jobs than domestic workers can fill in agriculture. In 1999, he added, the United States became a net importer of fruits and vegetables. In a global economy, he said, "the real policy question is: Do we rely on foreign labor to produce the food elsewhere, or do we rely on foreign labor to produce the food here?"

Source



A crackdown that could make a difference

The co-owners of a nationwide janitorial service that authorities say provided cleaning crews staffed with illegal immigrants to a northern Michigan resort have pleaded guilty to charges in the case. The investigation into Rosenbaum-Cunningham International Inc., or RCI, a Florida-based cleaning contractor, led to the nationwide arrest in February of more than 200 illegal immigrants, mostly Mexican nationals.

Richard M. Rosenbaum, 61, and Edward S. Cunningham, 44, pleaded guilty to charges of conspiring to defraud the federal government and harboring illegal aliens in plea agreements with federal prosecutors. Cunningham, of West Palm Beach, Fla., entered his plea Friday, and Rosenbaum, of Longwood, Fla., entered his plea Oct. 17. Rosenbaum faces up to 10 years in prison and a $500,000 fine. Cunningham faces a five-year prison term and up to $250,000 in fines. Both face restitution amounts that the government says could exceed $16 million.

Rosenbaum's sentencing was scheduled for Feb. 4. The electronic record for U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan didn't indicate a sentencing date for Cunningham. RCI controller Christina A. Flocken, of Longwood, Fla., also was charged in the case. She has a plea hearing scheduled for Monday.

The investigation began at Grand Traverse Resort in Acme, in Michigan's northwestern Lower Peninsula. The practice of paying cash wages to workers deprived the U.S. government of about $18.6 million in employment taxes, according to the indictment against the three. The government said RCI contracted with the resort between June 1997 and March 2006.

Source





8 November, 2007

The latest from CIS

1. Farm Labor Shortages: How Real? What Response?

EXCERPT: For several years stories in the media have reported a farm labor shortage. This study examines this question and finds little evidence to support this conclusion. First, fruit and vegetable production is actually rising. Second, wages for farm workers have not risen dramatically. Third, household expenditure on fresh fruits and vegetables has remain relatively constant, averaging about $1 a day for the past decade.

********

2. Problems with Governor Spitzer's License Proposal (Part I), (Part II)

EXCERPT: The driver's license represents a veritable "key to the kingdom." When we engage in routine business matters, driver's licenses are accepted as positive proof of identity for the bearer of such a license. When we make purchases with credit cards or personal checks, we are often required to provide our driver's license to satisfy the person with whom we are doing business that we are who we claim we are. In the case of illegal aliens, the driver's license provides a level of credibility that would enable such immigration law violators to conduct business as usual when they should not be conducting business at all in our country since their very presence here is in violation of law and patently illegal.

In my 30 years of experience with the former INS it was common to find that illegal aliens would spend money on counterfeit or altered identity documents in order to accomplish what Governor Spitzer's plan would officially provide for illegal aliens; documentation that would enable such an illegal alien to blend into our society. When such an alien is a terrorist, the 9/11 Commission referred to that process as "embedding." I refer to it as hiding in plain sight.

********

3. The Immigration Solution?

Panel discussion including Authors of Provocative New Book "The Immigration Solution: A Better Plan Than Today's" -- from The National Press Club, Washington, DC, October 30, 2007

********

4. DREAM Act Offers Amnesty to 2.1 Million: New Estimate Shows Another 1.4 Million Family Members Could Also Stay

EXCERPT: The Senate is currently considering the DREAM Act (S.2205). Some have argued that only 60,000 illegal immigrants would be granted amnesty annually under the Act, but a new analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies of 2007 Census Bureau data shows millions of potential beneficiaries . . .

********

5. Give Me Your Murderers, Your Huddled Cons. In Our Flawed System, Even Criminals Can't Be Sent Home

EXCERPT: America's immigration system is obviously broken, but to get a sense for just how dysfunctional it really is, scan the pages of Ames Holbrook's "The Deporter.' This first-person account of the four years Holbrook spent working to deport criminal aliens from the United States is as hair-raising as it is distressing.

See "The Deporter: One Agent's Struggle Against the U.S. Government's Refusal to Expel Criminal Aliens"



77% oppose licenses for illegals

Voters oppose driver's licenses for illegal aliens by a nearly five-to-one margin, a new Fox 5/Washington Times/Rasmussen Reports poll finds. As immigration politics explode into the presidential race, polls show Americans are taking a hard line on benefits for illegal aliens, including opposing driver's licenses and such taxpayer-funded benefits as scholarships at state colleges for illegal-alien students. The new poll found 77 percent of the adults surveyed opposed making driver's licenses available to illegal aliens, while just 16 percent supported the idea.

Licenses fared poorly across party lines, including near-blanket opposition among self-identified Republicans, at 88 percent. Among independents and Democrats, it was still overwhelmingly unpopular, drawing 75 percent and 68 percent opposition, respectively.

New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer in September proposed adding New York to the list of seven states that offer licenses to illegal aliens, and the issue has refused to die down since.

Most Democratic presidential candidates have embraced the policy, including front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, arguing it's a matter of road safety and a valid response to the federal government's failure to give a path to citizenship to illegal aliens......

This is why many in the media describe the issue as "thorny," the Democrats are on the wrong side of the issue. Now that the polling has become clear look for a quick retreat by Hillary et.al. Their core belief is in getting elected and they are not going to buck these polls.

Source





7 November, 2007

Hamas, Hizbullah cells may be active in Mexico

Former CIA official warns that terror groups, Iran may exploit permeable US border with Mexico to infiltrate terrorists into US

The US is concerned that Hamas and Hizbullah agents may penetrate the porous US-Mexican border in order to carry out terrorist attacks, according to Robert Grenier, the former head of the US Central Intelligence Agency's counterterrorism center. His comments were featured in a report published by the Mexican press on Thursday.

Speaking at an event in Mexico, Grenier-who now runs his own international security firm called Kroll-said that reports indicate the United States is fearful that Iran, Hamas, and/or Hizbullah may seek to set up operations in Mexico in order to carry out terrorist attacks in the US.

According to the US counterterrorism expert, American officials are concerned that terrorists will tap into illegal immigrant and/or drug trafficking networks in order to use them to bring people and equipment into the US. The former CIA official added that the American government is also fearful that Hamas and Hizbullah sleeper cells are already operational in Mexico; and, that Hizbullah is funneling money from Mexico into to Lebanon to fund the organization's operations there.

Until now, the US has not given Hizbullah operations in Mexico much thought. However, in wake of the recent escalation of rhetoric between the US and Iran regarding the latter's nuclear program, American officials have become concerned that Iran will use Hizbullah to carry out terror attacks on US targets around the world, Grenier explained

According to this scenario, Iran could also use Hizbullah networks to hit the US on its own soil. The terrorism expert noted that it was hard to say for certain that sleeper cells already exist in Mexico. However, according to Grenier, The Lebanese Shia community in Mexico supports Iran and Hizbullah and there is speculation that members of the community could be recruited to carry out acts of terrorism.

Source



The immigrant surge to get legal

The number of citizenship applications received in the Los Angeles area tripled in September compared with the same period last year, despite a major application fee increase that immigration experts feared could drastically set back demand.

Nationwide, citizenship applications also increased in August and September compared with last year, according to new figures from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

The applications are on track to surpass the 1-million mark, a milestone reached only twice in the last century -- both times in the mid-1990s. That's when many illegal immigrants who received amnesty in the 1980s became eligible for citizenship, and a political backlash against them motivated many to apply.

This year, similar dynamics are in place, immigration experts said.

"The anti-immigrant sentiment is bordering on the xenophobic, and people are taking notice of that," said Evan Bacalao of the National Assn. of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund in Los Angeles. "So even though the fees have increased, people still want to make sure their voices are heard."

To help boost the number of new citizens even more, an alliance of hundreds of organizations last week launched a "100 Days" national campaign to urge immigrants to apply for citizenship in time for the 2008 election.

Source



Protest Styles Presented A Clash of Cultures, And One Decisively Won

Quiet Drowns Out Clamor on Immigration Vote in Virginia. The "protests" and street demonstations beloved of the Left often fail to impress

Opponents of Prince William County's plan to target illegal immigrants tried marches, a boycott and a one-day strike. They organized protest caravans with hundreds of cars and turned out ever-larger crowds for county board meetings. When the plan went before supervisors for a final vote Oct. 16, scores of mostly Hispanic residents lined up to deliver tearful, urgent testimony during a 12-hour public comment period. The result? All the supervisors -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- voted to push ahead with the measures anyway.

The clash over illegal immigration in Prince William has placed several cultural differences on display in recent months. But perhaps none was as stark as the two competing political strategies that drove the debate and shaped public perception, one rooted in a tradition of street protests, the other largely invisible and electronic.

