Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
1. Immigration and The New York Times (Backgrounder)
2. Worksite Enforcement: Audits Are Not Enough (Congressional Testimony)
3. GAO's Bland Review of H-1B Scheme Mostly Ignores Impact on Workers (Blog)
4. Ariz.-Style Immigration Law Proposed in Calif.; Republican Strategists Channel La Raza (Blog)
5. Technical Note: The Estimate of about 650,000 H-1Bs as of 9/30/09 (Blog)
6. GAO Hides Total Numbers of H-1Bs; I Say There are About 650,000 (Blog)
7. Your 'Jewish Priorities,' Not Ours: Establishment Responses to the SOTU (Blog)
8. The Jewish Establishment Seeks Consolation in Pointless Activity (Blog)
US announces record deportations
The United States deported more illegal immigrants than ever before during the first two years of President Barack Obama's administration, his government said Monday.
"In both fiscal years 2009 and 2010, Immigration and Customs Enforcement removed more illegal immigrants from our country than ever before, with more than 779,000 removals nationwide in the last two years," Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said.
The Obama administration must prove it is tough on illegal immigrants and can secure the country's porous borders if it is to stand a chance of passing a comprehensive overhaul of America's tattered immigration system.
Napolitano announced the record figures in El Paso, Texas -- the border city which is the focus of a major drive by the administration to stem the tide of illegal immigrants flowing over the border from Mexico. "We have strengthened the southwest border in a way that many would not have thought possible," she said. "This approach focuses on identifying criminal aliens and those who pose the greatest risk to our communities, and prioritizing them for removal."
Napolitano highlighted huge increases in the number of border patrol agents, immigration and customs officers and intelligence personnel working on the US-Mexico border, but also said there were, "long-standing, systemic problems with our immigration laws."
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