US again denies visas to same-sex couples
After a brief reprieve, immigration authorities are once again denying applications for immigration benefits for same-sex couples.
After a review by Department of Homeland Security lawyers, it was concluded that a law prohibiting the government from recognizing same-sex marriages must be followed, despite the Obama administration’s decision to stop defending the constitutionality of the law in court, said Chris Bentley, a spokesman for US Citizenship and Immigration Services.
The law, the Defense of Marriage Act, defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Earlier this week, the agency said applications from foreigners married to US citizens of the same sex would be held in “abeyance’’ while the legal review proceeded. Bentley said Tuesday that the temporary hold on application decisions was not a change in policy.
In February, the government announced it would no longer defend the law
SOURCE
Majority of Italians against hosting North African immigrants
The majority of Italians are against hosting in their country the thousands of North African immigrants who are currently being transferred across the peninsula from the southern island of Lampedusa, according to a survey issued on Friday by Affaritaliani.it online daily.
Over 37 percent of residents are in favor of blocking the refugees before they reach Italian shores and 34 percent say the landed immigrants should be immediately repatriated, while just 29 percent is in favor of hosting them in adequate structures across Italy.
The poll results reflect the humanitarian emergency Italy is facing in the wake of the arrival of over 18,000 immigrants since January, as evacuation plans from Lampedusa proceed at a slow pace.
Italians are divided by territorial belonging. Almost 51 percent of those in the north are against the redistribution of immigrants across the peninsula's 20 regions as envisaged by the government's plan, while all southern residents, who bear the greatest burden of hosting the immigrants, demand shared responsibilities.
On the whole, over 80 percent of Italians criticize the government's handling of the immigration emergency triggered by the North African crises, saying more had to be done to prevent the mass arrivals of refugees.
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