The European Commission may finally have hit on an issue that jerks Britain from its euro-torpor – an issue that simultaneously presses the buttons of border control, welfare abuse and Brussels intrusiveness. Whether from hubris, power-hunger or from sheer stupidity, Eurocrats are demanding that Britain stop asking immigrants to show that they won’t immediately start accessing the social security system.
As the law stands, people wishing to settle in Britain must demonstrate that they have the means to support themselves, either through work or through an alternative source of income such as a pension. The European Commission claims that this amounts to discrimination against EU citizens, who are supposed to enjoy the same rights as British nationals.
In fact, as so often happens, Eurocrats are disregarding the plain text of their own rules. Article 7(1) of the Free Movement Directive gives EU citizens the right to reside in another member state only if they have “sufficient resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State”.
In order to get around this clause, the European Commission is deploying a piece of sheer sophistry. It argues that, if immigrants were able to top up their income with British benefits, they would have “sufficient resources”.
In May, the Supreme Court ruled on the claim of a Latvian pensioner, who had just moved to Britain and had demanded Pension Credit on grounds that her Latvian pension was too small. Although our courts like to rule in favour of immigrants, the law here was so clear-cut that, by 4-1, judges turned her down. If the European Commission were to get its way, she would not only be able to claim Pension Credit, but also council tax and housing subsidies – despite not having paid a penny into the system.
This blog has droned on and on about the way in which the EU is preventing the Coalition from fulfilling its manifesto promises. This ruling – if upheld by the European Court of Justice – would strike down Iain Duncan Smith’s pension reforms. His scheme, which has been warmly applauded across the political spectrum, aims to replace the current complicated system of state pensions with a flat entitlement, available to all pensioners regardless of assets, employment history or past contributions.
Such a scheme, however, depends on a minimum residency requirement. (New Zealand, which operates a system very like the one IDS is proposing, makes payments only to those who have spent at least ten years in the country.) If every EU resident over the age of 66 whose income came to less than £140 a week were able to draw a British pension, the system would be bankrupted. Are we past caring?
SOURCE
Politicized Obama DOJ Finally Sues Alabama Over Illegal Immigration Law
Wm. Teach
You just knew that this was bound to happen at some point. And what better time to sneak in this lawsuit than when everyone was focused on the debt ceiling fight?
The Justice Department filed a challenge to Alabama's tough anti-illegal-immigration law Monday, arguing that the Constitution prohibits state and local governments from creating a national "patchwork" of immigration policies.
The suit, filed in Alabama's Northern District, marks the second time the Obama administration has sought to block a state immigration reform law. Last year, the Justice Department filed a similar challenge to Arizona's controversial SB 1070. A federal judge decided to temporarily block key parts of that law, including a provision that would have required police to determine suspects' immigration status. (snip)
The federal complaint argues that the law, which is set to take effect Sept. 1, "exceeds a state's role with respect to aliens, interferes with the federal government's balanced administration of the immigration laws, and critically undermines U.S. foreign policy objectives."
Well, if the Obama admin. is claiming that the Constitution prohibits..., then they should have no problem doing it themselves, right? It should be interesting to see what Alabama argues, which should certainly include the malfeasance of Los Federal government, along with the 9th and 10th amendments. The Law of the USA may be the supreme law, but, is there any reason why States cannot tighten those laws up?
Then there is Article IV Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;... That would seem to say that Los Federales are duty bound to stop illegal immigration.
Article IV Section 3: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. So, States have a claim to deal with their own property.
Moreover, the law, known as HB 56, "would result in the harassment and incarceration of lawful resident aliens — and even U.S. citizens who would not have readily available documentation to demonstrate their citizenship," the government argued.
Yet, so far, any incidents have been so minor as to be meaningless. People who did not break the law have been harassed for other things in the past. Some people have been, unfortunately, put in jail for crimes they did not commit. Nothing is perfect.
But, hey, perhaps Team Obama has tanked the economy even further in order to get the illegals to go back to their home countries, because there are no jobs here.
Georgia, South Carolina, Utah and Indiana are surely next on the block for a lawsuit, as they also have tough illegal alien laws. Expect those suits to come quickly, if they come, because Team Obama surely doesn't want these lawsuits during the general election season, since so many people are against illegal immigration.
SOURCE
No comments:
Post a Comment