Population, Immigration, and the Drying of the American Southwest
Paper Explores Looming Water Crisis Driven by Immigration Policy
The looming water crisis in the American Southwest – and the role of immigration-driven population growth – is the topic of a paper published this month by the Center for Immigration Studies and authored by New Mexico journalist Kathleene Parker.
The paper, 'Population, Immigration, and the Drying of the American Southwest,' online here, explores the link between the possibility of the potentially catastrophic economic and environmental water crisis and the fact that the Southwest is the fastest-growing region of the world's fourth-fastest-growing nation – a growth rate earlier cautioned against by various presidential commissions. It also looks at how that growth rate is driven by historically unprecedented immigration – legal and illegal – into the United States, the world's third-most-populous nation after China and India. Immigration is responsible for more than half of the population growth in the Southwest this past decade, and nearly all of the growth in the largest southwest state, California.
Such high immigration has happened absent discussion or acknowledgement of its impacts on population or limited resources, such as water. Parker presents evidence that indicates there is insufficient water for the region's current population, much less the larger future populations that will result if immigration continues at its present high rate.
The paper focuses on the drought- and growth-depleted Colorado River, including the high probability that the first-ever drought emergency could be declared on the river by early 2011 and the possibility that Lake Mead, the nation’s largest reservoir and a depression-era wonder of engineering, could run dry in the not too distant future, with hydroelectric production threatened even sooner.
This would imperil all of the Southwest, Nevada and Las Vegas – which depends on Lake Mead for 90 percent of its water – in particular, but also cities like Albuquerque, which uses Colorado River water via the San Juan-Chama diversion project. Such relatively junior water rights could be at risk in the midst of a profound or long-term water shortage on the Colorado River.
The legal allocation of the Colorado in the 1920s was based on a combination of flawed river-flow data and a failure to understand that the Southwest, historically, is a far more arid region – based on recent scientific research – than first believed. That concern is based on normal weather patterns, with the possibility of even further depletion of the river, the Southwest's main source of water, should global warming happen.
Yet the water crisis unfolds in an atmosphere where, as pointed out by prestigious scientific groups like the National Academy of Sciences and the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, the extent of the crisis is not being sufficiently acknowledged or the advisability of the region's high growth rate considered by leaders. That high growth rate, in turn, is driven by U.S. immigration policies that do not consider the implications of a growth rate that, if trends hold, could mean one billion Americans by late this century.
Six states are dependent upon Colorado River to provide water to roughly 60 million people, and that number could double over the next four decades if immigration is not returned to far lower levels in the near future.
Parker, now of Rio Rancho, N.M., earlier worked as a correspondent for the Santa Fe New Mexican in the 1990s, covering Los Alamos, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the Jemez Mountain region. She also freelanced for the Albuquerque Journal, covering the aftermath of the Cerro Grande fire and other topics, and she recently authored an article, for a major forestry magazine, on the Cerro Grande fire. She often teaches adult-education courses on population and environmental topics, has worked widely on water issues in Colorado and New Mexico, and frequently writes commentaries.
The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: center@cis.org. Contact: Bryan Griffith, (202) 466-8185, press@cis.org. The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization
Other recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
1. Immigration and Economic Stagnation: An Examination of Trends 2000 to 2010 (Backgrounder)
2. Foiling Terrorists by Keeping Them Out (Blog)
3. ICE Finds Huge New Tunnel at Border, But Are Congratulations Really in Order? (Blog)
4. USCIS Takes Small Steps Forward on Alien Worker Programs (Blog)
5. Tories May Have Overreached vis-a-vis Language Requirement for Spouses (Blog)
6. Fading DREAMs (Blog)
7. Immigration Lessons from the Chandra Levy Murder Case (Blog)
8. ICE to Sanctuaries: Just Say No to Holds (Blog)
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
The American Immigration Council’s Irrelevant “Truths” About The DREAM Act
There was a Cold War joke about the Soviet press reporting the outcome of a two-man foot-race between a Soviet citizen and an American: “The Soviet runner finished right behind the winner, while the American finished next-to-last.”
That old chuckle popped into my mind upon reading Dispelling DREAM Act Myths, issued on November 23, 2010 by the Immigration Policy Center, which is the research and policy arm of the American Immigration Council [AIC].
(The AIC, in turn, seems to have an unspoken, but organic, relationship to the American Immigration Lawyers Association, since the two organizations occupy suites 200 and 300, respectively, at a common address in Washington, DC. Their phone numbers also differ by 100, so to speak. The AIC’s mission statement includes this: “The American Immigration Council believes that the dignity of the individual knows no boundary.” Whatever that means.)
According to all predictions, starting Monday, November 29 immigration-sanity patriots will once again have to man the anti-mass-amnesty barricades against the DREAM Act, the most dangerous immigration-related legislative threat to the American future since the several mass-amnesty attempts of 2006-7. So it’s vital to know what the forces of national dissolution like the AIC are serving up as talking points about DREAM for their allies.
The AIC’s November 23rd “dispelling myths” paper deals with nine “myths.” Here’s an example:
“Myth: The DREAM Act allows undocumented students to pay cheaper tuition than citizens.
Fact: The DREAM Act gives states the option to offer in-state tuition to students registered under DREAM, but it does NOT guarantee cheaper tuition. At most, the DREAM Act allows undocumented students to access the same benefits as their peers. The DREAM Act allows undocumented students to access in-state tuition, but only if they would otherwise qualify for such tuition, and if state law permits undocumented students to receive in-state tuition.”
So the AIC’s rebuttal to this “myth,” while literally correct, evades the larger point: illegal-alien students will be paying college tuition at in-state rates, while their American-citizen “peers” will have to pay full freight if they hail from a different state.
Another example:
“Myth: The DREAM Act will spur more illegal immigration because it rewards undocumented youth.
Fact: Programs like the DREAM Act, which have clear cut-off dates, offer no incentives for more illegal immigration. In order to qualify for the DREAM Act, a student must have entered the United States before the age of 16 and have lived in the U.S. for at least five years before the date of enactment. Economic conditions have far more impact on illegal immigration than specific pieces of legislation.”
Well, yes, for eligibility, DREAM’s applicants must have been continuously present in the U.S. for at least five years immediately preceding the date of DREAM’s enactment, and such aliens must have been no older than 16 when they entered the U.S.. That would be a “cut-off date”, alright.
But, as the bill-clarifiers at NumbersUSA point out (see the sheets of relevant facts they’ve issued, linked below), there’s no requirement in DREAM “that an amnesty applicant produce either documentation or any other evidence that the individual actually satisfies the criteria.”
So what’s to stop an alien from slithering into our country well after DREAM is enacted and still claiming DREAM eligibility some months or years down the road?
As a practical matter, nothing. And if you think word of this giant loophole won’t be trumpeted along immigrant networks back to their countries of origin, thereby encouraging further illegal entries, then you haven’t been paying attention all these years.
Last example:
“Myth: The DREAM Act will result in a mass amnesty.
Fact: The DREAM Act is not an amnesty. No one will automatically receive a green card. To legalize, individuals have to meet stringent eligibility criteria: they must have entered the United States before age 16; must have been here for five years or more; must not have committed any major crimes; must graduate from high school or the equivalent; and must complete at least two years of college or military service. Eligible students must first obtain conditional residency and complete the requirements before they can obtain a green card—a process that will take years. Not all immigrants who came as young children will be eligible to legalize because they will not meet some of these requirements.”
Oh yes, those “stringent” criteria for eligibility! In my view, the only one that might qualify as stringent is two years of military service. Anyway, all the supposed criteria are waivable by the Department of Homeland Security once they become too stringent, as the NumbersUSA folks point out.
What about the “It’s not an amnesty!” claim? That’s the usual hokum, of course. The DREAM beneficiaries get what they were after all along, without even a hint of a penalty. (Graduating from high school and attending college are punishments? Only if you’re with the AIC in grasping at straws.)
But the big enchilada: once the DREAMers naturalize as citizens, they’ll eventually be able to initiate chain migration of all their relatives, including their illegal-alien parents — i.e. the original criminals who brought them here .
You’ll note that the AIC’s myth-busting exercise about amnesty strategically includes nary a word about this blue whale in the room.
(By the way, what would be a good term for the up-to-age-30 DREAMer “youths,” themselves? “Anchor youths” seems appropriate.)
Torpedoing AIC’s remaining six myth-busting attempts about the DREAM Act is left as an exercise for the immigration-sanity reader.
To summarize: the AIC’s paper on DREAM Act myths encapsulates enough evasive, beside-the-point facts to say that the whole thing is a de facto lie—a la the Soviet triumphalism recalled above.
“DREAM,” by the way, stands for “Defense, Relief, and Education of Alien Minors.” Presumably the Patriot side could come up with a more pertinent description of DREAM that would yield the acronym “NIGHTMARE,”. But our efforts these days are better spent in substantive opposition.
So if you want to know more about the DREAM [sic] Act’s real import for Americans, check out the fact sheets put together by NumbersUSA. Their one-page PDF is here, and their four-page PDF is here.
These NumbersUSA fact sheets are several months old, so they’re not up-to-date with respect to a few microscopic tweaks that principal DREAM sponsor Sen. Durbin [D-IL] has recently made to DREAM, yielding S. 3963, the latest version of the bill [PDF; and blessedly short at only 20 pages -- what's the catch?? Oh, it's what I've written about above ...in part.].
But the NumbersUSA sheets are thoroughly up-to-date on the unchanging intrinsic horrors of the bill. Roy Beck’s November 23 comments about those tweaks are here.
SOURCE. See the original for links
Boats full of illegals are still flooding into Australia
No mystery about how to stop them: Just reinstate the policies of the previous conservative government -- but the present Leftist government clearly does not WANT to stop the illegals coming -- despite fighting an election on a promise of cutting the arrivals back
More than 100 suspected asylum seekers are being transferred to Christmas Island after three boats were intercepted in two days near Ashmore Island off north-west Australia.
The opposition immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, said the arrivals brought to almost 200 the number of boats intercepted since Labor was elected. "Three years ago you could count the number of people being detained who had arrived illegally by boat on one hand. There were just four," Mr Morrison said. "The Coalition's policies stopped the boats."
"Riots, brawling, gruesome protests and self-harm have all returned to our detention network after three years of Labor's failed policies," Mr Morrison said.
A spokesman for the Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen, acknowledged "pressures on our detention accommodation network". "Yet you have the Coalition running around the country opposing new detention accommodation," he said.
"Last week it outlined a refugee visa cap measure that would have the effect of putting asylum seekers … into arbitrary, indefinite detention."
SOURCE
There was a Cold War joke about the Soviet press reporting the outcome of a two-man foot-race between a Soviet citizen and an American: “The Soviet runner finished right behind the winner, while the American finished next-to-last.”
That old chuckle popped into my mind upon reading Dispelling DREAM Act Myths, issued on November 23, 2010 by the Immigration Policy Center, which is the research and policy arm of the American Immigration Council [AIC].
(The AIC, in turn, seems to have an unspoken, but organic, relationship to the American Immigration Lawyers Association, since the two organizations occupy suites 200 and 300, respectively, at a common address in Washington, DC. Their phone numbers also differ by 100, so to speak. The AIC’s mission statement includes this: “The American Immigration Council believes that the dignity of the individual knows no boundary.” Whatever that means.)
According to all predictions, starting Monday, November 29 immigration-sanity patriots will once again have to man the anti-mass-amnesty barricades against the DREAM Act, the most dangerous immigration-related legislative threat to the American future since the several mass-amnesty attempts of 2006-7. So it’s vital to know what the forces of national dissolution like the AIC are serving up as talking points about DREAM for their allies.
The AIC’s November 23rd “dispelling myths” paper deals with nine “myths.” Here’s an example:
“Myth: The DREAM Act allows undocumented students to pay cheaper tuition than citizens.
Fact: The DREAM Act gives states the option to offer in-state tuition to students registered under DREAM, but it does NOT guarantee cheaper tuition. At most, the DREAM Act allows undocumented students to access the same benefits as their peers. The DREAM Act allows undocumented students to access in-state tuition, but only if they would otherwise qualify for such tuition, and if state law permits undocumented students to receive in-state tuition.”
So the AIC’s rebuttal to this “myth,” while literally correct, evades the larger point: illegal-alien students will be paying college tuition at in-state rates, while their American-citizen “peers” will have to pay full freight if they hail from a different state.
Another example:
“Myth: The DREAM Act will spur more illegal immigration because it rewards undocumented youth.
Fact: Programs like the DREAM Act, which have clear cut-off dates, offer no incentives for more illegal immigration. In order to qualify for the DREAM Act, a student must have entered the United States before the age of 16 and have lived in the U.S. for at least five years before the date of enactment. Economic conditions have far more impact on illegal immigration than specific pieces of legislation.”
Well, yes, for eligibility, DREAM’s applicants must have been continuously present in the U.S. for at least five years immediately preceding the date of DREAM’s enactment, and such aliens must have been no older than 16 when they entered the U.S.. That would be a “cut-off date”, alright.
But, as the bill-clarifiers at NumbersUSA point out (see the sheets of relevant facts they’ve issued, linked below), there’s no requirement in DREAM “that an amnesty applicant produce either documentation or any other evidence that the individual actually satisfies the criteria.”
So what’s to stop an alien from slithering into our country well after DREAM is enacted and still claiming DREAM eligibility some months or years down the road?
As a practical matter, nothing. And if you think word of this giant loophole won’t be trumpeted along immigrant networks back to their countries of origin, thereby encouraging further illegal entries, then you haven’t been paying attention all these years.
Last example:
“Myth: The DREAM Act will result in a mass amnesty.
Fact: The DREAM Act is not an amnesty. No one will automatically receive a green card. To legalize, individuals have to meet stringent eligibility criteria: they must have entered the United States before age 16; must have been here for five years or more; must not have committed any major crimes; must graduate from high school or the equivalent; and must complete at least two years of college or military service. Eligible students must first obtain conditional residency and complete the requirements before they can obtain a green card—a process that will take years. Not all immigrants who came as young children will be eligible to legalize because they will not meet some of these requirements.”
Oh yes, those “stringent” criteria for eligibility! In my view, the only one that might qualify as stringent is two years of military service. Anyway, all the supposed criteria are waivable by the Department of Homeland Security once they become too stringent, as the NumbersUSA folks point out.
What about the “It’s not an amnesty!” claim? That’s the usual hokum, of course. The DREAM beneficiaries get what they were after all along, without even a hint of a penalty. (Graduating from high school and attending college are punishments? Only if you’re with the AIC in grasping at straws.)
But the big enchilada: once the DREAMers naturalize as citizens, they’ll eventually be able to initiate chain migration of all their relatives, including their illegal-alien parents — i.e. the original criminals who brought them here .
You’ll note that the AIC’s myth-busting exercise about amnesty strategically includes nary a word about this blue whale in the room.
(By the way, what would be a good term for the up-to-age-30 DREAMer “youths,” themselves? “Anchor youths” seems appropriate.)
Torpedoing AIC’s remaining six myth-busting attempts about the DREAM Act is left as an exercise for the immigration-sanity reader.
To summarize: the AIC’s paper on DREAM Act myths encapsulates enough evasive, beside-the-point facts to say that the whole thing is a de facto lie—a la the Soviet triumphalism recalled above.
“DREAM,” by the way, stands for “Defense, Relief, and Education of Alien Minors.” Presumably the Patriot side could come up with a more pertinent description of DREAM that would yield the acronym “NIGHTMARE,”. But our efforts these days are better spent in substantive opposition.
So if you want to know more about the DREAM [sic] Act’s real import for Americans, check out the fact sheets put together by NumbersUSA. Their one-page PDF is here, and their four-page PDF is here.
These NumbersUSA fact sheets are several months old, so they’re not up-to-date with respect to a few microscopic tweaks that principal DREAM sponsor Sen. Durbin [D-IL] has recently made to DREAM, yielding S. 3963, the latest version of the bill [PDF; and blessedly short at only 20 pages -- what's the catch?? Oh, it's what I've written about above ...in part.].
But the NumbersUSA sheets are thoroughly up-to-date on the unchanging intrinsic horrors of the bill. Roy Beck’s November 23 comments about those tweaks are here.
SOURCE. See the original for links
Boats full of illegals are still flooding into Australia
No mystery about how to stop them: Just reinstate the policies of the previous conservative government -- but the present Leftist government clearly does not WANT to stop the illegals coming -- despite fighting an election on a promise of cutting the arrivals back
More than 100 suspected asylum seekers are being transferred to Christmas Island after three boats were intercepted in two days near Ashmore Island off north-west Australia.
The opposition immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, said the arrivals brought to almost 200 the number of boats intercepted since Labor was elected. "Three years ago you could count the number of people being detained who had arrived illegally by boat on one hand. There were just four," Mr Morrison said. "The Coalition's policies stopped the boats."
"Riots, brawling, gruesome protests and self-harm have all returned to our detention network after three years of Labor's failed policies," Mr Morrison said.
A spokesman for the Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen, acknowledged "pressures on our detention accommodation network". "Yet you have the Coalition running around the country opposing new detention accommodation," he said.
"Last week it outlined a refugee visa cap measure that would have the effect of putting asylum seekers … into arbitrary, indefinite detention."
SOURCE
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Immigration cap loophole sees massive INCREASE in immigration to Britain
The Government's cap on immigration is being undermined by a surge in foreign workers who are exempt from new visa rules, official figures have shown. Home Office statistics reveal that the number of foreigners arriving on "intra company transfers" (ICTs), which do not count towards the cap total, rose sharply following the Coalition's announcement of an interim cap in mid-July.
There were 30 per cent more ICTs handed out in between July and September this year than in the same period last year. Experts said the increase showed that companies were to continuing to import cheap labour despite the Government's clampdown, and warned that numbers would continue to rise even after a permanent cap on migrant numbers comes into force next April.
