New British immigration policy outlined
In her first major speech on immigration, UK Home Secretary Theresa May stated that her goal was to bring in more high-value migrants to the UK, such as investors and research scientists, while at the same time encouraging employers to fill vacant jobs with local unemployed workers.
"The government intends to control immigration by focusing on all aspects of the immigration system, not just the points-based system," May said.
"So over the coming months action will be taken on students, families and settlement as well as people coming here to work," she added.
According to a statement released by the UK Border Agency, her priorities include:
* encouraging entrepreneurs and investors to come to the UK
* stopping abuse of the student visa route
* 'cutting the link' between temporary immigration and permanent settlement
Encouraging entrepreneurs to come to the UK may come in the form of a new business visa announced recently.
May concluded her speech by stating that net migration will be reduced from the current level of hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands by the end of the Parliamentary term.
"It will take hard work and a great deal of political courage. But the British people want us to do it and it is the right thing to do. So we will do it," she said.
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
1. Subsidizing Sanctuaries: The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (Memorandum)
2. A Big Win for Immigration Control and Hispanic Outreach (Op-ed)
3. Terror reboots: Cargo plot reveals a new terror calling card (Op-ed)
4. Jews hardening on illegal immigration (Letter)
5. The President's Post-Election Press Conference and the Dog That Didn't Bark (Blog)
6. Not All Overseas Immigration Policy Ideas Are Good Ones (Blog)
7. Illegal-Alien Gang Member Convicted for Execution Slayings in N.J. (Blog)
8. Inept Law Enforcement: A Tale of Two Illegal-Alien Murderers (Blog)
9. Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics (Blog)
10. Immigration Decision-Makers: Upcoming Committee Changes (Blog)
11. Non-citizen Voting – RIP, Again (Blog)
12. Labor Department Does the Right Thing with Exploitative H-2B Program (Blog)
Summary of item 1 above:
Subsidizing Sanctuary Cities
Federal Government Reimburses for Jailing Illegals, Even When Locals Obstruct Immigration Enforcement
A new Center for Immigration Studies Memorandum finds that the Department of Justice annually awards millions of dollars in grants to local governments to compensate for the cost of jailing illegal aliens, even when those governments have policies obstructing immigration law enforcement or encouraging illegal settlement. The report includes a list of the 27 sanctuary jurisdictions receiving grants in 2010.
The grant program, known as the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), doled out a total of $400 million to about 850 cities, counties, and states in 2010. Among them were 27 jurisdictions widely considered to be sanctuary jurisdictions, which together received more than $62.6 million, or 15.6 percent of the total. For example, the 2010 SCAAP grantees include some jurisdictions – such as San Francisco, Chicago, Santa Clara County, Calif., Washington, D.C., and Arlington, Va. – which are trying to opt out of Secure Communities, the program that automatically flags criminal aliens for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) attention at the time they are booked into jail.
The authors suggest a remedy: restrict eligibility for SCAAP grants to those jurisdictions that agree to work with ICE to identify and remove criminal aliens by participating in Secure Communities, 287(g), or similar programs.
The report, 'Subsidizing Sanctuaries: The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program,' by Jessica Vaughan and Russ Doubleday, is online here4
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: Jessica Vaughan, (508)346-3380, jmv@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
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment