Foreign Worker Programs Appear to Lack Oversight
Report Lists Firms Debarred for Violations
A new report by the Center for Immigration Studies finds high likelihood of missed violations of the rules in major guestworker visa programs and the various employment-based permanent immigrant programs. In addition, the report collects in one place for the first time the information available on employers whose participation in the programs was suspended, at least temporarily, by the federal government due to misconduct.
The report, “Taking Names: List of Firms Barred from Foreign Worker Programs Likely Just Scratches the Surface,” is authored by David North, a Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies and former Assistant to the U.S. Secretary of Labor.
The list of penalized employers included in the report is organized by the state the employers were located in at the time they were debarred. Additionally, the list includes information on the employer name and location, the program the employer was participating in, and information on penalty they received.
Among the improbably low rates of abuse of these programs, based on the proportion of participating employers that were debarred from participation, are these:
Only 1 out of 983 employers using the H-1B program;
Only 1 out of 1,278 employers using the H-2A program;
Only 1 out of 500 employers using the H-2B program; and
Though the exact number of employers participating in employment-based permanent resident programs is unknown, the report estimates only 1 out of 2,500 employers was debarred.
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
Prime Minister of Italy promises to end the 'invasion of migrants'
SILVIO BERLUSCONI has made a lightning visit to Lampedusa, pledging to empty the little island of refugees, nominate local citizenry for a Nobel peace prize - and buy himself a holiday home.
Just days before the beginning of the so-called Rubygate trial in which he is accused of paid sex with a minor, the Italian Prime Minister and an entourage mainly composed of men launched what he flamboyantly called the "Free Lampedusa" plan, sending six ships to disperse the 6000 refugees that are now camped on the island.
"I guarantee that the invasion of migrants will be resolved in 48, maximum 60 hours and Lampedusa will be inhabited only by Lampedusans," Mr Berlusconi said. Six ships would take them to migrant centres on the mainland while others would be deported.
Speaking in front of the municipal hall to a crowd of anxious locals, he said he would ask that "the Nobel for peace be asked for Lampedusa" and asked his Finance Minister, Giulio Tremonti, to explore a 12-month tax holiday for the islanders.
That wasn't all. The tiny island lives off summer tourism - as well as services to the refugees - but this looked all but finished since the latest arrival of refugees camped around the bays and outcrops without sanitary services or shelter.
"[TV stations] RAI and Mediaset will be asked to air pro-island programs … Lampedusa will have a golf course, a casino, a new school and I have bought a house here," he said.
La Repubblica quoted the owners of the tiny villa next door: "We are so moved to know that our new neighbour is the Premier no less … we just didn't expect that". (The house, reported the Italian press, was bought on the internet for less than €2000 [$2700].)
Later, talking to a group of mothers who had been demonstrating against the refugee influx, Mr Berlusconi told a joke: "During a poll, a sample of women were asked if they wanted to make love with Berlusconi. Thirty per cent said maybe. The other 70 per cent said, 'Again?"'
Another woman was given a poetry recitation dedicated to her eyes.
For Mr Berlusconi, this "can do and I don't care" showmanship has been the key to his extraordinary popularity in the polls. Despite crisis after personal crisis - and a mountain of legal cases - the septuagenarian appeared to be invincible, describing himself as the "people's Premier".
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