Immigration Watch International (2)

Sunday, February 6, 2011

Britons most opposed to further immigration

Their steadily falling standards of living leave little credibility in the do-gooder claim that immigration is good for the economy. It might be true if the immigrants were all highly skilled or hard-working but many are simply third-world parasites on Britain's welfare State

Politicians were yesterday urged to step up immigration control after a survey showed Britons were more fearful about the issue than people in other countries.

Nearly a quarter – 23 per cent – of British people questioned called immigration the most important issue facing the country.
This compares with levels of between three and nine per cent in America, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Holland and Spain.

Nearly half – 47 per cent – believed immigrants were a burden on schools and hospitals and a third felt that they increased crime.

The Transatlantic Trends survey, commissioned by the US German Marshall Fund and other organisations, quizzed at least 1,000 people in each country last year. Fund president Craig Kennedy said: “This report is a wake-up call for the governments.”

SOURCE

Sheriff Joe Blasts ABC Over Biased 20/20 Segment

Only hours before ABC is set to air a 20/20 story that portrays the Arizona immigration law as something it’s not, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio fired off a scathing letter to the man behind the segment, 20/20 correspondent John Quinones.

The text of that letter appears below:

I have seen a portion of your piece set to air tonight on 20/20 which shows how you think SB 1070 (Arizona’s new immigration law) will be enforced in Arizona by law enforcement professionals. This “staged reporting” couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, your story is replete with untruths and conjecture and has several nefarious motives – to enflame the public – to embarrass the State of Arizona in front of a national audience not unlike what New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg did earlier this week- and to bring discredit to law enforcement professionals in general.

This staged and silly report depicts a security guard who walks into a Tucson taco house demanding to see proof of the patron’s citizen papers because some of the people there “look Mexican” and if they are in the U.S. illegally, your actor claims they “should be deported.”

No law enforcement officer properly trained in SB 1070 rules and regulations would ever conduct himself in such a manner. If there were proof that one of my deputies did what this story shows, he would be severely disciplined and would likely lose his/her job. Law enforcement professionals cannot inquire about someone’s immigration status simply because we think someone may be here illegally. That’s what your story leads your viewers to believe and it is summarily untrue.

More HERE

No comments:

Post a Comment

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.

Immigration Watch International (2)

Sunday, February 6, 2011

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors