Incoming Florida governor wants people stopped and asked if they're in Florida legally or not
Gov.-elect Rick Scott [GOP] said he hadn't seen the immigration bill recently filed by Sen. Mike Bennett, but he's supportive of the concept of stopping citizens to ask them to show identification.
Scott, who was in Washington D.C. today meeting with the Florida congressional delegation and will meet with the President Obama tomorrow, along with other newly-elected governors, said he first wants the federal government to "secure our borders."
"We need to come up with an immigration policy that workds for the country," he said. "Finally, if you're stopped in our state -- no different than if you're asked for your ID -- you should be able to be asked if you're legal or not."
Bennett's measure would allow law enforcement officers if ask anyone arrested or detained for their immgration documents if they suspect the detainee is in the country illegally. Bennett believes it will not lead to racial profiling because law enforcement may not stop people solely on the suspicion they they are in the country illegally. The proposal takes it a step farther, however, by proposing to fine legal immigrants who refuse to carry their documentation, with a possible fine of up to $100 and a 20-day jail sentence.
SOURCE
'We let in some crazies'... British leader claimed Labour went soft on radical Muslims
David Cameron told the U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan that the Labour government 'let in some crazies', leaked diplomatic documents have revealed. In secret meetings before becoming Prime Minister, he promised the Americans he would toughen policy towards Pakistan.
Mr Cameron and George Osborne met Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, according to diplomatic cables made public by WikiLeaks. The American put them under pressure to do more to combat terrorism by making use of the 'striking connections' between the Pakistani community in the UK and militants in their 'home country'.
Mr Holbrooke reported to Washington: 'On the radicalisation of British Pakistanis, Cameron said the UK had "gotten it wrong domestically"... he argued that PM Brown's policy had been too willing to engage with radicalised but non-violent Muslim groups... "We let in some crazies," Cameron said, "and didn't wake up soon enough".'
The Conservatives also promised the U.S. before the election that they would be tougher on Pakistan - because unlike Labour they did not depend on votes from people with Pakistani connections. Liam Fox, who is now defence secretary, criticised Labour for their pro-Pakistan approach in cables given to WikiLeaks.
David Cameron has apparently has apparently shifted the UK's stance towards Pakistan since he was elected. He visited India on a trade mission in June before telling Pakistan 'not to face both ways' when it came to tackling terrorism.
U.S. ambassador to the UK Louis Susman was told that 'the Conservatives are "less dependant" than the Labour party on votes from the British-Pakistani community.' Mr Susman added in the cable: 'Fox criticised the Labour government for policies which reinforce the Indian government's long-held view that HMG's (Her Majesty's Government) foreign relations on the subcontinent are "skewed to Pakistan".'
Britain has 'deep concerns' about the safety and security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme, WikiLeaks documents showed. Documents from the latest cache of leaked US cables demonstrate that the UK and the US have similar anxieties about Islamabad's nuclear arsenal. US officials are quoted citing the danger of Pakistani fissile material finding its way into the hands of extremists.
SOURCE
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