Peter Skyte, of the trade union Unite, said: "It is a massive loophole. Our prediction has always been that the immigration cap would be all smoke and mirrors."
The ICT scheme allows firms to bring non-EU nationals who are already on their payroll into the UK. It is widely used in the IT industry. One Indian company alone, Tata Consultancy Services, sponsored 4,600 employees to come to Britain in 2008; another, Infosys Technologies Limited, sponsored 3,235 in the same year.
Theresa May, the Home Secretary, has said she will fulfil a Tory manifesto pledge by capping the "skilled worker" routes at 21,700 a year, but she agreed to exempt ICTs from the new restrictions following pressure from business leaders and Vince Cable, the Lib Dem Business Secretary.
In the third quarter of this year, as the Home Office was restricting other immigration routes, more than 8,000 foreigners came to work in the UK under ICTs - up from 6,000 in the same period last year.
If the current ICT rate is sustained, more than 32,000 immigrants would arrive under the route each year, meaning the true number of migrant workers would be about 54,000 a year when capped routes and ICTs are added together.
Mr Skyte said Unite feared there were significant loopholes in limits imposed on ICTs by the Home Secretary last week. Under the terms of the permanent cap, ICT workers earning between £24,000 and £40,000 a year will only allowed to remain in Britain for 12 months.
Mr Skyte said: "We think companies will simply transfer lower-paid staff for 11 months and three weeks, for example, and then they will be sent home for a few weeks and re-apply under a new ICT. "There doesn't seem to be anything in the rules to stop it. "In other words, the number of people coming on ICTs could actually rise.
"The Home Office has also failed to take the chance to prevent companies counting allowances for things like accommodation as part of their gross pay, and it looks like some employers have sought to make as much use of the route as possible while current rules are in place. "The Government's announcement has squandered a golden opportunity to tackle abuse and misuse of ICTs."
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the pressure group MigrationWatch, said: "There is clearly a build-up of ICT applications this year. "While it is essential that staff who are seriously needed can get into Britain, this route will have to be watched very closely to avoid it becoming a loophole in the whole system of economic migration."
On the possibility of workers exploiting the 12-month ICT rule, he said: "We have yet to see the details of this scheme but if it allows people permitted to come for a year to go home for a few weeks and return then it will rapidly become absurd."
One British worker, who declined to be named but is employed in IT by a well-known bank, said: "Employers will find plenty of ways to abuse the system. "Where I work now there are British workers being made redundant and at the same time ICTs are being brought in to replace them. The Government's measures have had no effect whatsoever."
Another IT worker said: "Sadly the IT business in this country is doomed, primarily because they have printed ICTs and other visas like confetti."
Damian Green, the immigration minister, said: "The new immigration limit clearly sets out which workers we will allow into the UK job market. "It has been drawn up following extensive consultation with businesses and reflects their views. But our view is clear: we need employers to look first to those who are out of work and already live in this country.
"The limit will allow us to protect those businesses which are vital to our economy, allowing them to attract the best and the brightest, but more importantly it will bring immigration down to sustainable levels."
In the whole of last year there were 22,030 ICTs but in just the first nine months of this year the figure had already reached 22,520. The quarterly total of ICTs has crept up incrementally since the beginning of last year, when there were 4,355 applications between January and March. In comparison, in 1992 there were just 7,000 ICTs handed out during the whole year.
SOURCE
Large number of working class Britons abandoned and ignored by the major political parties
They see Britain as an "unfair" society -- particularly as regards immigration
Five million people have given up on mainstream political parties in the past ten years. Most of this huge number have stopped voting altogether. Some have defected to the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). Some, thankfully a smaller number, have even embraced the loathsome British National Party (BNP).
These millions of people look at David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg and can’t see much of a difference between them. They look at their policies and see the same attitude to punishing criminals; the same signing up to the European Union’s demands; the same support for multiculturalism and more immigration.
Ed Miliband encountered this angry class of mainstream political deserter on Thursday when he sat down with some Tesco shopworkers in Dudley in the West Midlands. They were working hard to make ends meet and they hated the way that their taxes were abused by people on welfare, people who could work but don’t.
The Labour leader looked shocked and uncomfortable at such conservative views from people he probably regarded as core Labour voters.
When I try to give these disenfranchised voters a human face, I think of a woman I saw being interviewed on television and who voted BNP in last year’s European elections. Talking to a television reporter, while packing a gift parcel for troops in Afghanistan, she said she wanted her son’s school to teach British history. She wanted her local town hall to celebrate Christmas and not have her council tax used for a politically correct ‘Winterval’ festival. She didn’t want her country governed by Brussels.
Race wasn’t mentioned, but her disillusionment with the mainstream parties had led her, in desperation, to lend her vote to a racist party.
For the first time, the concerns of this army of five million have been analysed in detail by the lobby group NothingBritish.com, which campaigns against the BNP and extremism in politics and polled thousands of what it calls ANTI voters.
The acronym ANTI comes from four defining characteristics. First they are ‘Angry’ about the political system. They are tired of broken promises and political parties ready to surrender solemn pledges as soon as they are in office. Last year’s expenses crisis wasn’t the beginning of their disdain for MPs, but it did confirm their low view of parliament and politics.
Secondly, they feel ‘Neglected’ financially, and because of this are much more pessimistic about their future than the average Briton. They are the pound-stretching class. They have to watch every penny. They worry about keeping their jobs. They resent their taxes going to undeserving causes or being used to bail out Ireland and rich bankers.
The third characteristic of the ANTI voter is ‘Traditionalism’. They hold traditional views about crime, drugs, family values and national pride. They worry their country is changing too fast and not for the better.
Finally, and most importantly, the ANTI voter is opposed to large-scale ‘Immigration’. Their worry about immigration isn’t about race, except for a small minority. It is about pressure on the housing stock. It’s about competition for scarce jobs. It’s about children trying to learn in schools where English isn’t the first language for many of the class.
When questioned, 89 per cent of these ANTIs said they would be more likely to vote for a party that promised to be tougher on immigration; 85 per cent said they would be more likely to vote for a party that promised to take back powers from Europe; 81 per cent said they would be more likely to vote for a party that promised to crack down on crime.
Moreover, 94 per cent of BNP voters and 91 per cent of UKIP voters agreed with the statement that ‘Britain is no longer a fair country that rewards its people based on merit’.
Before the General Election, these voters were hardly on David Cameron’s radar. From the first moment he became Tory leader, he aimed to win back the votes of ‘Liberal England’ — the people who had defected from the Conservatives to either the Liberal Democrats or to Tony Blair. He wanted to win back people who cared about the environment, the National Health Service and civil liberties. He wanted to soften conservatism, not toughen it.
He built up a campaign machine at Conservative HQ that focused not on the whole country, but on the two million swing voters in the 100 marginal seats who tend to decide who becomes Prime Minister.
As an electoral strategy it failed to secure him an outright majority, although it won enough seats to end Labour rule. Now, however, as Prime Minister, David Cameron has a bigger responsibility. In No 10 Downing Street, Cameron has a responsibility to govern for the whole nation and we should judge him, in part, on whether he can reduce the ANTI voter army.
As a Conservative, Cameron has an opportunity — many would say an obligation — to show that a politician can keep promises and can make a practical improvement to the lives of the pound-stretching class. So, what would an ANTI voter make of his performance so far? On immigration, the most important issue, there are at least hopeful signs.
When David Cameron began negotiations with Nick Clegg about forming a coalition government, he made it clear he wasn’t prepared to compromise on the promise he made to reduce net immigration of people outside the EU from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands.
That promise is essentially a 70 per cent cut from the Labour years when weak border controls allowed two million people to come to live and work in Britain. It was the equivalent of two extra cities the size of Birmingham added to the nation’s population, in little more than ten years.
The Prime Minister and Home Secretary Theresa May have fought a tough battle within the Coalition Government to defend the pledge. The Liberal Democrats do not believe in the Tories’ hard-line approach and Nick Clegg wants illegal immigrants to have the right to settle in Britain.
Business Secretary Vince Cable attempted to dilute the immigration cap, but Mrs May dug in her stiletto heels and wouldn’t be moved. She also defeated big business interests who’d rather import cheap labour from overseas than patiently train British workers, many of whom prefer to live on benefits.
So far, so good. But economic migration is only one route into Britain. Many more immigrants come into the UK as students, but they register at bogus colleges and work in the black economy.
Others still enter our country using bogus marriages and family visas, but they arrive neither able to speak English nor with any understanding of British culture.
If Theresa May succeeds in blocking these immigrants, too, in a step-by-step attack on Britain’s lax border controls, she’ll do more than any other politician to restore the ANTI voters’ trust in politics.
In addition to Theresa May, the two other members of Cameron’s team who best understand the ANTI voter are Iain Duncan Smith and George Osborne. In particular, they understand the ANTIs’ concerns about tax payers’ money going to undeserving causes and are trying to rebuild the welfare system so that work pays and people who refuse reasonable job offers lose their benefits.
When these reforms were first announced, Labour instinctively accused the Tories of being harsh. But as Ed Miliband found out, on his visit to Dudley and that Tesco supermarket, low-income workers who do the decent thing are tired of being taken for a ride.
Ed Miliband is certainly going to find it hard to win over the pound-stretchers. He is associated with the government that created the conditions that gave rise to the ANTI voter: out-of-control immigration; a welfare system that was unfair to those in work; and massive growth in anti-social behaviour. Unlike Cameron, he can only make promises. He can’t easily do anything that will overcome the ANTIs’ deep suspicion of politicians’ words.
These hurdles won’t mean that the Labour leader won’t or shouldn’t try. Nothing will stop Cameron being re-elected if the economy is strong by the time of the next election and he fixes the deficit, fixes immigration and fixes welfare.
But Miliband has half a chance if things turn messy for Cameron. By messy, I mean rising fuel bills. I mean higher VAT and higher holiday taxes. I mean a crime wave on streets where there are fewer police officers, a crime wave committed by people who the Coalition didn’t put in prison because Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke does not believe in locking up criminals. I mean Europe continuing to order Britain to do things like give votes to prisoners.
What Cameron has to realise is that, more than anything else, the ANTI voters describe Britain as ‘unfair’.
Unfair to them and unfair to people who do the right thing.
Cameron has a great opportunity to bring these disaffected voters back into the mainstream of politics, but only if he becomes their champion.
On immigration and welfare the signs are good. But on Europe, tax and crime, he’s going in the wrong direction.
SOURCE
The Government's cap on immigration is being undermined by a surge in foreign workers who are exempt from new visa rules, official figures have shown. Home Office statistics reveal that the number of foreigners arriving on "intra company transfers" (ICTs), which do not count towards the cap total, rose sharply following the Coalition's announcement of an interim cap in mid-July.
There were 30 per cent more ICTs handed out in between July and September this year than in the same period last year. Experts said the increase showed that companies were to continuing to import cheap labour despite the Government's clampdown, and warned that numbers would continue to rise even after a permanent cap on migrant numbers comes into force next April.
Peter Skyte, of the trade union Unite, said: "It is a massive loophole. Our prediction has always been that the immigration cap would be all smoke and mirrors."
The ICT scheme allows firms to bring non-EU nationals who are already on their payroll into the UK. It is widely used in the IT industry. One Indian company alone, Tata Consultancy Services, sponsored 4,600 employees to come to Britain in 2008; another, Infosys Technologies Limited, sponsored 3,235 in the same year.
Theresa May, the Home Secretary, has said she will fulfil a Tory manifesto pledge by capping the "skilled worker" routes at 21,700 a year, but she agreed to exempt ICTs from the new restrictions following pressure from business leaders and Vince Cable, the Lib Dem Business Secretary.
In the third quarter of this year, as the Home Office was restricting other immigration routes, more than 8,000 foreigners came to work in the UK under ICTs - up from 6,000 in the same period last year.
If the current ICT rate is sustained, more than 32,000 immigrants would arrive under the route each year, meaning the true number of migrant workers would be about 54,000 a year when capped routes and ICTs are added together.
Mr Skyte said Unite feared there were significant loopholes in limits imposed on ICTs by the Home Secretary last week. Under the terms of the permanent cap, ICT workers earning between £24,000 and £40,000 a year will only allowed to remain in Britain for 12 months.
Mr Skyte said: "We think companies will simply transfer lower-paid staff for 11 months and three weeks, for example, and then they will be sent home for a few weeks and re-apply under a new ICT. "There doesn't seem to be anything in the rules to stop it. "In other words, the number of people coming on ICTs could actually rise.
"The Home Office has also failed to take the chance to prevent companies counting allowances for things like accommodation as part of their gross pay, and it looks like some employers have sought to make as much use of the route as possible while current rules are in place. "The Government's announcement has squandered a golden opportunity to tackle abuse and misuse of ICTs."
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the pressure group MigrationWatch, said: "There is clearly a build-up of ICT applications this year. "While it is essential that staff who are seriously needed can get into Britain, this route will have to be watched very closely to avoid it becoming a loophole in the whole system of economic migration."
On the possibility of workers exploiting the 12-month ICT rule, he said: "We have yet to see the details of this scheme but if it allows people permitted to come for a year to go home for a few weeks and return then it will rapidly become absurd."
One British worker, who declined to be named but is employed in IT by a well-known bank, said: "Employers will find plenty of ways to abuse the system. "Where I work now there are British workers being made redundant and at the same time ICTs are being brought in to replace them. The Government's measures have had no effect whatsoever."
Another IT worker said: "Sadly the IT business in this country is doomed, primarily because they have printed ICTs and other visas like confetti."
Damian Green, the immigration minister, said: "The new immigration limit clearly sets out which workers we will allow into the UK job market. "It has been drawn up following extensive consultation with businesses and reflects their views. But our view is clear: we need employers to look first to those who are out of work and already live in this country.
"The limit will allow us to protect those businesses which are vital to our economy, allowing them to attract the best and the brightest, but more importantly it will bring immigration down to sustainable levels."
In the whole of last year there were 22,030 ICTs but in just the first nine months of this year the figure had already reached 22,520. The quarterly total of ICTs has crept up incrementally since the beginning of last year, when there were 4,355 applications between January and March. In comparison, in 1992 there were just 7,000 ICTs handed out during the whole year.
SOURCE
Large number of working class Britons abandoned and ignored by the major political parties
They see Britain as an "unfair" society -- particularly as regards immigration
Five million people have given up on mainstream political parties in the past ten years. Most of this huge number have stopped voting altogether. Some have defected to the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). Some, thankfully a smaller number, have even embraced the loathsome British National Party (BNP).
These millions of people look at David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg and can’t see much of a difference between them. They look at their policies and see the same attitude to punishing criminals; the same signing up to the European Union’s demands; the same support for multiculturalism and more immigration.
Ed Miliband encountered this angry class of mainstream political deserter on Thursday when he sat down with some Tesco shopworkers in Dudley in the West Midlands. They were working hard to make ends meet and they hated the way that their taxes were abused by people on welfare, people who could work but don’t.
The Labour leader looked shocked and uncomfortable at such conservative views from people he probably regarded as core Labour voters.
When I try to give these disenfranchised voters a human face, I think of a woman I saw being interviewed on television and who voted BNP in last year’s European elections. Talking to a television reporter, while packing a gift parcel for troops in Afghanistan, she said she wanted her son’s school to teach British history. She wanted her local town hall to celebrate Christmas and not have her council tax used for a politically correct ‘Winterval’ festival. She didn’t want her country governed by Brussels.
Race wasn’t mentioned, but her disillusionment with the mainstream parties had led her, in desperation, to lend her vote to a racist party.
For the first time, the concerns of this army of five million have been analysed in detail by the lobby group NothingBritish.com, which campaigns against the BNP and extremism in politics and polled thousands of what it calls ANTI voters.
The acronym ANTI comes from four defining characteristics. First they are ‘Angry’ about the political system. They are tired of broken promises and political parties ready to surrender solemn pledges as soon as they are in office. Last year’s expenses crisis wasn’t the beginning of their disdain for MPs, but it did confirm their low view of parliament and politics.
Secondly, they feel ‘Neglected’ financially, and because of this are much more pessimistic about their future than the average Briton. They are the pound-stretching class. They have to watch every penny. They worry about keeping their jobs. They resent their taxes going to undeserving causes or being used to bail out Ireland and rich bankers.
The third characteristic of the ANTI voter is ‘Traditionalism’. They hold traditional views about crime, drugs, family values and national pride. They worry their country is changing too fast and not for the better.
Finally, and most importantly, the ANTI voter is opposed to large-scale ‘Immigration’. Their worry about immigration isn’t about race, except for a small minority. It is about pressure on the housing stock. It’s about competition for scarce jobs. It’s about children trying to learn in schools where English isn’t the first language for many of the class.
When questioned, 89 per cent of these ANTIs said they would be more likely to vote for a party that promised to be tougher on immigration; 85 per cent said they would be more likely to vote for a party that promised to take back powers from Europe; 81 per cent said they would be more likely to vote for a party that promised to crack down on crime.
Moreover, 94 per cent of BNP voters and 91 per cent of UKIP voters agreed with the statement that ‘Britain is no longer a fair country that rewards its people based on merit’.
Before the General Election, these voters were hardly on David Cameron’s radar. From the first moment he became Tory leader, he aimed to win back the votes of ‘Liberal England’ — the people who had defected from the Conservatives to either the Liberal Democrats or to Tony Blair. He wanted to win back people who cared about the environment, the National Health Service and civil liberties. He wanted to soften conservatism, not toughen it.
He built up a campaign machine at Conservative HQ that focused not on the whole country, but on the two million swing voters in the 100 marginal seats who tend to decide who becomes Prime Minister.
As an electoral strategy it failed to secure him an outright majority, although it won enough seats to end Labour rule. Now, however, as Prime Minister, David Cameron has a bigger responsibility. In No 10 Downing Street, Cameron has a responsibility to govern for the whole nation and we should judge him, in part, on whether he can reduce the ANTI voter army.
As a Conservative, Cameron has an opportunity — many would say an obligation — to show that a politician can keep promises and can make a practical improvement to the lives of the pound-stretching class. So, what would an ANTI voter make of his performance so far? On immigration, the most important issue, there are at least hopeful signs.
When David Cameron began negotiations with Nick Clegg about forming a coalition government, he made it clear he wasn’t prepared to compromise on the promise he made to reduce net immigration of people outside the EU from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands.
That promise is essentially a 70 per cent cut from the Labour years when weak border controls allowed two million people to come to live and work in Britain. It was the equivalent of two extra cities the size of Birmingham added to the nation’s population, in little more than ten years.
The Prime Minister and Home Secretary Theresa May have fought a tough battle within the Coalition Government to defend the pledge. The Liberal Democrats do not believe in the Tories’ hard-line approach and Nick Clegg wants illegal immigrants to have the right to settle in Britain.
Business Secretary Vince Cable attempted to dilute the immigration cap, but Mrs May dug in her stiletto heels and wouldn’t be moved. She also defeated big business interests who’d rather import cheap labour from overseas than patiently train British workers, many of whom prefer to live on benefits.
So far, so good. But economic migration is only one route into Britain. Many more immigrants come into the UK as students, but they register at bogus colleges and work in the black economy.
Others still enter our country using bogus marriages and family visas, but they arrive neither able to speak English nor with any understanding of British culture.
If Theresa May succeeds in blocking these immigrants, too, in a step-by-step attack on Britain’s lax border controls, she’ll do more than any other politician to restore the ANTI voters’ trust in politics.
In addition to Theresa May, the two other members of Cameron’s team who best understand the ANTI voter are Iain Duncan Smith and George Osborne. In particular, they understand the ANTIs’ concerns about tax payers’ money going to undeserving causes and are trying to rebuild the welfare system so that work pays and people who refuse reasonable job offers lose their benefits.
When these reforms were first announced, Labour instinctively accused the Tories of being harsh. But as Ed Miliband found out, on his visit to Dudley and that Tesco supermarket, low-income workers who do the decent thing are tired of being taken for a ride.
Ed Miliband is certainly going to find it hard to win over the pound-stretchers. He is associated with the government that created the conditions that gave rise to the ANTI voter: out-of-control immigration; a welfare system that was unfair to those in work; and massive growth in anti-social behaviour. Unlike Cameron, he can only make promises. He can’t easily do anything that will overcome the ANTIs’ deep suspicion of politicians’ words.
These hurdles won’t mean that the Labour leader won’t or shouldn’t try. Nothing will stop Cameron being re-elected if the economy is strong by the time of the next election and he fixes the deficit, fixes immigration and fixes welfare.
But Miliband has half a chance if things turn messy for Cameron. By messy, I mean rising fuel bills. I mean higher VAT and higher holiday taxes. I mean a crime wave on streets where there are fewer police officers, a crime wave committed by people who the Coalition didn’t put in prison because Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke does not believe in locking up criminals. I mean Europe continuing to order Britain to do things like give votes to prisoners.
What Cameron has to realise is that, more than anything else, the ANTI voters describe Britain as ‘unfair’.
Unfair to them and unfair to people who do the right thing.
Cameron has a great opportunity to bring these disaffected voters back into the mainstream of politics, but only if he becomes their champion.
On immigration and welfare the signs are good. But on Europe, tax and crime, he’s going in the wrong direction.
SOURCE
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Two million new homes needed in Britain to cope with the next 25 years of immigration
Which will be very difficult, expensive and disruptive given Britain's extensive legal restrictions on land-use (green belts etc.) and energetic Greenie opposition to any changes to country areas. A rather amazing example of that here
More than two million new homes will have to be built over the next 25 years to cope with immigration, official figures disclosed yesterday. They showed that room will have to be found to provide homes for 83,000 migrant families a year if the influx continues at the current rate.
More than a third of all the new houses and flats made available between now and the mid-2030s will be needed for individuals and families coming to Britain from abroad, the analysis said. At least 600,000 of these will have to be in the most overcrowded parts of the country, London and the South-East.
The demand for homes to house migrants is a key reason for the need to build, the Communities Department said. ‘Population growth is the main driver of household growth, accounting for nearly three-quarters of the increase in households between 2008 and 2033,’ said a spokesman.
Around two-thirds of population growth is directly brought about by immigration. Immigration pressure groups accused officials of trying to underplay the effect of the flow of people into the country on new housebuilding.
Development is highly unpopular among the great majority of people living in the southern half of the country, where transport, health and social services, water and power supplies are already struggling to keep up.
Sir Andrew Green, of the Migrationwatch think-tank, said that officials had failed in their analysis to mention the role of immigration in population growth and had relegated any mention of housing for migrants to technical discussions in the second half of their paper. ‘It is inexcusable for the Government to paper over the huge impact of continued massive levels of immigration on housing,’ he said. ‘The first response to the housing crisis should be to face the facts. The last government was in denial. That cannot be allowed to continue.’
Home Office ministers have capped numbers of visas for workers from outside Europe and are moving on to try to reduce the record rate at which students, many of them thought to be disguised economic migrants, are arriving in Britain.
The Office for National Statistics recorded 211,000 foreign students coming into the country last year and its latest figure for ‘net migration’ – the number of people added to the population in a year after immigration and emigration are both counted – is 215,000. According to the Communities Department, immigration amounts for 36 per cent of the demand for new homes over 25 years.
Much of the rest will be needed because of family break-ups and the ageing population. The decline of marriage and the rise of cohabitation have resulted in much higher numbers of single parents and separated fathers, and older people increasingly live alone. In all, 5.8million new homes will be needed by 2033, the analysis said.
SOURCE
Is Illegal Immigration Moral?
Victor Davis Hanson
We know illegal immigration is no longer really unlawful, but is it moral?
Usually Americans debate the fiscal costs of illegal immigration. Supporters of open borders rightly remind us that illegal immigrants pay sales taxes. Often their payroll-tax contributions are not later tapped by Social Security payouts.
Opponents counter that illegal immigrants are more likely to end up on state assistance, are less likely to report cash income, and cost the state more through the duplicate issuing of services and documents in both English and Spanish. Such to-and-fro talking points are endless.
So is the debate over beneficiaries of illegal immigration. Are profit-minded employers villains who want cheap labor in lieu of hiring more expensive Americans? Or is the culprit a cynical Mexican government that counts on billions of dollars in remittances from its expatriate poor that it otherwise ignored?
Or is the engine that drives illegal immigration the American middle class? Why should millions of suburbanites assume that, like 18th-century French aristocrats, they should have imported labor to clean their homes, manicure their lawns and watch over their kids?
Or is the catalyst the self-interested professional Latino lobby in politics and academia that sees a steady stream of impoverished Latin American nationals as a permanent victimized constituency, empowering and showcasing elite self-appointed spokesmen such as themselves?
Or is the real advocate the Democratic Party that wishes to remake the electoral map of the American Southwest by ensuring larger future pools of natural supporters? Again, the debate over who benefits and why is never-ending.
But what is often left out of the equation is the moral dimension of illegal immigration. We see the issue too often reduced to caricature, involving a noble, impoverished victim without much free will and subject to cosmic forces of sinister oppression. But everyone makes free choices that affect others. So ponder the ethics of a guest arriving in a host country knowingly against its sovereign protocols and laws.
First, there is the larger effect on the sanctity of a legal system. If a guest ignores the law -- and thereby often must keep breaking more laws -- should citizens also have the right to similarly pick and choose which statutes they find worthy of honoring and which are too bothersome? Once it is deemed moral for the impoverished to cross a border without a passport, could not the same arguments of social justice be used for the poor of any status not to report earned income or even file a 1040 form?
Second, what is the effect of mass illegal immigration on impoverished U.S. citizens? Does anyone care? When 10 million to 15 million aliens are here illegally, where is the leverage for the American working poor to bargain with employers? If it is deemed ethical to grant in-state tuition discounts to illegal-immigrant students, is it equally ethical to charge three times as much for out-of-state, financially needy American students -- whose federal government usually offers billions to subsidize state colleges and universities? If foreign nationals are afforded more entitlements, are there fewer for U.S. citizens?
Third, consider the moral ramifications on legal immigration -- the traditional great strength of the American nation. What are we to tell the legal immigrant from Oaxaca who got a green card at some cost and trouble, or who, once legally in the United States, went through the lengthy and expensive process of acquiring citizenship? Was he a dupe to dutifully follow our laws?
And given the current precedent, if a million soon-to-be-impoverished Greeks, 2 million fleeing North Koreans, or 5 million starving Somalis were to enter the United States illegally and en masse, could anyone object to their unlawful entry and residence? If so, on what legal, practical or moral grounds?
Fourth, examine the morality of remittances. It is deemed noble to send billions of dollars back to families and friends struggling in Latin America. But how is such a considerable loss of income made up? Are American taxpayers supposed to step in to subsidize increased social services so that illegal immigrants can afford to send billions of dollars back across the border? What is the morality of that equation in times of recession? Shouldn't illegal immigrants at least try to buy health insurance before sending cash back to Mexico?
The debate over illegal immigration is too often confined to costs and benefits. But ultimately it is a complicated moral issue -- and one often ignored by all too many moralists.
SOURCE
Which will be very difficult, expensive and disruptive given Britain's extensive legal restrictions on land-use (green belts etc.) and energetic Greenie opposition to any changes to country areas. A rather amazing example of that here
More than two million new homes will have to be built over the next 25 years to cope with immigration, official figures disclosed yesterday. They showed that room will have to be found to provide homes for 83,000 migrant families a year if the influx continues at the current rate.
More than a third of all the new houses and flats made available between now and the mid-2030s will be needed for individuals and families coming to Britain from abroad, the analysis said. At least 600,000 of these will have to be in the most overcrowded parts of the country, London and the South-East.
The demand for homes to house migrants is a key reason for the need to build, the Communities Department said. ‘Population growth is the main driver of household growth, accounting for nearly three-quarters of the increase in households between 2008 and 2033,’ said a spokesman.
Around two-thirds of population growth is directly brought about by immigration. Immigration pressure groups accused officials of trying to underplay the effect of the flow of people into the country on new housebuilding.
Development is highly unpopular among the great majority of people living in the southern half of the country, where transport, health and social services, water and power supplies are already struggling to keep up.
Sir Andrew Green, of the Migrationwatch think-tank, said that officials had failed in their analysis to mention the role of immigration in population growth and had relegated any mention of housing for migrants to technical discussions in the second half of their paper. ‘It is inexcusable for the Government to paper over the huge impact of continued massive levels of immigration on housing,’ he said. ‘The first response to the housing crisis should be to face the facts. The last government was in denial. That cannot be allowed to continue.’
Home Office ministers have capped numbers of visas for workers from outside Europe and are moving on to try to reduce the record rate at which students, many of them thought to be disguised economic migrants, are arriving in Britain.
The Office for National Statistics recorded 211,000 foreign students coming into the country last year and its latest figure for ‘net migration’ – the number of people added to the population in a year after immigration and emigration are both counted – is 215,000. According to the Communities Department, immigration amounts for 36 per cent of the demand for new homes over 25 years.
Much of the rest will be needed because of family break-ups and the ageing population. The decline of marriage and the rise of cohabitation have resulted in much higher numbers of single parents and separated fathers, and older people increasingly live alone. In all, 5.8million new homes will be needed by 2033, the analysis said.
SOURCE
Is Illegal Immigration Moral?
Victor Davis Hanson
We know illegal immigration is no longer really unlawful, but is it moral?
Usually Americans debate the fiscal costs of illegal immigration. Supporters of open borders rightly remind us that illegal immigrants pay sales taxes. Often their payroll-tax contributions are not later tapped by Social Security payouts.
Opponents counter that illegal immigrants are more likely to end up on state assistance, are less likely to report cash income, and cost the state more through the duplicate issuing of services and documents in both English and Spanish. Such to-and-fro talking points are endless.
So is the debate over beneficiaries of illegal immigration. Are profit-minded employers villains who want cheap labor in lieu of hiring more expensive Americans? Or is the culprit a cynical Mexican government that counts on billions of dollars in remittances from its expatriate poor that it otherwise ignored?
Or is the engine that drives illegal immigration the American middle class? Why should millions of suburbanites assume that, like 18th-century French aristocrats, they should have imported labor to clean their homes, manicure their lawns and watch over their kids?
Or is the catalyst the self-interested professional Latino lobby in politics and academia that sees a steady stream of impoverished Latin American nationals as a permanent victimized constituency, empowering and showcasing elite self-appointed spokesmen such as themselves?
Or is the real advocate the Democratic Party that wishes to remake the electoral map of the American Southwest by ensuring larger future pools of natural supporters? Again, the debate over who benefits and why is never-ending.
But what is often left out of the equation is the moral dimension of illegal immigration. We see the issue too often reduced to caricature, involving a noble, impoverished victim without much free will and subject to cosmic forces of sinister oppression. But everyone makes free choices that affect others. So ponder the ethics of a guest arriving in a host country knowingly against its sovereign protocols and laws.
First, there is the larger effect on the sanctity of a legal system. If a guest ignores the law -- and thereby often must keep breaking more laws -- should citizens also have the right to similarly pick and choose which statutes they find worthy of honoring and which are too bothersome? Once it is deemed moral for the impoverished to cross a border without a passport, could not the same arguments of social justice be used for the poor of any status not to report earned income or even file a 1040 form?
Second, what is the effect of mass illegal immigration on impoverished U.S. citizens? Does anyone care? When 10 million to 15 million aliens are here illegally, where is the leverage for the American working poor to bargain with employers? If it is deemed ethical to grant in-state tuition discounts to illegal-immigrant students, is it equally ethical to charge three times as much for out-of-state, financially needy American students -- whose federal government usually offers billions to subsidize state colleges and universities? If foreign nationals are afforded more entitlements, are there fewer for U.S. citizens?
Third, consider the moral ramifications on legal immigration -- the traditional great strength of the American nation. What are we to tell the legal immigrant from Oaxaca who got a green card at some cost and trouble, or who, once legally in the United States, went through the lengthy and expensive process of acquiring citizenship? Was he a dupe to dutifully follow our laws?
And given the current precedent, if a million soon-to-be-impoverished Greeks, 2 million fleeing North Koreans, or 5 million starving Somalis were to enter the United States illegally and en masse, could anyone object to their unlawful entry and residence? If so, on what legal, practical or moral grounds?
Fourth, examine the morality of remittances. It is deemed noble to send billions of dollars back to families and friends struggling in Latin America. But how is such a considerable loss of income made up? Are American taxpayers supposed to step in to subsidize increased social services so that illegal immigrants can afford to send billions of dollars back across the border? What is the morality of that equation in times of recession? Shouldn't illegal immigrants at least try to buy health insurance before sending cash back to Mexico?
The debate over illegal immigration is too often confined to costs and benefits. But ultimately it is a complicated moral issue -- and one often ignored by all too many moralists.
SOURCE
Friday, November 26, 2010
580,000 immigrants to Britain during the Labour party’s last year in office
Immigration pushed up Britain’s population by more than 200,000 during Labour’s last year in power, an official count showed yesterday. The figure approaches the biggest leaps during the Tony Blair and Gordon Brown years and is more than double the immigration level Coalition ministers are aiming for.
In the 12 months to the end of March, 580,000 people moved to Britain, including a record 211,000 students. In the same period 364,000 left the country – the lowest level in a decade.
Net migration to the UK rose to 215,000 in the year to March. That has resulted in a rise in the population of up to 215,000. This net migration count underlines the huge task facing the Government if it is to keep the figure below 100,000. The totals for 2008 and 2009 were 163,000 and 198,000 respectively.
The Office for National Statistics has said that the population will hit 70million by 2029 if net migration runs at 180,000 a year. The ONS, which published the figures, said emigration may have fallen because young Britons had struggled to find jobs in recession-hit countries.
The ONS breakdown revealed that the fastest-growing group of immigrants are students. The 211,000 figure for 2010 compares with 175,000 in 2008 and only around 100,000 in 2001.
Migrationwatch said non-EU citizens accounted for the bulk of immigration. Sir Andrew Green, the pressure group’s chairman, added: ‘These new figures confirm the massive impact that immigration is having on our population. This fully justifies the Government’s efforts to get our immigration system under control – a policy that the public overwhelmingly support.’
Immigration minister Damian Green said: ‘These statistics once again show why we must tighten our immigration system in order to reduce net migration to manageable levels. ‘We aim to reduce net migration from the hundreds of thousands, back down to the tens of thousands by taking action on all routes into the UK.
‘The annual limit that we announced this week will ensure we continue to attract the brightest and the best while we reduce economic migration.
‘We will shortly be launching a consultation on student visas, so as with economic migration we refocus on the areas which add the greatest value and where evidence of abuse is limited, protecting our world class universities.’
Home Office ministers this week announced a 21,700 cap on visas for workers from outside Europe.
The number of student visas issued by the Home Office has been running much higher than the ONS count of arrivals at air and sea ports. In the year to September, it handed out 355,065 student visas, up 16 per cent on the figure for a year earlier.
The ONS-Home Office disparity is down to a number of factors, including the rule that says a foreigner staying for less than a year is not considered an immigrant. Some recipients of student visas never make it to Britain, while others who have studied using one never move back to their home countries.
SOURCE
Ah, the wonders of open immigration!
A comment from NJ
For some reason I don't think officials here and in the U.K. ever think all that deeply about the policy they've had for decades of opening their borders to characters like this:
It's certainly not that the average guy in London is any more liberal than here in the U.S. When I've been to pubs there, the guy next to me is just as likely as an American to grouse about open immigration.
As I've noted, one pub there was across from a new Islamic Center, and once the Muslims moved in they immediately started demanding the pub be closed. That failure to assimilate is reason enough to cut off immigration.
Regular people hate this sort of thing. But somehow the elected officials don't get it. Even Chris Christie, our allegedly conservative governor, keeps yapping about finding "a path to citizenship" for those illegals he doesn't really consider to be illegal.
Though a lot of wannabe conservatives are too dumb to figure it out, this attitude is what led directly to the Gropergate scandal. If we're going to let the whole world run around the West, then we have to have the same security standards in America as we do in Afghanistan. If you doubt that, consider the piece that ran in the Neocon Review recently laying out that very line of logic.
By the way, when these London-based Taliban want to fly to the U.S., they don't even need visas. They're U.K. citizens. They can get right on the plane.
So can someone tell me again what the case is for treating a young male of Mideastern origin the same as an aging granny in airports? I keep forgetting.
SOURCE (See the original for links)
Immigration pushed up Britain’s population by more than 200,000 during Labour’s last year in power, an official count showed yesterday. The figure approaches the biggest leaps during the Tony Blair and Gordon Brown years and is more than double the immigration level Coalition ministers are aiming for.
In the 12 months to the end of March, 580,000 people moved to Britain, including a record 211,000 students. In the same period 364,000 left the country – the lowest level in a decade.
Net migration to the UK rose to 215,000 in the year to March. That has resulted in a rise in the population of up to 215,000. This net migration count underlines the huge task facing the Government if it is to keep the figure below 100,000. The totals for 2008 and 2009 were 163,000 and 198,000 respectively.
The Office for National Statistics has said that the population will hit 70million by 2029 if net migration runs at 180,000 a year. The ONS, which published the figures, said emigration may have fallen because young Britons had struggled to find jobs in recession-hit countries.
The ONS breakdown revealed that the fastest-growing group of immigrants are students. The 211,000 figure for 2010 compares with 175,000 in 2008 and only around 100,000 in 2001.
Migrationwatch said non-EU citizens accounted for the bulk of immigration. Sir Andrew Green, the pressure group’s chairman, added: ‘These new figures confirm the massive impact that immigration is having on our population. This fully justifies the Government’s efforts to get our immigration system under control – a policy that the public overwhelmingly support.’
Immigration minister Damian Green said: ‘These statistics once again show why we must tighten our immigration system in order to reduce net migration to manageable levels. ‘We aim to reduce net migration from the hundreds of thousands, back down to the tens of thousands by taking action on all routes into the UK.
‘The annual limit that we announced this week will ensure we continue to attract the brightest and the best while we reduce economic migration.
‘We will shortly be launching a consultation on student visas, so as with economic migration we refocus on the areas which add the greatest value and where evidence of abuse is limited, protecting our world class universities.’
Home Office ministers this week announced a 21,700 cap on visas for workers from outside Europe.
The number of student visas issued by the Home Office has been running much higher than the ONS count of arrivals at air and sea ports. In the year to September, it handed out 355,065 student visas, up 16 per cent on the figure for a year earlier.
The ONS-Home Office disparity is down to a number of factors, including the rule that says a foreigner staying for less than a year is not considered an immigrant. Some recipients of student visas never make it to Britain, while others who have studied using one never move back to their home countries.
SOURCE
Ah, the wonders of open immigration!
A comment from NJ
For some reason I don't think officials here and in the U.K. ever think all that deeply about the policy they've had for decades of opening their borders to characters like this:
A Taliban fighter in Dhani-Ghorri in northern Afghanistan last month told the Guardian he lived most of the time in east London, but came to Afghanistan for three months of the year for combat.
"I work as a minicab driver," said the man, who has the rank of a mid-level Taliban commander. "I make good money there [in the UK], you know. But these people are my friends and my family and it's my duty to come to fight the jihad with them."
It's certainly not that the average guy in London is any more liberal than here in the U.S. When I've been to pubs there, the guy next to me is just as likely as an American to grouse about open immigration.
As I've noted, one pub there was across from a new Islamic Center, and once the Muslims moved in they immediately started demanding the pub be closed. That failure to assimilate is reason enough to cut off immigration.
Regular people hate this sort of thing. But somehow the elected officials don't get it. Even Chris Christie, our allegedly conservative governor, keeps yapping about finding "a path to citizenship" for those illegals he doesn't really consider to be illegal.
Though a lot of wannabe conservatives are too dumb to figure it out, this attitude is what led directly to the Gropergate scandal. If we're going to let the whole world run around the West, then we have to have the same security standards in America as we do in Afghanistan. If you doubt that, consider the piece that ran in the Neocon Review recently laying out that very line of logic.
By the way, when these London-based Taliban want to fly to the U.S., they don't even need visas. They're U.K. citizens. They can get right on the plane.
So can someone tell me again what the case is for treating a young male of Mideastern origin the same as an aging granny in airports? I keep forgetting.
SOURCE (See the original for links)
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Leftist policy on illegals weak and inhumane says Australian conservative expert
The graph shows how the illegals stopped coming under the policies introduced by the previous conservative government
The architect of the Howard government's Pacific Solution says Labor's decision to soften Australia's immigration policies has backfired.
Philip Ruddock's comments follow revelations that Labor was warned three months after it first came to power that closing the Nauru detention centre -- a key plank of the Howard-era offshore processing regime -- would lead to an increase in people-smuggling.
Mr Ruddock, who served as immigration minister from 1996 to 2003, told The Australian he believed the Gillard government was treating its asylum policy as a "menu to pick and choose from" and it should review its measures immediately to give priority to refugees most in need.
He called for a return to temporary protection visas, the reopening of Nauru and better co-operation with Indonesia. "The government has a responsibility to ensure that we manage our borders and we are able to give priority to those who need it most," Mr Ruddock said.
"In my judgment, it was a far more humane system when you had nobody getting on boats and none of these pressures were there, and I don't think these pressures would have occurred without the changes in policy."
Mr Ruddock's decision to enter the debate follows the release under Freedom of Information laws of a confidential briefing on February 25, 2008, in which Immigration Department officials warned then immigration minister Chris Evans to expect an upswing in boat arrivals after the Nauru detention centre was abandoned that month. "While a range of risk-mitigation strategies have prevented significant boat arrivals in recent years, current intelligence on issues including the closure of Nauru suggest the possibility of increased people-smuggling efforts," the advice states.
Labor has not conceded its decision to dismantle the Pacific Solution outpost of Nauru has increased asylum-seekers and blames the so-called push factors of unrest in source countries such as Sri Lanka and Afghanistan.
Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said the information in the FOI, which was heavily edited and blacked out, needed to be seen in its full context. "The government receives advice on people-smuggling issues regularly and again, the advice to the government when we came to office in 2007 was that people-smugglers remain very active," Mr Bowen told ABC radio.
His comments came as new figures, obtained by The Australian, reveal that self-harm rates among detainees are on the rise, with 79 reports in the four months from July 1 compared with a total of 39 incidents last financial year.
The founder of Labor for Refugees, Australian Workers Union national secretary Paul Howes, conceded yesterday there was "a lot of room for improvement" within Labor's immigration policy and called for processing of applications to be sped up. "I think they've been doing a better job than they were . . . (but) it is very distressing for refugees to go through all they do to get here and then feel so hopeless they attempt self-harm," Mr Howes said. This year, there have been two suicides, hunger strikes, a mass brawl and rooftop protests.
SOURCE
Average Australians well aware of economic case against more immigration
By Ross Gittins, a generally Left-leaning economist
The Big Australia issue has gone quiet since the election but it hasn't gone away. It can't go away because it's too central to our future and, despite Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott's rare agreement to eschew rapid population growth, the issue remains unresolved.
This year Rebecca Huntley of Ipsos, a global market research firm, and Bernard Salt of KPMG, a financial services firm, conducted interviews with business people and discussions with 13 groups of consumers, showing them two markedly different scenarios of what Australia could look like in 2020.
In the "measured Australia" scenario, governments limited population growth, focused on making our activities more environmentally sustainable and limited our economic links with the rest of the world.
In the "global Australia" scenario, governments set aside concerns about the environment, promoted rapid economic and population growth, and made Australia ever more a part of Asia.
Not surprisingly, the business people hated measured Australia and loved global Australia. But even though global Australia was described in glowing terms - ignoring the environment apparently had no adverse effects - ordinary people rejected it. And although measured Australia was painted in negative terms - all downside and no upside - there were aspects of it people quite liked.
The message I draw is that if governments keep pursuing rapid growth to please business they'll encounter increasing resentment and resistance from voters.
Considering the human animal's deep-seated fear of foreigners, it's not surprising resentment has focused on immigration. It's clear from the way in the election campaign both sides purported to have set their face against high migration that they're starting to get the message.
But at the moment they're promising to restrict immigration with one hand while encouraging a decade-long, labour-consuming boom in the construction of mines and gas facilities with the other. And this will be happening at a time when the economy is already close to full employment and baby boomers retire as the population ages.
Their two approaches don't fit together. And unless our leaders find a way to resolve the contradiction there's trouble ahead.
Business people support rapid population growth, which really means high immigration; there's little governments can do to influence the birth rate, because they know a bigger population means a bigger economy. And in a bigger economy they can increase their sales and profits.
That's fine for them, but it doesn't necessarily follow that a bigger economy is better for you and me. Only if the extra people add more to national income than their own share of that income will the average incomes of the rest of us be increased. And that's not to say any gain in material standard of living isn't offset by a decline in our quality of life, which goes unmeasured by gross domestic product.
The most recent study by the Productivity Commission, in 2006, found that even extra skilled migration did little or nothing to raise the average incomes of the existing population, with the migrants themselves the only beneficiaries.
This may explain why, this time, economists are approaching the question from the other end: we're getting the future economic growth from the desire of the world's mining companies to greatly expand Australia's capacity to export coal, iron ore and natural gas, but we don't have sufficient skilled labour to meet that need and unless we bring in a lot more labour this episode will end in soaring wages and inflation.
Peter McDonald, a leading demographer at the Australian National University, argues that governments don't determine the level of net migration, the economy does. When our economy's in recession, few immigrants come and more Aussies leave; when the economy's booming, more immigrants come and fewer Aussies leave. Governments could try to resist this increase, but so far they've opted to get out of the way.
To most business people, economists and demographers, the answer to our present problem is obvious: since economic growth must go ahead, the two sides of politics should stop their populist pandering to the punters' resentment of foreigners.
But it seems clear from the Ipsos discussion groups that people's resistance to high immigration focuses on their concerns about the present inadequacy of public infrastructure: roads, transport, water and energy. We're not coping now, what would it be like with more people?
And the punters have a point. In their instinctive reaction to the idea of more foreigners they've put their finger on the great weakness in the economic case for immigration.
As economists know - but don't like to talk or even think about - the reason immigration adds little or nothing to the material living standards of the existing population is that each extra person coming to Australia - the workers and their families - has to be provided with extra capital equipment: a home to live in, machines to use at work and a host of public infrastructure such as roads, public transport, schools, hospitals, libraries, police stations and much else.
The cost of that extra capital has to be set against the benefit from the extra labour. If the extra capital isn't forthcoming, living standards - and, no doubt, quality of life - decline.
If we don't build the extra homes - as we haven't been doing for some years - rents and house prices keep rising, making home ownership less affordable. To build the extra public facilities, governments have to raise taxes and borrow money. But they hate raising taxes and both sides of federal politics have sworn to eliminate government debt.
The interviews and discussion groups revealed both business people and consumers to be highly doubtful about the ability of governments - particularly state governments - to provide the infrastructure we need. As well they might be.
SOURCE
The graph shows how the illegals stopped coming under the policies introduced by the previous conservative government
The architect of the Howard government's Pacific Solution says Labor's decision to soften Australia's immigration policies has backfired.
Philip Ruddock's comments follow revelations that Labor was warned three months after it first came to power that closing the Nauru detention centre -- a key plank of the Howard-era offshore processing regime -- would lead to an increase in people-smuggling.
Mr Ruddock, who served as immigration minister from 1996 to 2003, told The Australian he believed the Gillard government was treating its asylum policy as a "menu to pick and choose from" and it should review its measures immediately to give priority to refugees most in need.
He called for a return to temporary protection visas, the reopening of Nauru and better co-operation with Indonesia. "The government has a responsibility to ensure that we manage our borders and we are able to give priority to those who need it most," Mr Ruddock said.
"In my judgment, it was a far more humane system when you had nobody getting on boats and none of these pressures were there, and I don't think these pressures would have occurred without the changes in policy."
Mr Ruddock's decision to enter the debate follows the release under Freedom of Information laws of a confidential briefing on February 25, 2008, in which Immigration Department officials warned then immigration minister Chris Evans to expect an upswing in boat arrivals after the Nauru detention centre was abandoned that month. "While a range of risk-mitigation strategies have prevented significant boat arrivals in recent years, current intelligence on issues including the closure of Nauru suggest the possibility of increased people-smuggling efforts," the advice states.
Labor has not conceded its decision to dismantle the Pacific Solution outpost of Nauru has increased asylum-seekers and blames the so-called push factors of unrest in source countries such as Sri Lanka and Afghanistan.
Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said the information in the FOI, which was heavily edited and blacked out, needed to be seen in its full context. "The government receives advice on people-smuggling issues regularly and again, the advice to the government when we came to office in 2007 was that people-smugglers remain very active," Mr Bowen told ABC radio.
His comments came as new figures, obtained by The Australian, reveal that self-harm rates among detainees are on the rise, with 79 reports in the four months from July 1 compared with a total of 39 incidents last financial year.
The founder of Labor for Refugees, Australian Workers Union national secretary Paul Howes, conceded yesterday there was "a lot of room for improvement" within Labor's immigration policy and called for processing of applications to be sped up. "I think they've been doing a better job than they were . . . (but) it is very distressing for refugees to go through all they do to get here and then feel so hopeless they attempt self-harm," Mr Howes said. This year, there have been two suicides, hunger strikes, a mass brawl and rooftop protests.
SOURCE
Average Australians well aware of economic case against more immigration
By Ross Gittins, a generally Left-leaning economist
The Big Australia issue has gone quiet since the election but it hasn't gone away. It can't go away because it's too central to our future and, despite Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott's rare agreement to eschew rapid population growth, the issue remains unresolved.
This year Rebecca Huntley of Ipsos, a global market research firm, and Bernard Salt of KPMG, a financial services firm, conducted interviews with business people and discussions with 13 groups of consumers, showing them two markedly different scenarios of what Australia could look like in 2020.
In the "measured Australia" scenario, governments limited population growth, focused on making our activities more environmentally sustainable and limited our economic links with the rest of the world.
In the "global Australia" scenario, governments set aside concerns about the environment, promoted rapid economic and population growth, and made Australia ever more a part of Asia.
Not surprisingly, the business people hated measured Australia and loved global Australia. But even though global Australia was described in glowing terms - ignoring the environment apparently had no adverse effects - ordinary people rejected it. And although measured Australia was painted in negative terms - all downside and no upside - there were aspects of it people quite liked.
The message I draw is that if governments keep pursuing rapid growth to please business they'll encounter increasing resentment and resistance from voters.
Considering the human animal's deep-seated fear of foreigners, it's not surprising resentment has focused on immigration. It's clear from the way in the election campaign both sides purported to have set their face against high migration that they're starting to get the message.
But at the moment they're promising to restrict immigration with one hand while encouraging a decade-long, labour-consuming boom in the construction of mines and gas facilities with the other. And this will be happening at a time when the economy is already close to full employment and baby boomers retire as the population ages.
Their two approaches don't fit together. And unless our leaders find a way to resolve the contradiction there's trouble ahead.
Business people support rapid population growth, which really means high immigration; there's little governments can do to influence the birth rate, because they know a bigger population means a bigger economy. And in a bigger economy they can increase their sales and profits.
That's fine for them, but it doesn't necessarily follow that a bigger economy is better for you and me. Only if the extra people add more to national income than their own share of that income will the average incomes of the rest of us be increased. And that's not to say any gain in material standard of living isn't offset by a decline in our quality of life, which goes unmeasured by gross domestic product.
The most recent study by the Productivity Commission, in 2006, found that even extra skilled migration did little or nothing to raise the average incomes of the existing population, with the migrants themselves the only beneficiaries.
This may explain why, this time, economists are approaching the question from the other end: we're getting the future economic growth from the desire of the world's mining companies to greatly expand Australia's capacity to export coal, iron ore and natural gas, but we don't have sufficient skilled labour to meet that need and unless we bring in a lot more labour this episode will end in soaring wages and inflation.
Peter McDonald, a leading demographer at the Australian National University, argues that governments don't determine the level of net migration, the economy does. When our economy's in recession, few immigrants come and more Aussies leave; when the economy's booming, more immigrants come and fewer Aussies leave. Governments could try to resist this increase, but so far they've opted to get out of the way.
To most business people, economists and demographers, the answer to our present problem is obvious: since economic growth must go ahead, the two sides of politics should stop their populist pandering to the punters' resentment of foreigners.
But it seems clear from the Ipsos discussion groups that people's resistance to high immigration focuses on their concerns about the present inadequacy of public infrastructure: roads, transport, water and energy. We're not coping now, what would it be like with more people?
And the punters have a point. In their instinctive reaction to the idea of more foreigners they've put their finger on the great weakness in the economic case for immigration.
As economists know - but don't like to talk or even think about - the reason immigration adds little or nothing to the material living standards of the existing population is that each extra person coming to Australia - the workers and their families - has to be provided with extra capital equipment: a home to live in, machines to use at work and a host of public infrastructure such as roads, public transport, schools, hospitals, libraries, police stations and much else.
The cost of that extra capital has to be set against the benefit from the extra labour. If the extra capital isn't forthcoming, living standards - and, no doubt, quality of life - decline.
If we don't build the extra homes - as we haven't been doing for some years - rents and house prices keep rising, making home ownership less affordable. To build the extra public facilities, governments have to raise taxes and borrow money. But they hate raising taxes and both sides of federal politics have sworn to eliminate government debt.
The interviews and discussion groups revealed both business people and consumers to be highly doubtful about the ability of governments - particularly state governments - to provide the infrastructure we need. As well they might be.
SOURCE
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Fewer Jobs, More Immigrants
Despite Loss of 1 Million Jobs, 13.1 Million Arrived in the USA 2000-09
New Census Bureau data collected in March of this year show that 13.1 million immigrants (legal and illegal) arrived in the previous 10 years, even though there was a net decline of 1 million jobs during the decade. In contrast, during the 1990s job growth was 21 million, and 12.1 million new immigrants arrived. Despite fundamentally different economic conditions, the level of immigration was similar for both ten-year periods.
The report, “Immigration and Economic Stagnation: An Examination of Trends 2000 to 2010,” is online here. Among the findings:
The March 2010 data show that 13.1 million immigrants (legal and illegal) have arrived in the United States since January 2000. This is the case despite two significant recessions during the decade and a net loss of one million jobs.
Data collected in March 2000 showed one million fewer immigrants arrived from January 1990 to March 2000 (12.1 million), while 21 million jobs were created during the decade.
In 2008 and 2009, 2.4 million new immigrants (legal and illegal) settled in the United States, even though 8.2 million jobs were lost over the same period.
The new data indicate that, without a change in U.S. immigration policy, the level of new immigration can remain high even in the face of massive job losses.
Immigration is a complex process; it is not simply a function of U.S. labor market conditions. Factors such as the desire to be with relatives or to access public services in the United States also significantly impact migration.
Although new immigration remains high, the 2.4 million new arrivals represent a decline from earlier in this decade. In the two years prior to 2006, for example, there were 2.9 million arrivals, according to Census Bureau data.
There was no significant change in legal immigration during the past decade. Although the number of jobs declined in the decade just completed, 10.3 million green cards were issued from 2000 to 2009, more than in any decade in American history.
Illegal immigrants also continue to arrive, though prior research indicates that the number coming dropped significantly at the end of the decade.
Among the states with the largest proportional increase in their immigrant populations over the last decade are Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Kentucky, Alaska, Mississippi, Arkansas, Washington, North Carolina, Maryland, and Nebraska.
Discussion: Some have argued that immigration levels are simply a function of labor market conditions in the United States. But the new Census Bureau data remind us that immigration is a complex process driven by many factors in addition to the economy. In 2008 and 2009 net job losses numbered over 8 million, and the immigrant unemployment rate doubled. Yet more than two million new legal and illegal immigrants settled in the United States in those two years.
This does not mean the economy is irrelevant to immigration levels. Rather it means that many factors in addition to the economy impact the flow new immigrants into the country. Such factors as the desire to be with relatives, political freedom, lower levels of official corruption, and the generosity of American taxpayer-funded public services are all among the reasons people come to the United States. These things do not change during a recession or even during a prolonged period of relatively weak economic growth, like the decade just completed.
Immigration has a momentum of its own. In 2000 there were already more than 30 million immigrants (legal and illegal) living in the country. This enormous population means there are social networks of friends and family who provide information about conditions in the United States to those back home. This in turn makes those in the home country more aware of opportunities in the United States and more likely to come. New immigrants often live with established immigrants who can help the new arrivals. Thus as the immigrant population grows, it creates pressure and opportunities for even more immigration.
Data Source: Unlike in past decennial censuses, the 2010 census, which will be released shortly, has no immigration questions. Thus it will provide no information about the nation’s immigrant population. The Census Bureau data analyzed in this report are from the March Current Population Survey, also referred to as the Annual Social and Economic Supplement. The new data provide a first look at immigration for the decade just completed. In this report, we use the terms “immigrant” to mean all persons living in this country who were not U.S. citizens at birth. The Census Bureau often refers to these individuals as “foreign born.” The immigrant or foreign-born includes those in the country legally and illegally. Prior research indicates that some 90 percent of illegal immigrants are included in the Current Population Survey.
The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: center@cis.org. Contact: Steven Camarota, (202) 466-8185, sac@cis.org. The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization
Tens of thousands of foreign students to be barred from Britain in bid to cut immigration numbers
Tens of thousands of foreign students will be barred from studying at private colleges to help slash immigration and curb the growing abuse of the system, the Home Secretary will signal today. Theresa May will launch a review of student visas amid concerns that almost half the migrants who come to study in the UK each year are not on degree courses but a range of lesser qualifications such as A-levels and even GCSEs.
Mrs May will question whether they are the "brightest and the best" that the country wants and will make them a key target for cutting numbers after pledging to protect those wanting to study degrees. It comes as separate figures revealed there has been a 40 per cent rise in the number of bogus colleges, most of which offer non-degree or language courses.
The Home Secretary will announce the review as she unveils what the annual cap on migrant workers will be next year. Along with other measures, the cap is expected to limit numbers arriving to around 40,000 and is the first move to meet David Cameron's pledge of bringing overall net migration down from 196,000 to the "tens of thousands".
Yesterday Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, appeared to be concerned about plans to restrict students after he was pictured clutching notes outside 10 Downing Street.
Mr Cable has been the Cabinet's most vocal critic of the various measures to cut immigration and the notes seemed to echo previous concerns that curbing students would damage the country's reputation in the world.
They also appeared to remind colleagues that foreign students bring income to universities and colleges and that changing rules that allow students to look for work after their degree was wrong.
The Government's chief immigration adviser warned last week that any cut in foreign workers will only have a limited impact and that the number of students from outside the EU will have to be halved if the target is to be met.
Ministers have been under pressure from university leaders and some Cabinet members who fear that restrictions on student numbers will damage the UK's reputation as a world-leading centre for education, as well as cutting the lucrative funds brought in by foreign students.
However, around 130,000 foreign students who came in the year to March were not here to study degrees, almost half the near 280,000 non-EU students who arrived. Of those, more than 90,000 attended a private college to study anything from GCSEs to vocational qualifications. Thousands more attended language schools. The rest either attended established further education colleges or schools.
More HERE
Despite Loss of 1 Million Jobs, 13.1 Million Arrived in the USA 2000-09
New Census Bureau data collected in March of this year show that 13.1 million immigrants (legal and illegal) arrived in the previous 10 years, even though there was a net decline of 1 million jobs during the decade. In contrast, during the 1990s job growth was 21 million, and 12.1 million new immigrants arrived. Despite fundamentally different economic conditions, the level of immigration was similar for both ten-year periods.
The report, “Immigration and Economic Stagnation: An Examination of Trends 2000 to 2010,” is online here. Among the findings:
The March 2010 data show that 13.1 million immigrants (legal and illegal) have arrived in the United States since January 2000. This is the case despite two significant recessions during the decade and a net loss of one million jobs.
Data collected in March 2000 showed one million fewer immigrants arrived from January 1990 to March 2000 (12.1 million), while 21 million jobs were created during the decade.
In 2008 and 2009, 2.4 million new immigrants (legal and illegal) settled in the United States, even though 8.2 million jobs were lost over the same period.
The new data indicate that, without a change in U.S. immigration policy, the level of new immigration can remain high even in the face of massive job losses.
Immigration is a complex process; it is not simply a function of U.S. labor market conditions. Factors such as the desire to be with relatives or to access public services in the United States also significantly impact migration.
Although new immigration remains high, the 2.4 million new arrivals represent a decline from earlier in this decade. In the two years prior to 2006, for example, there were 2.9 million arrivals, according to Census Bureau data.
There was no significant change in legal immigration during the past decade. Although the number of jobs declined in the decade just completed, 10.3 million green cards were issued from 2000 to 2009, more than in any decade in American history.
Illegal immigrants also continue to arrive, though prior research indicates that the number coming dropped significantly at the end of the decade.
Among the states with the largest proportional increase in their immigrant populations over the last decade are Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Kentucky, Alaska, Mississippi, Arkansas, Washington, North Carolina, Maryland, and Nebraska.
Discussion: Some have argued that immigration levels are simply a function of labor market conditions in the United States. But the new Census Bureau data remind us that immigration is a complex process driven by many factors in addition to the economy. In 2008 and 2009 net job losses numbered over 8 million, and the immigrant unemployment rate doubled. Yet more than two million new legal and illegal immigrants settled in the United States in those two years.
This does not mean the economy is irrelevant to immigration levels. Rather it means that many factors in addition to the economy impact the flow new immigrants into the country. Such factors as the desire to be with relatives, political freedom, lower levels of official corruption, and the generosity of American taxpayer-funded public services are all among the reasons people come to the United States. These things do not change during a recession or even during a prolonged period of relatively weak economic growth, like the decade just completed.
Immigration has a momentum of its own. In 2000 there were already more than 30 million immigrants (legal and illegal) living in the country. This enormous population means there are social networks of friends and family who provide information about conditions in the United States to those back home. This in turn makes those in the home country more aware of opportunities in the United States and more likely to come. New immigrants often live with established immigrants who can help the new arrivals. Thus as the immigrant population grows, it creates pressure and opportunities for even more immigration.
Data Source: Unlike in past decennial censuses, the 2010 census, which will be released shortly, has no immigration questions. Thus it will provide no information about the nation’s immigrant population. The Census Bureau data analyzed in this report are from the March Current Population Survey, also referred to as the Annual Social and Economic Supplement. The new data provide a first look at immigration for the decade just completed. In this report, we use the terms “immigrant” to mean all persons living in this country who were not U.S. citizens at birth. The Census Bureau often refers to these individuals as “foreign born.” The immigrant or foreign-born includes those in the country legally and illegally. Prior research indicates that some 90 percent of illegal immigrants are included in the Current Population Survey.
The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: center@cis.org. Contact: Steven Camarota, (202) 466-8185, sac@cis.org. The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization
Tens of thousands of foreign students to be barred from Britain in bid to cut immigration numbers
Tens of thousands of foreign students will be barred from studying at private colleges to help slash immigration and curb the growing abuse of the system, the Home Secretary will signal today. Theresa May will launch a review of student visas amid concerns that almost half the migrants who come to study in the UK each year are not on degree courses but a range of lesser qualifications such as A-levels and even GCSEs.
Mrs May will question whether they are the "brightest and the best" that the country wants and will make them a key target for cutting numbers after pledging to protect those wanting to study degrees. It comes as separate figures revealed there has been a 40 per cent rise in the number of bogus colleges, most of which offer non-degree or language courses.
The Home Secretary will announce the review as she unveils what the annual cap on migrant workers will be next year. Along with other measures, the cap is expected to limit numbers arriving to around 40,000 and is the first move to meet David Cameron's pledge of bringing overall net migration down from 196,000 to the "tens of thousands".
Yesterday Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, appeared to be concerned about plans to restrict students after he was pictured clutching notes outside 10 Downing Street.
Mr Cable has been the Cabinet's most vocal critic of the various measures to cut immigration and the notes seemed to echo previous concerns that curbing students would damage the country's reputation in the world.
They also appeared to remind colleagues that foreign students bring income to universities and colleges and that changing rules that allow students to look for work after their degree was wrong.
The Government's chief immigration adviser warned last week that any cut in foreign workers will only have a limited impact and that the number of students from outside the EU will have to be halved if the target is to be met.
Ministers have been under pressure from university leaders and some Cabinet members who fear that restrictions on student numbers will damage the UK's reputation as a world-leading centre for education, as well as cutting the lucrative funds brought in by foreign students.
However, around 130,000 foreign students who came in the year to March were not here to study degrees, almost half the near 280,000 non-EU students who arrived. Of those, more than 90,000 attended a private college to study anything from GCSEs to vocational qualifications. Thousands more attended language schools. The rest either attended established further education colleges or schools.
More HERE
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
British immigration cap deal ‘strikes right balance’
Not so much a cap as a colander, by the sound of it. But legal immigrants are not the problem so it probably does not matter much either way
A compromise deal on the government’s flagship immigration cap policy will be signed off by the cabinet on Tuesday, after Vince Cable agreed that it struck the right balance between addressing the worries of the public and safeguarding the interests of business.
The business secretary’s fears about the economic impact of the cap have been eased by David Cameron’s promise to exempt many “intra-company transfers”, which allow multinationals to bring staff in from overseas offices.
Theresa May, home secretary, was still working on the final announcement on Monday night, which will be unveiled to parliament on Tuesday. But people involved in the talks said they expected companies would be free to transfer staff from overseas if they earn more than £40,000 a year.
It is expected that those earning less than £24,000 a year will be banned from the transfer route, as the government seeks to stem the flow of Indian IT workers entering the country by this means. Those earning £24,000-£40,000 may only be allowed into the UK for a year. The issue of company transfers had emerged as one of the most contentious parts of the policy to restrict the number of work permits given each year to people from outside of the European Union. The Japanese embassy said its companies would have cut investment and withdrawn from the UK if they were stopped from transferring staff.
Ms May is thought to have accepted many of the recommendations made last week by the independent Migration Advisory Committee on how to implement the cap, including lifting required earnings and educational standards across most categories.
David Metcalf, head of the committee, recommended that the limit on skilled and highly skilled non-EU workers be set at 43,700 next year, down from 50,000 in 2009. However, people involved in the talks said the final figure would be different because the committee’s calculation did not take into account Mr Cameron’s exemption for transfers and other factors.
Ms May will also announce a consultation period ahead of implementing deep cuts to the number of foreign visas issued to non-EU students each year. The Home Office says the route is abused by people looking to come to Britain to work. But ministers such as Mr Cable and David Willetts, university minister, want to make sure the restrictions do not damage legitimate universities or hinder bright students.
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
1. Jessica Vaughan on Fox & Friends (Video)
2. Jessica Vaughan on fine of Fenway Park vendor (Video)
3. A Case Study: Violating and Enforcing the Immigration Law (Blog)
4. Where is President Obama's 'Yes, We Can' on the Border? (Blog)
5. Some Examples of Clumsy Censorship Within USCIS (Blog)
6. Do Foreign Students Contribute Billions to U.S. Economy, or Take from It? (Blog)
7. Attrition Works, Yet Again (Blog)
8. Illegal Immigration Is a Crime That Breeds More Crime: A Typology (Blog)
9. California Supreme Court Backs Illegal-Alien Tuition Break (Blog)
Not so much a cap as a colander, by the sound of it. But legal immigrants are not the problem so it probably does not matter much either way
A compromise deal on the government’s flagship immigration cap policy will be signed off by the cabinet on Tuesday, after Vince Cable agreed that it struck the right balance between addressing the worries of the public and safeguarding the interests of business.
The business secretary’s fears about the economic impact of the cap have been eased by David Cameron’s promise to exempt many “intra-company transfers”, which allow multinationals to bring staff in from overseas offices.
Theresa May, home secretary, was still working on the final announcement on Monday night, which will be unveiled to parliament on Tuesday. But people involved in the talks said they expected companies would be free to transfer staff from overseas if they earn more than £40,000 a year.
It is expected that those earning less than £24,000 a year will be banned from the transfer route, as the government seeks to stem the flow of Indian IT workers entering the country by this means. Those earning £24,000-£40,000 may only be allowed into the UK for a year. The issue of company transfers had emerged as one of the most contentious parts of the policy to restrict the number of work permits given each year to people from outside of the European Union. The Japanese embassy said its companies would have cut investment and withdrawn from the UK if they were stopped from transferring staff.
Ms May is thought to have accepted many of the recommendations made last week by the independent Migration Advisory Committee on how to implement the cap, including lifting required earnings and educational standards across most categories.
David Metcalf, head of the committee, recommended that the limit on skilled and highly skilled non-EU workers be set at 43,700 next year, down from 50,000 in 2009. However, people involved in the talks said the final figure would be different because the committee’s calculation did not take into account Mr Cameron’s exemption for transfers and other factors.
Ms May will also announce a consultation period ahead of implementing deep cuts to the number of foreign visas issued to non-EU students each year. The Home Office says the route is abused by people looking to come to Britain to work. But ministers such as Mr Cable and David Willetts, university minister, want to make sure the restrictions do not damage legitimate universities or hinder bright students.
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
1. Jessica Vaughan on Fox & Friends (Video)
2. Jessica Vaughan on fine of Fenway Park vendor (Video)
3. A Case Study: Violating and Enforcing the Immigration Law (Blog)
4. Where is President Obama's 'Yes, We Can' on the Border? (Blog)
5. Some Examples of Clumsy Censorship Within USCIS (Blog)
6. Do Foreign Students Contribute Billions to U.S. Economy, or Take from It? (Blog)
7. Attrition Works, Yet Again (Blog)
8. Illegal Immigration Is a Crime That Breeds More Crime: A Typology (Blog)
9. California Supreme Court Backs Illegal-Alien Tuition Break (Blog)
Monday, November 22, 2010
FX Glorifying Illegal Immigration
Hollywood’s efforts to convince us that illegal immigration is not a crime have jumped the shark. It seems FX Cable Television Network is working on a series in which the main character is a heroic private investigator. Oh, and he also happens to be an illegal immigrant.
In the past we’ve seen all sorts of P.I.’s on TV: Cannon was the portly P.I., Barnaby Jones was the senior citizen P.I. We’ve even seen a psychic detective (Allison DuBois) and a compulsively neat detective (Monk).
This newest series, though, can’t be blamed simply on Hollywood’s lack of originality. More likely it’s an attempt to lead the general public to believe there is nothing wrong with being here in the United States illegally.
It is possible Hollywood dislikes the fact that, despite their greatest efforts to convince them otherwise, most Americans have a problem with illegal immigration.
