Ruling over Pa. town's immigration law vacated
A federal appeals court has vacated its ruling that declared a northeastern Pennsylvania city's illegal immigration law to be unconstitutional, setting the stage for a new round of arguments.
The move by the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last Friday was expected after the U.S. Supreme Court ordered it to take another look at Hazleton's Illegal Immigration Relief Act.
The appeals court had blocked Hazleton from enforcing regulations that would deny permits to business that hire illegal immigrants and fine landlords who rent to them, saying they usurped the federal government's exclusive power to regulate immigration.
The Supreme Court threw out the appeals court ruling in June after the justices upheld a similar employer-sanctions law in Arizona.
Officials in Hazleton have argued that illegal immigrants brought drugs, crime and gangs to the city of about 25,000, overwhelming police, schools and hospitals. The city's 2006 Illegal Immigration Relief Act inspired similar laws around the country, including the one in Arizona.
A companion measure would require prospective tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a rental permit.
The laws have never been enforced. Hispanic groups and illegal immigrants sued to overturn the measures, and a federal judge struck them down following a trial in 2007.
Friday's order from the 3rd Circuit does not mean that Hazleton can begin implementing the laws. The district court's ruling remains in force.
SOURCE
Sweden Democrats respond to the massacre in Norway
The SD have 20 out of 349 seats in the Riksdag but advocate policies which polls show are much more widely supported in Sweden. Sweden is presently run by a Center/Right coalition not unlike the one in Britain
The head of the far-right Sweden Democrats party said yesterday the attacks committed by Norwegian rightwing extremist Anders Behring Breivik were no reason to stop criticising immigration.
"It should of course be allowed to criticise Swedish immigration policy without having to bear the responsibility of what that mass murderer has done," Jimmie Aakesson told about 300 supporters in his home town of Soelvesborg, in southeastern Sweden.
He spent most of his summer speech distancing his parties' ideas from those held by Behring Breivik, who killed 77 people on July 22 in attacks that sent shock waves across the region. Behring Breivik published a 1,500-page manifesto raving against multicultural policies in Europe.
Analysts, including the Expo foundation, a leading observatory of far-right activity in Scandinavia, have said many ideas contained in Behring Breivik's manifesto could be found in the party's rhetoric.
The party has denied the claim and on Saturday Aakesson quoted different passages from the killer's manifesto to show it was unlike the party's ideas.
"On the one hand he says he is a Europhile but on the other he imagines getting help from Russian fascists to use the atomic bomb against several European cities and murder millions of innocent Europeans," Aakesson said.
"We won't stop criticising Swedish immigration just because he committed that horrible act," the 32-year-old politician told Swedish radio after his speech.
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