The strategies were deployed by the two organizations that channeled the fears and frustrations of divided county residents to emerge with the loudest voices: Help Save Manassas, which helped draft the county's anti-illegal immigrant policy and applied steady pressure for its adoption, and Mexicans Without Borders, an immigrant advocacy group that deemed the measures racist and took to the streets to say so.

The contest was a study in political contrasts. And in the end, the quiet, coordinated, Internet-savvy lobbying efforts of the pro-crackdown camp won over the chants of "Si, se puede!" (Yes, we can!) and the mass mobilization techniques of their opponents.

Greg Letiecq, the conservative blogger and activist who is president of Help Save Manassas, said his rivals' strategy didn't translate to the suburban environs of Prince William. "That's not the way politics is done in the United States," he said, calling the rallies and protests by his opponents "a political engagement model from Mexico."

Few members of Help Save Manassas were still present at 2:30 a.m. Oct. 17, when county supervisors voted to deny certain services to illegal immigrants and ramp up police enforcement of immigration laws. But the mostly Latino crowd that stayed until the end fell into hushed bewilderment when the outcome was announced. The arithmetic itself was a stunning blow: Despite a crowd of more than 1,000 opponents of the measures and hundreds of heartfelt pleas and desperate appeals, they didn't win a single vote. The supervisors hadn't listened, they protested. It seemed as if officials' minds were already made up, they said. And for the most part, they were right.

"No one changed our opinion with their testimony," said Supervisor John D. Jenkins (D-Neabsco). "I can be persuaded to have sympathy for people. I can't have sympathy for anyone who breaks the law." That view was firmly shared by every member of the Board of Supervisors, Jenkins said. The board's decision to defer action at a previous meeting was the result of concerns about the county's financial situation, he said, not a sign of uncertainty. If anyone thought the board was going to backtrack, "that was a totally erroneous opinion," Jenkins said.

Though outnumbered at the Oct. 16 meeting, Letiecq's members had fired off 10,000 e-mails and 1,000 faxes in the lead-up to the vote -- so many that lawmakers had to unplug their machines. County officials reported that 85 to 90 percent of the correspondence they received endorsed the crackdown. Supervisor John T. Stirrup Jr. (R-Gainesville), who introduced the plan for the crackdown in June, said those in favor of it were "well-organized," while those opposed were "well-orchestrated." Most of supporters' outreach "was done through e-mails. It proved to be effective, in terms of sheer numbers," Stirrup said. Of opponents' effort he said, "It seems like it was well orchestrated to turn out that large a crowd."

Following the defeat, Mexicans Without Borders coordinator Ricardo Juarez stood by his group's tactics, saying they were chosen democratically through community assemblies held after plans for the crackdown were announced. He rejected the idea that marches, protests and other measures were ill-suited for Prince William politics, even though the group's boycott and the one-day strike had scant effect on the local economy. "The American people express themselves by marching," he said in Spanish. "I've seen a lot of marches in Washington, D.C., that have had nothing to do with immigrants."

Although Letiecq and Help Save Manassas worked directly with supervisors to develop the policies, Juarez said his group's attempts to sit with county leaders were rebuffed. He said the board, which is all white, might have been more sympathetic if it more accurately reflected Prince William's ethnic diversity. "There's nothing more we could have done," Juarez said. "If there was a failure here, it was the authorities' failure to listen to us." [That they may have listened but just did not agree is impossible of course!]

Although Mexicans Without Borders was built mostly through word-of-mouth networks and old-fashioned handbill advertising, Letiecq said he built Help Save Manassas on the model developed by the gun rights group Virginia Citizens Defense League, of which he is a member. "We get people to step up and do their own lobbying," he explained. "We educate them, keep them informed and get them engaged with phone calls, faxes, e-mails, and by showing up at supervisors' time."

The group has also wielded Tuesday's election to its advantage. Although the measures were first proposed by Stirrup, board Chairman Corey A. Stewart (R-At Large) became the biggest public champion of the crackdown, running his reelection campaign on the slogan "Fighting Illegal Immigration." Letiecq described Stewart's conversion to his group's cause as "the ultimate Gandhi moment," a galvanizing realization for the candidate.....

Geography and firsthand experience have shaped views on illegal immigration, Letiecq said, not politics. "When you have an overcrowded house with day laborers on your street, you want something done about it," he said. "We've gotten folks who don't normally get engaged in the political process to get very engaged, very quickly."

Source





6 November, 2007

Border fence is working in New Mexico

At this fabled border crossing, where the last armed conflict between the United States and Mexico flared, the rancorous debate over the new U.S. anti-immigrant fence has been resolved. The fence works, residents north and south of it say. At least it works for now on this snippet of the line. "You hear it all the time: Fences don't work. Fences don't work," said Mark Winder, a transplanted New Englander and part-time deputy sheriff who lives on a small ranch outside Columbus, N.M., where a 3-mile stretch of wall was completed in August. "I live 2« miles from the border, and the fence is working."

Many merchants agree in Palomas, once a sleepy farm town, now a booming haven for smugglers. "The fence has destroyed the economy here," said Fabiola Cuellar, a hardware-store clerk on the main street of Palomas who used to sell supplies to the throngs heading north from here. "Things are going back to the way they were before." Of course, with only about one-fifth of the fence complete, migrants from Mexico and other countries who had planned to cross the border illegally in places such as Palomas-Columbus can simply go elsewhere.

But U.S. officials have vowed to complete nearly 400 miles of the fence by the end of next year. Workers in August and September built 70 miles of it here, in Arizona and in parts of California. Thousands more Border Patrol agents, electronic monitors and other measures will tighten the squeeze.

James Johnson's 3,000-acre family farm abuts the border west of Columbus. "Where there is a will, there's a way," said Johnson, 32, of some migrants' ability to get around, over or under any barrier. "But anything is better than just running across the border anytime you want to," he said....

The fence, a 15-foot-high phalanx of girders tightly spaced and rooted deeply in the earth, is a jarring obstruction to the otherwise "for miles and miles" view of these parched high plains. Rather than a solid wall, the barrier more closely resembles a vertical iron grate. It lets people on either side see across the border while preventing them from crossing it. Its builders say the fence permits wildlife free passage. But the spaces between the posts seem tight enough to prevent even the wiliest coyote from slipping through.

The Border Patrol made about 36,000 apprehensions in New Mexico in the first 10 months of fiscal 2007, which ended Sept. 30. That's a huge drop from fiscal 2006, when nearly 74,000 illegal crossers were caught on the state's border, according to government records.

Source



New jobs in Britain are for immigrants

Few Australians would be surprised. They commonly perceive Brits as work-shy

MORE than 80% of the jobs created in the past 10 years have gone to foreigners - many more than the government admitted last week - according to statistics presented by the Treasury to parliament. They also show that in the past five years the number of foreigners in work in Britain has risen by nearly 1m, while employment among the UK-born population has dropped by almost 500,000. The figures are a further embarrassment for the government, which last week was forced to admit it had seriously underestimated the number of migrant workers in Britain.

"They are in a state of complete confusion over the figures for migrant workers," said Chris Grayling, the Conservative shadow work and pensions secretary. "Another day brings another completely different set of statistics. They are floundering and nobody has any idea what is going on."

Peter Hain, the work and pensions secretary, announced last week that previous estimates showing that migrants accounted for 800,000 out of 2.7m jobs created in Britain over the past 10 years were wrong, and that the true figure was 1.1m out of 2.1m. The share of jobs going to foreigners was thus 52%, rather than under 30% as originally estimated.

Gordon Brown was infuriated by the mix-up over the data, which has undermined government claims that immigration is a big benefit to Britain and provided David Cameron with a platform on which to attack the government's record. Downing Street aides said the prime minister was irritated by what they described as a "cockup". But the new figures, given by the Treasury in a written Commons answer last month, suggest the picture is even worse. Alistair Darling, the chancellor, was asked for estimates of the number of migrant workers in Britain since 1997.

In a written response, Angela Eagle, a junior Treasury minister, published a letter from Karen Dunnell, the National Statistician and head of the Office for National Statistics (ONS). In it she said the number of foreign-born workers in Britain rose from 1.904m in mid1997 to 3.269m in the middle of this year, an increase of 1.365m. Over the same period, there was a rise in working-age employment among UK-born people from 23.638m to 23.948m, a rise of just 310,000. The ONS figures thus show that 81% of jobs went to people born abroad. Since 2002 the number of foreigners working in Britain has climbed by 964,000 while UK-born employment has dropped by 478,000.

"The government's welfare to work programme is proving to be an abject failure," said Grayling. "UK employment has barely increased over the past 10 years and it is now falling."

Source



Italy Expels Gypsies

Post below lifted from Jawa Report

The Romani and Sinti tribal communities, widely known as gypsies, have lived for a thousand years in Europe, primarily Eastern Europe, and with Romania joining the European Union last year, many have migrated to Italy. In fact,

"Nobody imagined having to face 500,000 poor sou