The show’s writer, Chap Taylor, told Deadline Hollywood: “In Los Angeles and in the U.S., people's lives are built on the labor of those immigrants…our job is to tell good stories as honestly as we possibly can. If everyone is mad at us, we've done our job."
Well, I’m sure those of us in Arizona who face the dangers of criminal aliens daily will be annoyed at the ignorance of this Hollywood elite.
Most Americans remember when, following a series of attacks on Arizona’s ranchers by illegal aliens and multiple Arizona law enforcement officers were injured or killed in the line of duty, a bill was introduced to allow Arizona’s sheriffs to protect themselves and their citizens from criminals. The proponents of the SB 1070 sought a workable solution to halt the invasion of illegal immigrants, more than 17 percent of whom are found to have criminal records in the United States, and to humbly compensate for the failures of the federal government to carry out its duty to protect the Arizona border.
The criticism that ensued from the left coast and the country’s elites was sharp and saddening to those who simply wanted help. The Obama Administration’s Justice Department, the ACLU and other activist groups filed lawsuits against Arizona and its sheriffs challenging the bill—some calling it “racist” and an infringement on civil rights.
To help provide Arizona sheriffs a sufficient legal defense to take on the Obama Administration and the ACLU, no doubt financed in part by Hollywood liberals, opposing a secure border and enforcement of SB 1070, BorderSheriffs.com was formed, headed by co-chairs Sheriff Paul Babeu of Pinal County and the author of this piece, Sheriff Larry Dever of Cochise County. The organization is committed to the idea that, contrary to what Hollywood elites think, SB 1070 is absolutely necessary for Arizona to protect its interest. Without it state law enforcement would be inhibited from enforcing federal immigration laws and cracking down on illegal immigrants like our friend the private investigator.
So, why the fuss about a detective series featuring an illegal immigrant? Well maybe it’s time for Americans concerned with their national security to stand up and say we don’t appreciate it when our concerns are scorned or dismissed. We don’t appreciate Hollywood disregarding the violence and the crime associated with illegal immigration.
I've lost four friends, three law enforcement officers and a rancher in the midst of this illegal border mess. Anyone who wishes to trivialize their lives or dedication to duty is not my friend. I'm not going to yield one piece of turf, topographical or political, to anyone. If some producer wants to trivialize this mess, shame on them.
The liberal and well-heeled producers and writers who provide us with entertainment ought to leave their gated Beverly Hills mansions and spend a few days on the border in Arizona with myself of Sheriff Babeu. They’d get an education and maybe we’d get a more realistic portrayal of the illegal immigration crisis.
SOURCE
New law to end welfare housing priority for immigrants to Britain
New immigrants could be pushed to the bottom of council-house waiting lists to end ‘unfairness’ to local people. Under Coalition plans being unveiled tomorrow, town halls can give priority to people with established links to the area.
The move will be followed later this week by the announcement of strict curbs on the number of ‘skilled’ migrants allowed into Britain.
The measures highlight the growing importance of immigration as an issue as spending cuts, tax rises and un-employment squeeze family finances. There are nearly five million names on council house waiting lists in England. Under the system introduced by Labour in 2002, anyone can add their name, with the lack of control sparking widespread claims that newly-arrived immigrants ‘jump the queue’.
Housing Minister Grant Shapps will propose cracking down by giving councils the right to set criteria, including favouring local residents. But immigrants with families would still have to be housed if they were deemed homeless.
Tory Mr Shapps will also allow town halls to reject those who have applied for housing in another district, to discourage multiple applications. And he is expected to end the right to a council house for life for new tenants, with some potentially being asked to move out after two years. Existing tenants will not be affected.
Home Secretary Theresa May is expected to announce strict caps on the ‘business back-route’, under which migrants from outside the EU can enter the UK if they have skills which companies claim are in short supply.
Research seen by The Mail on Sunday – and which is likely to be seized on by the Government to justify the curbs – has found that thousands of migrants have been allowed into the country to work in professions in which Britons cannot find jobs. Last year 1,694 migrants were brought in to be care home assistants, though there were 33,265 such workers claiming unemployment benefit. Equally, 1,089 software professionals came into the country, despite there being 4,540 claiming benefit. A total of 2,202 chefs were allowed in, despite 11,960 being unemployed here.
The crackdown follows wrangling in the Coalition after Liberal Democrat Business Secretary Vince Cable said in September that an interim cap, introduced before this week’s permanent cap, was hugely damaging to business. He was slapped down by No 10, which said limits would still allow the ‘brightest and best’ to come to Britain.
Government sources said the council-house system needed reform because Labour had left it in ‘chaos’. A source said: ‘We are aiming at a totemic shift from saying council housing should be available to everyone to focusing on people who genuinely need help.’
Mr Shapps will keep controls requiring councils to prioritise people in the greatest housing need, such as the homeless or those in overcrowded accommodation.
Councils and housing associations will have to give tenants at least six months’ notice to move out if they are found to be no longer eligible for social housing.
Social housing landlords will be able to check tenants’ finances after two years in a property. Tenants could be evicted if their financial situation is deemed to have improved sufficiently.
SOURCE
Hollywood’s efforts to convince us that illegal immigration is not a crime have jumped the shark. It seems FX Cable Television Network is working on a series in which the main character is a heroic private investigator. Oh, and he also happens to be an illegal immigrant.
In the past we’ve seen all sorts of P.I.’s on TV: Cannon was the portly P.I., Barnaby Jones was the senior citizen P.I. We’ve even seen a psychic detective (Allison DuBois) and a compulsively neat detective (Monk).
This newest series, though, can’t be blamed simply on Hollywood’s lack of originality. More likely it’s an attempt to lead the general public to believe there is nothing wrong with being here in the United States illegally.
It is possible Hollywood dislikes the fact that, despite their greatest efforts to convince them otherwise, most Americans have a problem with illegal immigration.
The show’s writer, Chap Taylor, told Deadline Hollywood: “In Los Angeles and in the U.S., people's lives are built on the labor of those immigrants…our job is to tell good stories as honestly as we possibly can. If everyone is mad at us, we've done our job."
Well, I’m sure those of us in Arizona who face the dangers of criminal aliens daily will be annoyed at the ignorance of this Hollywood elite.
Most Americans remember when, following a series of attacks on Arizona’s ranchers by illegal aliens and multiple Arizona law enforcement officers were injured or killed in the line of duty, a bill was introduced to allow Arizona’s sheriffs to protect themselves and their citizens from criminals. The proponents of the SB 1070 sought a workable solution to halt the invasion of illegal immigrants, more than 17 percent of whom are found to have criminal records in the United States, and to humbly compensate for the failures of the federal government to carry out its duty to protect the Arizona border.
The criticism that ensued from the left coast and the country’s elites was sharp and saddening to those who simply wanted help. The Obama Administration’s Justice Department, the ACLU and other activist groups filed lawsuits against Arizona and its sheriffs challenging the bill—some calling it “racist” and an infringement on civil rights.
To help provide Arizona sheriffs a sufficient legal defense to take on the Obama Administration and the ACLU, no doubt financed in part by Hollywood liberals, opposing a secure border and enforcement of SB 1070, BorderSheriffs.com was formed, headed by co-chairs Sheriff Paul Babeu of Pinal County and the author of this piece, Sheriff Larry Dever of Cochise County. The organization is committed to the idea that, contrary to what Hollywood elites think, SB 1070 is absolutely necessary for Arizona to protect its interest. Without it state law enforcement would be inhibited from enforcing federal immigration laws and cracking down on illegal immigrants like our friend the private investigator.
So, why the fuss about a detective series featuring an illegal immigrant? Well maybe it’s time for Americans concerned with their national security to stand up and say we don’t appreciate it when our concerns are scorned or dismissed. We don’t appreciate Hollywood disregarding the violence and the crime associated with illegal immigration.
I've lost four friends, three law enforcement officers and a rancher in the midst of this illegal border mess. Anyone who wishes to trivialize their lives or dedication to duty is not my friend. I'm not going to yield one piece of turf, topographical or political, to anyone. If some producer wants to trivialize this mess, shame on them.
The liberal and well-heeled producers and writers who provide us with entertainment ought to leave their gated Beverly Hills mansions and spend a few days on the border in Arizona with myself of Sheriff Babeu. They’d get an education and maybe we’d get a more realistic portrayal of the illegal immigration crisis.
SOURCE
New law to end welfare housing priority for immigrants to Britain
New immigrants could be pushed to the bottom of council-house waiting lists to end ‘unfairness’ to local people. Under Coalition plans being unveiled tomorrow, town halls can give priority to people with established links to the area.
The move will be followed later this week by the announcement of strict curbs on the number of ‘skilled’ migrants allowed into Britain.
The measures highlight the growing importance of immigration as an issue as spending cuts, tax rises and un-employment squeeze family finances. There are nearly five million names on council house waiting lists in England. Under the system introduced by Labour in 2002, anyone can add their name, with the lack of control sparking widespread claims that newly-arrived immigrants ‘jump the queue’.
Housing Minister Grant Shapps will propose cracking down by giving councils the right to set criteria, including favouring local residents. But immigrants with families would still have to be housed if they were deemed homeless.
Tory Mr Shapps will also allow town halls to reject those who have applied for housing in another district, to discourage multiple applications. And he is expected to end the right to a council house for life for new tenants, with some potentially being asked to move out after two years. Existing tenants will not be affected.
Home Secretary Theresa May is expected to announce strict caps on the ‘business back-route’, under which migrants from outside the EU can enter the UK if they have skills which companies claim are in short supply.
Research seen by The Mail on Sunday – and which is likely to be seized on by the Government to justify the curbs – has found that thousands of migrants have been allowed into the country to work in professions in which Britons cannot find jobs. Last year 1,694 migrants were brought in to be care home assistants, though there were 33,265 such workers claiming unemployment benefit. Equally, 1,089 software professionals came into the country, despite there being 4,540 claiming benefit. A total of 2,202 chefs were allowed in, despite 11,960 being unemployed here.
The crackdown follows wrangling in the Coalition after Liberal Democrat Business Secretary Vince Cable said in September that an interim cap, introduced before this week’s permanent cap, was hugely damaging to business. He was slapped down by No 10, which said limits would still allow the ‘brightest and best’ to come to Britain.
Government sources said the council-house system needed reform because Labour had left it in ‘chaos’. A source said: ‘We are aiming at a totemic shift from saying council housing should be available to everyone to focusing on people who genuinely need help.’
Mr Shapps will keep controls requiring councils to prioritise people in the greatest housing need, such as the homeless or those in overcrowded accommodation.
Councils and housing associations will have to give tenants at least six months’ notice to move out if they are found to be no longer eligible for social housing.
Social housing landlords will be able to check tenants’ finances after two years in a property. Tenants could be evicted if their financial situation is deemed to have improved sufficiently.
SOURCE
Sunday, November 21, 2010
DREAM Act Would Allow Illegals With Criminal Records to Gain Residency, GOP Says
As President Obama and his Democratic allies push to pass legislation this year that would allow certain illegal immigrants to become legal U.S. residents, Republicans are pushing back with details about the DREAM Act that have gone largely unnoticed.
The legislation would permit young people to become U.S. residents after spending two years in college or the military. It would apply to immigrants who were under 16 when they arrived in the U.S., have been in the country at least five years and have a diploma from a U.S. high school or the equivalent.
But Republican Sen. Jeff Session of Alabama released a "DREAM Alert" revealing that at least one version of the legislation would allow qualified illegal immigrants up to the age of 35 to gain resident status, prevent the Department of Homeland Security from removing any illegal who has a pending application – regardless of age or criminal record – and offers amnesty to qualified illegals with misdemeanor convictions, even DUIs.
The alert says that not only would the legislation put an estimated 2.1 million illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship, it would also give them access to in-state tuition rates at public universities, federal student loans, and federal work-study programs.
Illegals who gain citizenship under this legislation will have the legal right to petition for the entry of their family members, including their adult brothers and sisters and the parents who illegally brought or sent them to the U.S.
"In less than a decade, this reality could easily double or triple the more than 2.1 million green cards that will be immediately distributed as a result of the DREAM Act," the alert reads.
A spokesman for Sessions noted that two other versions of the legislation lower the age limit to 30 and won't grant illegals access to in-state tuition deals. It's unclear which version Democrats will choose.
Yet any of the versions should give Americans pause, Session's spokesman said. "The scope of this proposal is enormous, extending amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants including a number who have committed serious crimes, incentivizing further illegality and making it more difficult to develop a just and responsible immigration policy," said Session's spokesman Stephen Miller.
The bill failed to pass the Senate in September. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has vowed to bring the bill to the Senate floor for a vote during the lame duck session.
SOURCE
Salary bar to be £40,000 for highly skilled migrant workers
Highly skilled workers from outside the European Union will have to be coming to a job in Britain paying them at least £40,000 a year under new government plans.
The proposals are to be unveiled this week as ministers reveal the first annual "cap" on immigration into Britain which will apply from next April.
Last week Professor David Metcalf, chairman of the independent Migration Advisory Committee, recommended a total limit of between 37,400 and 43,700 workers a year from outside the EU. Mr Metcalf also recommended a 13 to 25 per cent cut in the number of "Tier 1" highly-skilled workers and "Tier 2" skilled migrants coming to the UK, despite worries from employers that they will be unable to fill key posts.
The Sunday Telegraph understands that under current plans Tier 1 migrants will in future have to come into a job paying at least £40,000 a year – putting the large majority of them into the 40 per cent tax bracket – with a contract for at least 12 months. New categories of Tier 1 immigrant will be unveiled including "investor", "major businessman" and "special talent."
In June, the Home Office introduced a temporary limit of 24,100 workers to enter the country before April 2011, when this cap will be replaced by permanent measures.
Any increase in overall numbers allowed in will be seen as a victory for Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, who has protested on behalf of employers that they must be allowed to attract the best talent from overseas.
Mr Cable said two months ago he was being warned by business leaders that companies were relocating overseas because of what they saw as harsh restrictions in Britain from employing people from outside the EU.
The issue is one of the biggest fault lines between Conservative ministers and their Liberal Democrat coalition partners.
In the last year of the Labour government, net migration – the number of people coming to live in Britain compared with those emigrating – stood at almost 200,000. The coalition has pledged to at least halve this by 2015 – largely by cutting down the number of skilled workers.
SOURCE
As President Obama and his Democratic allies push to pass legislation this year that would allow certain illegal immigrants to become legal U.S. residents, Republicans are pushing back with details about the DREAM Act that have gone largely unnoticed.
The legislation would permit young people to become U.S. residents after spending two years in college or the military. It would apply to immigrants who were under 16 when they arrived in the U.S., have been in the country at least five years and have a diploma from a U.S. high school or the equivalent.
But Republican Sen. Jeff Session of Alabama released a "DREAM Alert" revealing that at least one version of the legislation would allow qualified illegal immigrants up to the age of 35 to gain resident status, prevent the Department of Homeland Security from removing any illegal who has a pending application – regardless of age or criminal record – and offers amnesty to qualified illegals with misdemeanor convictions, even DUIs.
The alert says that not only would the legislation put an estimated 2.1 million illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship, it would also give them access to in-state tuition rates at public universities, federal student loans, and federal work-study programs.
Illegals who gain citizenship under this legislation will have the legal right to petition for the entry of their family members, including their adult brothers and sisters and the parents who illegally brought or sent them to the U.S.
"In less than a decade, this reality could easily double or triple the more than 2.1 million green cards that will be immediately distributed as a result of the DREAM Act," the alert reads.
A spokesman for Sessions noted that two other versions of the legislation lower the age limit to 30 and won't grant illegals access to in-state tuition deals. It's unclear which version Democrats will choose.
Yet any of the versions should give Americans pause, Session's spokesman said. "The scope of this proposal is enormous, extending amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants including a number who have committed serious crimes, incentivizing further illegality and making it more difficult to develop a just and responsible immigration policy," said Session's spokesman Stephen Miller.
The bill failed to pass the Senate in September. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has vowed to bring the bill to the Senate floor for a vote during the lame duck session.
SOURCE
Salary bar to be £40,000 for highly skilled migrant workers
Highly skilled workers from outside the European Union will have to be coming to a job in Britain paying them at least £40,000 a year under new government plans.
The proposals are to be unveiled this week as ministers reveal the first annual "cap" on immigration into Britain which will apply from next April.
Last week Professor David Metcalf, chairman of the independent Migration Advisory Committee, recommended a total limit of between 37,400 and 43,700 workers a year from outside the EU. Mr Metcalf also recommended a 13 to 25 per cent cut in the number of "Tier 1" highly-skilled workers and "Tier 2" skilled migrants coming to the UK, despite worries from employers that they will be unable to fill key posts.
The Sunday Telegraph understands that under current plans Tier 1 migrants will in future have to come into a job paying at least £40,000 a year – putting the large majority of them into the 40 per cent tax bracket – with a contract for at least 12 months. New categories of Tier 1 immigrant will be unveiled including "investor", "major businessman" and "special talent."
In June, the Home Office introduced a temporary limit of 24,100 workers to enter the country before April 2011, when this cap will be replaced by permanent measures.
Any increase in overall numbers allowed in will be seen as a victory for Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, who has protested on behalf of employers that they must be allowed to attract the best talent from overseas.
Mr Cable said two months ago he was being warned by business leaders that companies were relocating overseas because of what they saw as harsh restrictions in Britain from employing people from outside the EU.
The issue is one of the biggest fault lines between Conservative ministers and their Liberal Democrat coalition partners.
In the last year of the Labour government, net migration – the number of people coming to live in Britain compared with those emigrating – stood at almost 200,000. The coalition has pledged to at least halve this by 2015 – largely by cutting down the number of skilled workers.
