Alabama Deals with Immigration Problems
Alabama has suddenly become the leader in comprehensive immigration reform, passing up Arizona whose laws have had so much news coverage. Passed by large margins in the Alabama State Legislature, this new law covers most areas of abuses by illegal aliens. Like the Arizona law recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, Alabama’s law requires employers to verify the legal status of their employees by using the federal government’s E-Verify program. That Arizona law was signed by then-Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, who is now director of the Department of Homeland Security.
E-Verify was created by the federal government for voluntary use. It can now be made mandatory by state law. E-Verify instantly checks workers’ Social Security numbers to make sure they are eligible to work, and is so easy and inexpensive for employers to use that more than 99% of lawful workers receive positive verification within seconds.
Opponents of the Arizona law that made E-Verify mandatory tried to get supremacist judges to knock it out on the argument that it was preempted by federal law. They lost bigtime when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Arizona law is okay as a business license statute, which is an ordinary power of the states and expressly allowed by federal immigration law. The employer doesn’t commit a crime if he fails to use E-Verify, but he could lose his business license, which the state government has the authority to revoke. This law also bars businesses from taking state tax deductions on wages paid to illegal aliens.
Three other states also make E-Verify mandatory. A half-dozen others require the use of E-Verify for state employees or contractors.
SOURCE
Dutch want to throw out migrant Poles who can't find a job
Holland is on a collision course with the EU over a threat to deport Poles and other Eastern Europeans who cannot find work.
Ministers in the Hague also want to withhold migrants’ state benefits if they don’t speak Dutch.
Brussels fears that other countries experiencing an influx of jobseekers from member states might be tempted to copy the Netherlands’ threat, even though such a move would breach EU laws.
Dutch Defence minister Henk Kamp believes that Poles who have not been able to find work for three months should be kicked out of the country
Dutch social affairs minister Henk Kamp has presented proposals to expel Polish and other Eastern European nationals who are without work for three months and have little prospect of finding any. He also plans to withhold welfare benefits from those who have not learned Dutch.
The moves are likely to breach rules protecting freedom of work and movement for people within the EU.
Holland has about 200,000 migrant workers from Eastern Europe. Although this figure is far less than for some other countries – such as the million-plus who have come to Britain since Eastern European accession to the EU in 2004 – the number is growing rapidly.
Poland’s economic affairs minister Waldemar Pawlak called the Dutch plans ‘worrying’, adding: ‘This development is dangerous and could lead to the collapse of the European system of freedom of movement.’
Poland’s European affairs minister Mikolaj Dowgielewicz said there have been ‘robust talks’ with the Netherlands on the proposals.
Poland took over the presidency of the EU last Friday for the next six months.
Europe’s justice commissioner Viviane Reding has warned the Netherlands that it ‘must respect EU rules on the freedom of movement between member states’. If the Netherlands fails to comply with EU legislation, the commission will make its position ‘loud and clear’, she said. ‘All member states are equal and the rules are transparent,’ she added.
All people within the EU have a right to freedom of movement and work as long as they are either working or are self-sufficient in funding.
The accession countries partially enjoyed these rights after 2004, and have fully done so since the end of the ‘transition’ period in May this year.
This means it is likely to be illegal for Holland to carry out the proposals, particularly those which relate to language requirements.
While countries like Britain have rigidly stuck to EU laws and directives, other nations have been less circumspect on doing so, and in many cases go unpunished.
Other than receiving a rebuke from the European Commission, they could eventually be dragged through the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg – which could take many years.
Poland’s ambassador to the Netherlands said recent anti-Polish statements by politicians there ‘border on discrimination’.
There is a growing discontent with labour migrants in the Netherlands, where Poles are accused misusing the social benefit system.
In 2007 there were 20,000 Poles there, now there are close to 200,000, according to figures from the Polish Embassy in the country.
The rise has prompted a number of factories in the Netherlands to use Polish to communicate, with signs written in the language as well as the hiring of Polish managerial staff.
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