Quarter of asylum seekers in Australia moved to communities
In other words they are not detained at all. They are home free
About a quarter of immigration detainees who have arrived by boat are now being housed in the community, a parliamentary inquiry has heard.
Immigration Department secretary Andrew Metcalfe has given an update on the figures at an inquiry hearing in Canberra. He told the Joint Select Committee that around 800 asylum seekers have been approved for community detention since August.
Mr Metcalfe says in the past month the detention population has steadily increased to more than 5,500 people. "The large numbers of arrivals continue to place strain on the detention network," he said.
"We all understand the potential consequences of a return to an overcrowded and pressured detention network and you can be assured that the Department is doing all we can to avoid that."
A boat carrying more than 160 asylum seekers was intercepted off Christmas Island on Tuesday.
Mr Metcalfe estimates it will cost close to $1 million to respond to the detention network inquiry. The inquiry started in June and is due to report back by March next year.
Mr Metcalfe says his Department has made detailed submissions to the inquiry. "We've responded either in hearings or on notice to over 1,100 questions from the Committee, provided over 4,000 pages of written material and some 26 departmental employees have been made available as witnesses," he said.
"The total direct cost to the Department responding to and supporting the Committee is projected to be in excess of $970,000 by the end of this financial year."
SOURCE
Report Challenges Attack on Secure Communities
Allegations of Wrongful Arrests of U.S. Citizens Are False
A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies examines the outcomes of ICE’s Secure Communities program and how those outcomes have been misleadingly described in one widely circulated study published by the Warren Institute at the University of California, Berkeley Law School. The CIS report, first in a three-part series examining the Warren Institute's analysis, is based on the same database used by the Institute of actual case histories provided by ICE in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.
The groups that first obtained the ICE records have claimed that they reveal a disturbing pattern of abuse of authority by ICE, including wrongful arrests of thousands of U.S. citizens, a pattern of racial profiling against Latinos, and denial of due process for aliens in removal proceedings. These allegations have been uncritically passed on by major news media outlets and repeated by members of Congress. While the ICE database does provide an interesting and relatively rare snapshot of the actual Secure Communities caseload, we found that the records did not support any of the allegations of ICE abuse of authority.
Our first set of findings, online here, addresses the issue of wrongful U.S. citizen arrests:
* The database contains no records of U.S. citizens who were detained by or for ICE. It is impossible to assert based on this data, as the critics have, that thousands of U.S. citizens, or any number of U.S. citizens, have been arrested by ICE through Secure Communities.
* The Warren Institute report contains serious methodological and interpretive errors that lead its authors to unsubstantiated conclusions and cast doubt on the credibility of the entire analysis. For example, the authors analyzed only 23 percent of the original random sample requested from ICE.
* ICE’s failure to counter the report’s misleading statements is contributing to the spread of misconceptions about Secure Communities among the media, state and local leaders, and the public. This raises doubts as to the agency leaders’ commitment to full and effective implementation of the program.
* We agree with the Warren Institute authors on the issue of the need for improved transparency at ICE and its parent Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: center@cis.org. Contacts: Jessica Vaughan, jmv@cis.org, (508) 346-3380 or Bryan Griffith, press@cis.org, (202) 630-6533. The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization
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