SOURCE
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Failed asylum seekers ignore British courts
Locking them up until they get on a plane is too harsh, apparently
At least 100 failed asylum seekers have gone missing after being ordered to leave the UK since May, figures showed today. A total of 176 unsuccessful asylum applicants absconded after authorities served them with removal notices, and a maximum of 75 have been tracked down since.
But the figure of 101 unaccounted for may be higher because of the way records are kept. Tory MP David Nuttall, who uncovered the figures, said there could be 'hundreds' of failed asylum seekers in the country and that it was 'pointless' to tell people to leave if they could not be forced to do so.
The UK Border Agency said it makes 'strenuous efforts' to stop failed asylum seekers from absconding and that measures are in place to try and track them down.
In a written parliamentary reply to Mr Nuttall (Bury North), immigration minister Damian Green said 176 failed asylum seekers absconded between May 1 and October 31 this year after being served with removal notices. Home Office figures showed 32 had subsequently been detained, 19 removed or embarked, and 24 had subsequently lodged a new application for asylum. But officials said the same individuals could be counted in more than one of the categories.
In the same period for 2009, 265 absconded with 94 subsequently detained, 43 removed or embarked, and 66 new applications lodged - leaving at least 62 unaccounted for.
'This is evidence that there are hundreds of failed asylum seekers somewhere in the country and we know not where,' Mr Nuttall said. 'The vast majority of my constituents expect that once asylum seekers have exhausted the appeals process, and it has been determined that they do not have the right to be here, that they would properly be removed.
'Clearly that is not working in all cases and I will be interested to see how it is proposed that this is tightened up. 'I am fully supportive of what the Government is doing but I want to improve the operation of government. They have taken over the system that was in place before but it is not working. 'So let's see what we can do to improve it. If somebody stays anyway it is pointless to tell them they cannot stay.'
But Matthew Coats, head of immigration at the UK Border Agency, said: 'When an individual absconds we circulate information and use intelligence to track them down. We prioritise cases where public safety may be at risk, working closely with police. Immigration absconders and those who help them face the risk of prosecution, an unlimited fine and prison.
'The UK Border Agency makes strenuous efforts to ensure that failed asylum seekers do not abscond in the first place. Applicants have to regularly report in person, but we also make personal visits to ensure that failed asylum seekers are still living at their recorded address. 'We continue to return those who refuse to leave voluntarily.'
Around 25,000 asylum applications are received each year. In 2009, 72 per cent of applications - 17,545 cases - were refused.
SOURCE
Stop being so generous to migrants: French plea to Britain after Dunkirk suburb is over-run
The mayor of a French village invaded by migrants has called on Britain to halt handouts to deter them from crossing the Channel. His comments came after makeshift tents appeared in the Dunkirk suburb of Teteghem, which is less than five miles from the main port. Fears are growing there that it could become the site of a new ‘Jungle’ – the infamous ghetto in nearby Calais which was torn down last year.
Franck Dhersin, a former MP and adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy, says his village cannot cope, and pointed the finger at Britain’s benefits system. He told the Daily Mail: ‘The reason the migrants keep coming to France and slipping over the Channel is because the UK is too generous with them. 'Stop giving them money and a place to live and they will soon go somewhere else. End of problem.’
He revealed that his village was currently home to 200 Afghans, Iraqis, Kurds, Sudanese, Vietnamese, Eritreans and Palestinians. ‘For the past four weeks, numbers of migrants camping out have been increasing by 50 per week. 'At this rate within a month we will have another Calais Jungle on our doorsteps,’ he said. ‘I regularly visit the migrants and they all tell me they want to go to England.
‘Why? The reason is simple. They have money and a place to stay as soon as they arrive. ‘England has done a lot to help the situation by setting up police and Customs over here, but the problem still remains.
‘Since they razed the Calais Jungle last year the situation has changed,’ added Mr Dhersin. ‘Now, instead of choosing Calais, the migrants are trying Dunkirk and the Belgian ports of Zeebrugge and Ostend.’
He said that Teteghem was an ideal squat location for migrants because it is next to the motorway linking France to Belgium and very close to the port of Dunkirk.
‘The reason they are here is because the people-smugglers have charged them money to camp here. The smugglers are dangerous and very violent. 'Last week a Vietnamese man stabbed another man and the week before that there was a shooting.’
Already migrants have been knocking on doors asking for water and power to charge their mobile phones, said the mayor. ‘We are a small village with a population of 7,500. The migrants are hardened people. They have travelled thousands of miles to get here. ‘They have nothing to lose and will stop at nothing to get what they need’, he added. 'Something has got to be done, but in the long term the problem must be solved in Britain. 'We are just victims of a British problem here.’
Francoise Lavoisier, of the Salam migrant charity, said: ‘Lots of the migrants used to live in the Jungle. 'They are trying to go to Britain because they think it’s an Eldorado.’
SOURCE
Locking them up until they get on a plane is too harsh, apparently
At least 100 failed asylum seekers have gone missing after being ordered to leave the UK since May, figures showed today. A total of 176 unsuccessful asylum applicants absconded after authorities served them with removal notices, and a maximum of 75 have been tracked down since.
But the figure of 101 unaccounted for may be higher because of the way records are kept. Tory MP David Nuttall, who uncovered the figures, said there could be 'hundreds' of failed asylum seekers in the country and that it was 'pointless' to tell people to leave if they could not be forced to do so.
The UK Border Agency said it makes 'strenuous efforts' to stop failed asylum seekers from absconding and that measures are in place to try and track them down.
In a written parliamentary reply to Mr Nuttall (Bury North), immigration minister Damian Green said 176 failed asylum seekers absconded between May 1 and October 31 this year after being served with removal notices. Home Office figures showed 32 had subsequently been detained, 19 removed or embarked, and 24 had subsequently lodged a new application for asylum. But officials said the same individuals could be counted in more than one of the categories.
In the same period for 2009, 265 absconded with 94 subsequently detained, 43 removed or embarked, and 66 new applications lodged - leaving at least 62 unaccounted for.
'This is evidence that there are hundreds of failed asylum seekers somewhere in the country and we know not where,' Mr Nuttall said. 'The vast majority of my constituents expect that once asylum seekers have exhausted the appeals process, and it has been determined that they do not have the right to be here, that they would properly be removed.
'Clearly that is not working in all cases and I will be interested to see how it is proposed that this is tightened up. 'I am fully supportive of what the Government is doing but I want to improve the operation of government. They have taken over the system that was in place before but it is not working. 'So let's see what we can do to improve it. If somebody stays anyway it is pointless to tell them they cannot stay.'
But Matthew Coats, head of immigration at the UK Border Agency, said: 'When an individual absconds we circulate information and use intelligence to track them down. We prioritise cases where public safety may be at risk, working closely with police. Immigration absconders and those who help them face the risk of prosecution, an unlimited fine and prison.
'The UK Border Agency makes strenuous efforts to ensure that failed asylum seekers do not abscond in the first place. Applicants have to regularly report in person, but we also make personal visits to ensure that failed asylum seekers are still living at their recorded address. 'We continue to return those who refuse to leave voluntarily.'
Around 25,000 asylum applications are received each year. In 2009, 72 per cent of applications - 17,545 cases - were refused.
SOURCE
Stop being so generous to migrants: French plea to Britain after Dunkirk suburb is over-run
The mayor of a French village invaded by migrants has called on Britain to halt handouts to deter them from crossing the Channel. His comments came after makeshift tents appeared in the Dunkirk suburb of Teteghem, which is less than five miles from the main port. Fears are growing there that it could become the site of a new ‘Jungle’ – the infamous ghetto in nearby Calais which was torn down last year.
Franck Dhersin, a former MP and adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy, says his village cannot cope, and pointed the finger at Britain’s benefits system. He told the Daily Mail: ‘The reason the migrants keep coming to France and slipping over the Channel is because the UK is too generous with them. 'Stop giving them money and a place to live and they will soon go somewhere else. End of problem.’
He revealed that his village was currently home to 200 Afghans, Iraqis, Kurds, Sudanese, Vietnamese, Eritreans and Palestinians. ‘For the past four weeks, numbers of migrants camping out have been increasing by 50 per week. 'At this rate within a month we will have another Calais Jungle on our doorsteps,’ he said. ‘I regularly visit the migrants and they all tell me they want to go to England.
‘Why? The reason is simple. They have money and a place to stay as soon as they arrive. ‘England has done a lot to help the situation by setting up police and Customs over here, but the problem still remains.
‘Since they razed the Calais Jungle last year the situation has changed,’ added Mr Dhersin. ‘Now, instead of choosing Calais, the migrants are trying Dunkirk and the Belgian ports of Zeebrugge and Ostend.’
He said that Teteghem was an ideal squat location for migrants because it is next to the motorway linking France to Belgium and very close to the port of Dunkirk.
‘The reason they are here is because the people-smugglers have charged them money to camp here. The smugglers are dangerous and very violent. 'Last week a Vietnamese man stabbed another man and the week before that there was a shooting.’
Already migrants have been knocking on doors asking for water and power to charge their mobile phones, said the mayor. ‘We are a small village with a population of 7,500. The migrants are hardened people. They have travelled thousands of miles to get here. ‘They have nothing to lose and will stop at nothing to get what they need’, he added. 'Something has got to be done, but in the long term the problem must be solved in Britain. 'We are just victims of a British problem here.’
Francoise Lavoisier, of the Salam migrant charity, said: ‘Lots of the migrants used to live in the Jungle. 'They are trying to go to Britain because they think it’s an Eldorado.’
SOURCE
Friday, November 19, 2010
By 2066, white Britons ‘will be outnumbered’ if immigration continues at current rates
White Britons will be a minority by 2066 if immigration continues at the current rate, according to research. A leading population expert last night warned that failure to deal with the influx of foreign workers would ‘change national identity’.
Professor David Coleman, of Oxford University, spoke out as the Migration Advisory Board prepares to reveal its recommendation for the Government’s proposed cap on immigrants from outside the EU.
If immigration stays at its long-term rate of around 180,000 a year, the white British-born population would decline from 80 per cent of the total now to just 59 per cent in 2051, analysis of figures from the Office of National Statistics shows.
By then white immigrants would have more than doubled from 4 to 10 per cent of the total, while the ethnic minority population would have risen from 16 to 31 per cent.
If the trend continued, the white British population, defined as English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish-born citizens, would become the minority after about 2066.
The Government has vowed to slash the level of net immigration after a decade of open borders under Labour. Today the Migration Advisory Board will suggest a level for the cap, following complaints from businesses that the plans are hampering their ability to bring in key staff.
But even if the Coalition gets net immigration down to 80,000 a year, Prof Coleman says white Britons would be outnumbered by 2080.
In an article for Prospect magazine, he writes: ‘The 50 per cent benchmark has no special demographic significance, but it would have a considerable psychological and political impact. ‘The transition to a “majority minority” population, whenever it happens, would represent an enormous change to national identity – cultural, political, economic and religious.
‘In Britain, judging by the opposition to high immigration reported in opinion polls over recent years, it seems likely that such developments would be unwelcome.’
He warned that the relative youthfulness of the immigrant population means that the 50 per cent milestone will be passed much quicker among ‘schoolchildren, students and young workers’.
The ethnic minority population expanded by almost two million between 2001 and 2007, from 13 per cent to nearly 16 per cent of the total. Immigration accounted for 57 per cent of population growth in this time, and foreign-born mothers now account for a quarter of births in England and Wales.
Both Leicester and Birmingham are expected to become ‘majority minority’ during the 2020s. Two London boroughs were already majority non-white in 2001.
Tory MP Nicholas Soames, who runs the cross-party group Balanced Migration, said: ‘Immigrants over the years have made a great contribution to British life but it’s now really out of control. ‘We must break the link between the right to work here and the right to settle here.’
SOURCE
AZ: “Hulk” actor joins Arpaio posse
Television 'Hulk' actor Lou Ferrigno has joined an Arizona sheriff's posse targeting illegal immigrants in the Phoenix valley area, the sheriff's office said on Wednesday.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said Ferrigno, 59, a body builder who donned green makeup to star in the popular 1970s television series 'The Incredible Hulk,' was among 56 people sworn in as volunteers for an armed immigration posse.
Arpaio said the posse would work with sheriff's deputies in operations targeting smugglers and businesses suspected of employing illegal immigrants in the county, among other duties.
Arizona passed a tough law earlier this year requiring police to determine the immigration status of people they suspected were in the country illegally. Key parts were stayed by a U.S. federal judge before it came into effect in late July.
SOURCE
White Britons will be a minority by 2066 if immigration continues at the current rate, according to research. A leading population expert last night warned that failure to deal with the influx of foreign workers would ‘change national identity’.
Professor David Coleman, of Oxford University, spoke out as the Migration Advisory Board prepares to reveal its recommendation for the Government’s proposed cap on immigrants from outside the EU.
If immigration stays at its long-term rate of around 180,000 a year, the white British-born population would decline from 80 per cent of the total now to just 59 per cent in 2051, analysis of figures from the Office of National Statistics shows.
By then white immigrants would have more than doubled from 4 to 10 per cent of the total, while the ethnic minority population would have risen from 16 to 31 per cent.
If the trend continued, the white British population, defined as English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish-born citizens, would become the minority after about 2066.
The Government has vowed to slash the level of net immigration after a decade of open borders under Labour. Today the Migration Advisory Board will suggest a level for the cap, following complaints from businesses that the plans are hampering their ability to bring in key staff.
But even if the Coalition gets net immigration down to 80,000 a year, Prof Coleman says white Britons would be outnumbered by 2080.
In an article for Prospect magazine, he writes: ‘The 50 per cent benchmark has no special demographic significance, but it would have a considerable psychological and political impact. ‘The transition to a “majority minority” population, whenever it happens, would represent an enormous change to national identity – cultural, political, economic and religious.
‘In Britain, judging by the opposition to high immigration reported in opinion polls over recent years, it seems likely that such developments would be unwelcome.’
He warned that the relative youthfulness of the immigrant population means that the 50 per cent milestone will be passed much quicker among ‘schoolchildren, students and young workers’.
The ethnic minority population expanded by almost two million between 2001 and 2007, from 13 per cent to nearly 16 per cent of the total. Immigration accounted for 57 per cent of population growth in this time, and foreign-born mothers now account for a quarter of births in England and Wales.
Both Leicester and Birmingham are expected to become ‘majority minority’ during the 2020s. Two London boroughs were already majority non-white in 2001.
Tory MP Nicholas Soames, who runs the cross-party group Balanced Migration, said: ‘Immigrants over the years have made a great contribution to British life but it’s now really out of control. ‘We must break the link between the right to work here and the right to settle here.’
SOURCE
AZ: “Hulk” actor joins Arpaio posse
Television 'Hulk' actor Lou Ferrigno has joined an Arizona sheriff's posse targeting illegal immigrants in the Phoenix valley area, the sheriff's office said on Wednesday.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said Ferrigno, 59, a body builder who donned green makeup to star in the popular 1970s television series 'The Incredible Hulk,' was among 56 people sworn in as volunteers for an armed immigration posse.
Arpaio said the posse would work with sheriff's deputies in operations targeting smugglers and businesses suspected of employing illegal immigrants in the county, among other duties.
Arizona passed a tough law earlier this year requiring police to determine the immigration status of people they suspected were in the country illegally. Key parts were stayed by a U.S. federal judge before it came into effect in late July.
SOURCE
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Rhode Island going soft
Governor-elect Lincoln Chafee repeated a pledge yesterday to rescind an executive order on illegal immigration, but his office said he is discussing with State Police whether they should ask for immigration papers when there is reasonable suspicion that a person is in the United States illegally.
The order signed by Governor Don Carcieri, a Republican. sparked outrage in the immigrant and minority communities in part because it instructed State Police to check the immigration status of suspects in the course of investigations.
Chafee spokesman Mike Trainor said State Police want to cooperate with immigration authorities, and Chafee will discuss with them how best to do that. When asked whether police will still ask people for their immigration papers once the order is rescinded, Trainor replied: “That’s at the heart of what we’ll be discussing with the State Police.’’
Chafee’s pledge to rescind the order had been key to winning Hispanic support, an important demographic in Providence, which Chafee, an independent, carried comfortably in this month’s election.
Doris De Los Santos — head of the Rhode Island Latino PAC, which endorsed Chafee and worked for his election — said she understands that Chafee must be open to sitting down with different groups to discuss his positions. But she called for Chafee to adhere to the spirit of his promise to rescind the order.
“We really hope that the same spirit that moved the governor-elect to decide [the executive order] was a divisive action and one that wasn’t fruitful for the advancement of us as a community and as a state, that that would be the same driving force behind any other discussions related to the same issue,’’ she said.
Among the other provisions of the executive order that would be rescinded is one that requires the state and state contractors to use a federal database to confirm the immigration status of all new hires. The federal government and its contractors are required to use the database, and its use is required to some extent in 13 states, including Rhode Island.
SOURCE
Effective border control must be supported -- even by supporters of concessions for illegals
A study by Zogby, commissioned by the Center for Immigration Studies, found that the view of minority voters on the issue of immigration is more complex than advocates believe. 61% of Hispanics think that immigration enforcement is inadequate. 70% of blacks and 69% of Asians harbor the same sentiment. These voters disagree with the leadership of immigration advocacy groups who oppose enforcement measures. There is a gap in perception between what minority voters want and reality. They want enforcement and less immigration. Immigration advocates who beat down every proposed enforcement measure are offering their own personal opinion, not those of the voters and their communities. The majority of Americans support enforcement and oppose amnesty. Voters sent to congress, lawmakers who have expressed anti-immigration views. And this includes such high profile Hispanics as Suzanna Martinez and, Brian Sandoval, governors–elect of New Mexico and Nevada, respectively, and senator-elect Marco Rubio of Florida, all of whom are Hispanic and, all of whom are strong supporters of immigration enforcement. In fact, governors-elect Martinez and Sandoval both support the Arizona immigration law, SB 1070, and other measures to tamp down on illegal immigration.
