Wednesday, June 8, 2011

We won't accept migrants fleeing turmoil in Africa, Brits tell the French

Theresa May last night insisted Britain would not accept thousands of migrants fleeing the turmoil in North Africa. The Home Secretary said the Government would not share the burden if European countries open their borders to asylum seekers.

In Calais to inspect joint immigration controls in the French port, Mrs May said: ‘I have made absolutely clear to my counterparts in Europe that we will not agree to so-called “burden sharing”. ‘Britain will not be accepting large numbers of North African migrants. Instead we will be working with other European countries to get these people safely back to their home countries. ‘We have not, and will not, opt into any proposal that would weaken our borders,’ she added.

Tens of thousands of people have fled the political instability in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia in recent months. Their arrival in southern Europe has put huge strain on the continent’s system of open borders, leading to proposals that it be scaled back.

France temporarily shut its border with Italy after the Italian government issued 25,000 temporary travel permits to Tunisian nationals. Commentators have suggested the crisis could lead to the end of the Schengen Agreement, which allows passport-free travel.

In a further worrying move, European Commission officials are also drawing up plans for a common asylum policy. But Mrs May said that Britain would not sign up to any agreement that would undermine border security.

Yesterday she met her French counterpart Claude Gueant, who warned illegal immigrants would try to exploit the influx of tourists for the Olympic Games to try to get into the UK. He said: ‘Of the eight million spectators expected in London, 800,000 will come from Europe and a third of those will be cross-Channel passengers. ‘We must therefore put into place [plans] on the French side to safeguard border security whilst also ensuring the free-flow of traffic.’

Around 3,500 immigrants have been found trying to cross the Channel hidden in the back of lorries so far this year. That compares with a total of nearly ten thousand discovered last year.

When Mrs May was at the port, a stowaway was found hidden in the back of a lorry after a search by a sniffer dog. The Iranian man, who was believed to have boarded the lorry in Belgium, was hidden among boxes of furniture.

Mrs May said action at the border had led to a fall of 70 per cent in the numbers trying to get into Britain. ‘We are committed to continuing to ensure the border is impenetrable,’ Mrs May added. ‘The fight against illegal immigration is one of this government’s highest priorities.’

Last week a report by the Home Affairs Select Committee said tens of thousands of failed asylum seekers had been allowed to stay in the UK in an immigration amnesty. Chaos in the UK Border Agency more than five years ago meant around 450,000 cases were left lying in boxes, and these are only now being cleared. Of the total, around 160,000 have been allowed to stay. Fewer than one in ten has been kicked out.

Labour’s home office spokesman Gerry Sutcliffe said yesterday: ‘Practical international co-operation is undoubtedly crucial for the effective policing of our borders. ‘But it will take more than a visit to Calais to get the fair enforcement of immigration controls right.’


Deport California's Illegal Immigrant Prisoners

Chuck Norris

In the classic movie "The Great Escape," a cluster of Hollywood manly men from yesteryear (including my friend Steve McQueen) played Allied POWs who escape from a German camp during World War II.

Today the great escape may be played out by more than 33,000 incarcerated inmates in California who don't escape the state's 33 prisons but are released by a computer error and the U.S. Supreme Court itself.

Many today say prisoners have too many rights and too many creature comforts while doing time and paying the penalties for their crimes. But the Supreme Court recently upheld the ruling of a district court panel that California prisons are sub-par environments for inmates. A 5-4 majority demanded that Golden State officials grant 33,000 of its 143,335 prisoners golden tickets to freedom because severe overcrowding has led to inadequate medical care.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. "This extensive and ongoing constitutional violation requires a remedy, and a remedy will not be achieved without a reduction in overcrowding," he said.

Really? No remedy is possible without letting prisoners go free? No solution is possible without essentially expunging incarcerated criminals' crimes and penalties and releasing them into society?

It must be great to be an inmate in California, because the U.S. Supreme Court will not only fight for your medical welfare but also essentially pardon you from your crimes!

On the flip side, the court's four conservative justices were concerned that forcing the state to release 33,000 inmates could endanger the public.

You think?

Justice Samuel Alito was correct when he warned that the mass release of inmates would be "gambling with the safety of the people of California. ... I fear that today's decision, like prior prisoner release orders, will lead to a grim roster of victims. I hope that I am wrong. In a few years, we will see." Alito added, "The prisoner release ordered in this case is unprecedented, improvident, and contrary" to federal law.

The fact is that though five U.S. justices fight for the constitutional rights of California inmates, they abandon states' and their own governmental responsibilities, as outlined in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, to protect the lives, liberty and property of U.S. citizens.

Does the high court really believe that California officials can discern 33,000 nonviolent non-repeat offenders? And should we assume that California's liberal judicial system and sanctuary cities won't further coddle these criminals?

Ironically -- or, should I say, tragically -- just two days after the court's edict to release 33,000 California inmates, the Los Angeles Times reported that a computer glitch had prompted California prison officials to mistakenly release about 450 inmates with "a high risk for violence." To add insult to injury, more than 1,000 additional prisoners who possess a high risk of committing drug crimes, property crimes and other offenses were released. No efforts have been made to return any of these criminals behind bars.

While overcrowding and fiscal shortfalls prompt state lawmakers across the country to compromise harsher laws for criminals, I believe that only strictly enforcing law and order will promote deterrence and reduce crimes (and hence incarceration numbers). America's prisons, like our borders, need more reinforcement, not more laxity -- a fact that leads me to pose a possible better solution than the Supreme Court's allowance of inmates being released back into California cities.

Could it be merely coincidental that over the past two decades of California's liberal approach to border control, the state's prison population and economic status have gone down the tubes?

Here are a few statistics that should be entered into this debate:

In 2005, Heather Mac Donald, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security that nearly 25 percent of inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally. If that's true, that number alone exceeds 30,000 illegals in California's prison system.

Moreover, a 2004 report from the Federation for American Immigration Reform concluded that the education, health care and incarceration of illegal aliens cost Californians $10.5 billion per year. That's $1,183 annually for every household.

And who can doubt that those figures have increased significantly in the past seven years?

So my question is this: What would the effects be on California's economy and prison population, immediately and in the future, if the illegal immigrants (Mexicans and others) were actually deported? Why can't that "solution" be considered as at least a remedy for the Golden State's economic and incarceration problems?

And if you assume that deportation costs would surpass costs of prisoner release within the state, compare the price of a plethora of one-way bus and plane trips of illegal immigrants with the years of continual costs to human life, property and our courts brought about by 30,000 criminals released on California streets and repeat offenders being re-incarcerated.

To me, it looks as if Californians have a big battle and choice on their hands, which I believe will cross state lines and turn into similar struggles in other states. Do Californians want 33,000 criminals back on their streets or roughly the same number of prisoners who are illegal immigrants deported back to their own countries?


No comments:

Post a Comment