‘Sheriff Joe’ orders AZ deputies to question undocumented immigrants about wildfires
Deputies in Arizona's Maricopa County arrested 20 immigrants making their way from Mexico to the U.S. last week, and detained them for questioning about the wildfires plaguing Arizona.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the infamously tough "Sheriff Joe," released a statement about the arrests, which occurred near the border where the wildfires blazed.
“It’s a long shot I know,” Arpaio said. “But since we already gather information from them about their U.S. entry points and traveling routes and methods, this is simply one more area of intelligence to explore that may help us to determine the origins of these fires.“
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has been criticized for the last week because he blamed undocumented immigrants as the cause of the fires.
"There is substantial evidence that some of these fires are caused by people who have crossed our border illegally,” he said at a press conference last Saturday. “They have set fires because the want to signal others. They have set fires to keep warm and they have set fires in order to divert law enforcement agents and agencies from them.” Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Az) backed him, up, saying "he is correct."
U.S. Forest Service officials have directly discredited McCain and Kyl's claims. Tom Berglund, the Forest Service official in charge of the Wallow blaze, told ABC News that it has been classified as an "escaped campfire." Asked if there was substantial evidence linking illegal immigrants and the fire, Berglund said, "Absolutely not, at this level." "There's no evidence that I'm aware, no evidence that's been public, indicating such a thing," he said.
SOURCE
Population in the UK will hit 70m even earlier than feared thanks to 'immigrant baby boom'
Runaway migration will drive the UK population above 70million in 15 years – three years earlier than previously predicted. In 2009 official estimates predicted it would take 20 years to reach this landmark level, a figure the Prime Minister has said the nation must not reach. But the latest calculation suggests it could hit 70.4million in 2026, placing huge pressure on public services and housing.
The projection was compiled by the House of Commons library after questions by Tory MP James Clappison. It assumes net migration - the difference between numbers arriving and leaving - remained around its current record level of 240,000 a year. Ministers pledged to cut it to the 'tens of thousands' by 2015.
Two-thirds of the population rise is due to immigration, including an 'immigrant baby boom' caused by higher-than-average birth rates among migrant mothers.
Commentators said the analysis shows the 'absolute necessity' of cutting the number of migrants coming here.
It shows the population, now thought to be around 62.8million, will rise to 65million in 2016, 67million in 2020 and 69million in 2024. The vast majority of the population increase would be in England. Today's figures show that even if net migration fell to an average of 180,000 a year, the population will hit 70million in 2029.
Immigration Minister Damian Green insisted net migration would fall to below 100,000 a year. 'We are fixing the broken immigration system. 'Our reforms will bring net migration down to the tens of thousands.'
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