Surveys and polls on this issue are unequivocal. Pulse Opinion Research LLC in 2009 found that 78% of Americans oppose amnesty and 88% of blacks do. Rasmussen Reports in a survey in June of 2009, found that 71% of Americans want those who hire illegals arrested and, 64% support surprise raids to arrest illegal workers. The American Council for Immigration Reform in its 2009 survey found, that 78% of Americans believe immigration has a negative impact on the cost and quality of health care and other social services. It found that 78% opposed amnesty. And CNN/Opinion Research Corp. in its poll reports, that 73% of Americans called for a drop in the number of illegal immigrants. Even more telling is a Washington Post/ABC News poll which found that 74% of the electorate thinks the government is not doing enough to keep illegals from coming into the country. Even Sheriff Joe Arpaio, notorious for his round up of illegal immigrants in Arizona polls show, is viewed favorably by the majority of Americans who believe that his policies have a positive impact on Arizona’s image. Across the board, according the Rasmussen Poll (May 2009) Americans are not in favor of making life any easier for illegal immigrants. Immigration advocates must deal with this reality.
Americans have made their feelings manifest. They are not about to ease up on illegal immigrants whom, rightly or wrongly, they blame for some of the nation’s ills. But as a people, Americans are mindful of the fact that ours is a country of immigrants. They would support an orderly system of immigration which grants relief to those already here; provided they are assured they will not be asked to grant amnesty again in 10 years to more illegals who slipped through our porous borders. They want the problem solved once and for all.
More HERE
Governor-elect Lincoln Chafee repeated a pledge yesterday to rescind an executive order on illegal immigration, but his office said he is discussing with State Police whether they should ask for immigration papers when there is reasonable suspicion that a person is in the United States illegally.
The order signed by Governor Don Carcieri, a Republican. sparked outrage in the immigrant and minority communities in part because it instructed State Police to check the immigration status of suspects in the course of investigations.
Chafee spokesman Mike Trainor said State Police want to cooperate with immigration authorities, and Chafee will discuss with them how best to do that. When asked whether police will still ask people for their immigration papers once the order is rescinded, Trainor replied: “That’s at the heart of what we’ll be discussing with the State Police.’’
Chafee’s pledge to rescind the order had been key to winning Hispanic support, an important demographic in Providence, which Chafee, an independent, carried comfortably in this month’s election.
Doris De Los Santos — head of the Rhode Island Latino PAC, which endorsed Chafee and worked for his election — said she understands that Chafee must be open to sitting down with different groups to discuss his positions. But she called for Chafee to adhere to the spirit of his promise to rescind the order.
“We really hope that the same spirit that moved the governor-elect to decide [the executive order] was a divisive action and one that wasn’t fruitful for the advancement of us as a community and as a state, that that would be the same driving force behind any other discussions related to the same issue,’’ she said.
Among the other provisions of the executive order that would be rescinded is one that requires the state and state contractors to use a federal database to confirm the immigration status of all new hires. The federal government and its contractors are required to use the database, and its use is required to some extent in 13 states, including Rhode Island.
SOURCE
Effective border control must be supported -- even by supporters of concessions for illegals
A study by Zogby, commissioned by the Center for Immigration Studies, found that the view of minority voters on the issue of immigration is more complex than advocates believe. 61% of Hispanics think that immigration enforcement is inadequate. 70% of blacks and 69% of Asians harbor the same sentiment. These voters disagree with the leadership of immigration advocacy groups who oppose enforcement measures. There is a gap in perception between what minority voters want and reality. They want enforcement and less immigration. Immigration advocates who beat down every proposed enforcement measure are offering their own personal opinion, not those of the voters and their communities. The majority of Americans support enforcement and oppose amnesty. Voters sent to congress, lawmakers who have expressed anti-immigration views. And this includes such high profile Hispanics as Suzanna Martinez and, Brian Sandoval, governors–elect of New Mexico and Nevada, respectively, and senator-elect Marco Rubio of Florida, all of whom are Hispanic and, all of whom are strong supporters of immigration enforcement. In fact, governors-elect Martinez and Sandoval both support the Arizona immigration law, SB 1070, and other measures to tamp down on illegal immigration.
Surveys and polls on this issue are unequivocal. Pulse Opinion Research LLC in 2009 found that 78% of Americans oppose amnesty and 88% of blacks do. Rasmussen Reports in a survey in June of 2009, found that 71% of Americans want those who hire illegals arrested and, 64% support surprise raids to arrest illegal workers. The American Council for Immigration Reform in its 2009 survey found, that 78% of Americans believe immigration has a negative impact on the cost and quality of health care and other social services. It found that 78% opposed amnesty. And CNN/Opinion Research Corp. in its poll reports, that 73% of Americans called for a drop in the number of illegal immigrants. Even more telling is a Washington Post/ABC News poll which found that 74% of the electorate thinks the government is not doing enough to keep illegals from coming into the country. Even Sheriff Joe Arpaio, notorious for his round up of illegal immigrants in Arizona polls show, is viewed favorably by the majority of Americans who believe that his policies have a positive impact on Arizona’s image. Across the board, according the Rasmussen Poll (May 2009) Americans are not in favor of making life any easier for illegal immigrants. Immigration advocates must deal with this reality.
Americans have made their feelings manifest. They are not about to ease up on illegal immigrants whom, rightly or wrongly, they blame for some of the nation’s ills. But as a people, Americans are mindful of the fact that ours is a country of immigrants. They would support an orderly system of immigration which grants relief to those already here; provided they are assured they will not be asked to grant amnesty again in 10 years to more illegals who slipped through our porous borders. They want the problem solved once and for all.
More HERE
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
New England: Immigration focus on employers
Federal immigration officials are increasingly imposing thousands of dollars in fines on New England companies - from Fenway Park snack vendors to a Maine blueberry grower - for failing to prove that all their employees are in the United States legally.
The fines rose from just $14,534 in fiscal year 2008 to $118,000 this year in New England alone.
Those penalties are the result of a major shift last year in the Obama administration's immigration strategy. Instead of the dramatic, large-scale raids that snagged hundreds of illegal immigrants, including at a New Bedford factory three years ago, federal officials say they are focusing more on the businesses that hire them. The aim is to eliminate the job opportunities that attract illegal workers.
"We're hoping that it sends a strong message within certain industries. Hopefully the word gets out that you've got to play on a fair playing field," said Bruce Foucart, head of investigations for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, in New England, which carried out investigations and imposed the fines. "By hiring people illegally and not paying the proper wages and benefits . . . it just isn't fair. It negatively affects everyone, including the employees."
Federal records show the effect of the new policy. Arrests of individuals are sharply down, from more than 6,000 two years ago to 1,664 last fiscal year, the most recent year for which figures are available. Meanwhile, ICE arrested a "record-breaking" 187 employers for violating the law last year.
Critics say the new policy has little impact on illegal immigrants.
"They get off with, at most, a slap on the wrists," said Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a Washington-based organization that favors tougher restrictions on immigration. "ICE does nothing to apprehend the illegal workers. They go down and get a new set of documents from the street corner and they get a new job. It becomes a game of musical chairs."
Federal immigration officials audited more than 2,000 companies nationwide last fiscal year, examining the federal I-9 forms that companies must maintain for employees certifying that they are all eligible to legally work in the United States. Nationwide, federal officials fined noncompliant companies $6.95 million last fiscal year, 10 times the amount two years before.
In New England, the quiet raids have upset many businesses. But they acknowledge they are paying closer attention to their employees' paperwork.
Some said they signed up for E-Verify, a federal system, voluntary in most states, that lets employers check the legal status of their workers. Others scrutinized their workers more closely, and many had to fire at least a few.
Drusilla Ray, president of Cherry Point Products, Inc., a 70-employee seafood processing plant in Milbridge, Maine, said she fired two workers from Honduras who did not have proper paperwork and paid a $2,475 fine last fiscal year. Next time, she said, "I probably would check a little more thoroughly."
Jeff Ferreira, foreman at F&B Rubberized Inc. in New Bedford, said the company fired about 18 immigrant workers and paid a nearly $10,000 fine in fiscal year 2009. Then, he said, a lawyer encouraged the workers to sue the company because it had failed to pay overtime, a violation of state law. They settled for $300,000.
Now, he said, the company has legal workers. But he noticed that his former workers simply found jobs someplace else. "They work in companies all over New Bedford," he said.
The fines frustrated businesses that said they wished Congress and the president would find a solution to illegal immigration so that they could avoid fines and other trouble.
Jasper Wyman & Son in Maine, a leading US blueberry grower, was fined $118,000 this year for violations that range from paperwork errors to the possibility that more than 200 of its 1,200 person workforce over two years was in the country illegally.
Edward R. Flanagan, president and CEO, said he never knew that the workers lacked proper documentation. He said the company does not exploit workers, paying as much as $20 an hour and offering free food and housing. But he also said that, in light of ICE's tough stance toward employers, last summer he hired a fully legal workforce using E-Verify.
Still, he worried about filling seasonal jobs raking blueberries. "It's true from California to Maine: Farm businesses cannot get workers, and we need [agricultural] jobs," said Flanagan, chairman of the American Frozen Food Institute, who has lobbied to pass an agricultural jobs bill. "Meanwhile, we are stuck in neutral. It's a terribly polar subject, and business is caught in the middle."
The current crackdown on employers who hire illegal immigrants stems from a 1986 federal law, the Immigration Reform and Control Act. The bipartisan law granted legal residency to nearly 2.7 million illegal immigrants while for the first time making it illegal for an employer to knowingly hire unauthorized workers.
The law led to the creation of the I-9 form, but its rules were so broad that it became easy for workers with fake documents to subvert the rules. So instead of meeting its goal to prevent illegal immigration, the numbers soared to an estimated 11 million last year, according to estimates from the Pew Hispanic Center.
Now the outcome of that 1986 law is often raised in the current debate over illegal immigration. Advocates for immigrants say illegal workers should have a chance to apply for legal residency, but critics fear illegal immigration will be allowed to soar again because of lack of enforcement.
The Obama administration has tried to strike a balance by strengthening enforcement of immigration laws while also favoring a path to legal residency for illegal immigrants.
Muzaffar Chishti of the Migration Policy Institute, a think tank based in Washington, said three pieces must be in place to solve the problem: Illegal workers should be here legally to reduce their incentive to get false documents, the government should carry out effective enforcement, and businesses should have access to the workers they need, more in expansive times, and fewer during a recession.
Otherwise, he said, the fake document industry will continue to thrive and sabotage the system. "That's the real challenge here," said Chishti, who runs the institute's office at the New York University School of Law. "Unless you get all these three things working together, we won't have anywhere close to a good, functioning system."
SOURCE
Va.: Prince William policy on illegal immigrants working
Prince William County's high-profile crackdown on illegal immigration was smoothly implemented by the county police department and staff and had few of the unintended consequences critics had feared even though it fell short of some of its original goals, according to a final report on the county's policy presented Tuesday.
The number of illegal immigrants in the county dropped by between 2,000 and 6,000 between 2006 and 2008, though it was unclear if that was caused by the police crackdown or the souring economy, the report said.
A major goal of the policy was to improve public safety and reduce crime. Most types of crime, however, were not affected by the policy, the report said, though aggravated assaults declined after its announcement in 2007. The study cautioned that the decline could represent changes in crime reporting.
One concern had been fears that the policy would prompt a flood of costly litigation and allegations of racial profiling, but such problems did not materialize and no lawsuits directly claiming racial profiling have been filed against the county, the report said.
The original policy, passed in October 2007, directed police to check the legal status of anyone they arrested if they had probable cause to believe they were in the country illegally.
In April 2008, the board voted to require police to check the status of everyone arrested.
SOURCE
Federal immigration officials are increasingly imposing thousands of dollars in fines on New England companies - from Fenway Park snack vendors to a Maine blueberry grower - for failing to prove that all their employees are in the United States legally.
The fines rose from just $14,534 in fiscal year 2008 to $118,000 this year in New England alone.
Those penalties are the result of a major shift last year in the Obama administration's immigration strategy. Instead of the dramatic, large-scale raids that snagged hundreds of illegal immigrants, including at a New Bedford factory three years ago, federal officials say they are focusing more on the businesses that hire them. The aim is to eliminate the job opportunities that attract illegal workers.
"We're hoping that it sends a strong message within certain industries. Hopefully the word gets out that you've got to play on a fair playing field," said Bruce Foucart, head of investigations for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, in New England, which carried out investigations and imposed the fines. "By hiring people illegally and not paying the proper wages and benefits . . . it just isn't fair. It negatively affects everyone, including the employees."
Federal records show the effect of the new policy. Arrests of individuals are sharply down, from more than 6,000 two years ago to 1,664 last fiscal year, the most recent year for which figures are available. Meanwhile, ICE arrested a "record-breaking" 187 employers for violating the law last year.
Critics say the new policy has little impact on illegal immigrants.
"They get off with, at most, a slap on the wrists," said Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a Washington-based organization that favors tougher restrictions on immigration. "ICE does nothing to apprehend the illegal workers. They go down and get a new set of documents from the street corner and they get a new job. It becomes a game of musical chairs."
Federal immigration officials audited more than 2,000 companies nationwide last fiscal year, examining the federal I-9 forms that companies must maintain for employees certifying that they are all eligible to legally work in the United States. Nationwide, federal officials fined noncompliant companies $6.95 million last fiscal year, 10 times the amount two years before.
In New England, the quiet raids have upset many businesses. But they acknowledge they are paying closer attention to their employees' paperwork.
Some said they signed up for E-Verify, a federal system, voluntary in most states, that lets employers check the legal status of their workers. Others scrutinized their workers more closely, and many had to fire at least a few.
Drusilla Ray, president of Cherry Point Products, Inc., a 70-employee seafood processing plant in Milbridge, Maine, said she fired two workers from Honduras who did not have proper paperwork and paid a $2,475 fine last fiscal year. Next time, she said, "I probably would check a little more thoroughly."
Jeff Ferreira, foreman at F&B Rubberized Inc. in New Bedford, said the company fired about 18 immigrant workers and paid a nearly $10,000 fine in fiscal year 2009. Then, he said, a lawyer encouraged the workers to sue the company because it had failed to pay overtime, a violation of state law. They settled for $300,000.
Now, he said, the company has legal workers. But he noticed that his former workers simply found jobs someplace else. "They work in companies all over New Bedford," he said.
The fines frustrated businesses that said they wished Congress and the president would find a solution to illegal immigration so that they could avoid fines and other trouble.
Jasper Wyman & Son in Maine, a leading US blueberry grower, was fined $118,000 this year for violations that range from paperwork errors to the possibility that more than 200 of its 1,200 person workforce over two years was in the country illegally.
Edward R. Flanagan, president and CEO, said he never knew that the workers lacked proper documentation. He said the company does not exploit workers, paying as much as $20 an hour and offering free food and housing. But he also said that, in light of ICE's tough stance toward employers, last summer he hired a fully legal workforce using E-Verify.
Still, he worried about filling seasonal jobs raking blueberries. "It's true from California to Maine: Farm businesses cannot get workers, and we need [agricultural] jobs," said Flanagan, chairman of the American Frozen Food Institute, who has lobbied to pass an agricultural jobs bill. "Meanwhile, we are stuck in neutral. It's a terribly polar subject, and business is caught in the middle."
The current crackdown on employers who hire illegal immigrants stems from a 1986 federal law, the Immigration Reform and Control Act. The bipartisan law granted legal residency to nearly 2.7 million illegal immigrants while for the first time making it illegal for an employer to knowingly hire unauthorized workers.
The law led to the creation of the I-9 form, but its rules were so broad that it became easy for workers with fake documents to subvert the rules. So instead of meeting its goal to prevent illegal immigration, the numbers soared to an estimated 11 million last year, according to estimates from the Pew Hispanic Center.
Now the outcome of that 1986 law is often raised in the current debate over illegal immigration. Advocates for immigrants say illegal workers should have a chance to apply for legal residency, but critics fear illegal immigration will be allowed to soar again because of lack of enforcement.
The Obama administration has tried to strike a balance by strengthening enforcement of immigration laws while also favoring a path to legal residency for illegal immigrants.
Muzaffar Chishti of the Migration Policy Institute, a think tank based in Washington, said three pieces must be in place to solve the problem: Illegal workers should be here legally to reduce their incentive to get false documents, the government should carry out effective enforcement, and businesses should have access to the workers they need, more in expansive times, and fewer during a recession.
Otherwise, he said, the fake document industry will continue to thrive and sabotage the system. "That's the real challenge here," said Chishti, who runs the institute's office at the New York University School of Law. "Unless you get all these three things working together, we won't have anywhere close to a good, functioning system."
SOURCE
Va.: Prince William policy on illegal immigrants working
Prince William County's high-profile crackdown on illegal immigration was smoothly implemented by the county police department and staff and had few of the unintended consequences critics had feared even though it fell short of some of its original goals, according to a final report on the county's policy presented Tuesday.
The number of illegal immigrants in the county dropped by between 2,000 and 6,000 between 2006 and 2008, though it was unclear if that was caused by the police crackdown or the souring economy, the report said.
A major goal of the policy was to improve public safety and reduce crime. Most types of crime, however, were not affected by the policy, the report said, though aggravated assaults declined after its announcement in 2007. The study cautioned that the decline could represent changes in crime reporting.
One concern had been fears that the policy would prompt a flood of costly litigation and allegations of racial profiling, but such problems did not materialize and no lawsuits directly claiming racial profiling have been filed against the county, the report said.
The original policy, passed in October 2007, directed police to check the legal status of anyone they arrested if they had probable cause to believe they were in the country illegally.
In April 2008, the board voted to require police to check the status of everyone arrested.
SOURCE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
