States Looking for New Ways to Combat Illegal Immigration in 2012
2011 is coming to an end and many state lawmakers have their eyes on curbing illegal immigration in 2012. With several states -- Arizona, Mississippi, Indiana, Utah, South Carolina and Alabama -- already paving the way, lawmakers in other states are looking for similar legislation to remove "magnets" drawing illegal aliens to their states.
While lawmakers in Arizona, Mississippi, Indiana, Utah, South Carolina and Alabama have successfully passed strong enforcement legislation against illegal immigration, they still face tough challenges from the federal government. The U.S Department of Justice has moved forward with lawsuits against four of those states, and Arizona's well-known bill, S.B. 1070, will be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court some time next spring.
The main focus of the DOJ lawsuits are laws that give local police authority to check the immigration status for individuals during traffic stops and other minor violations. Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach told USA Today that legislators will look at ways to restrict illegal immigrants from receiving public benefits, as well as expand the use of tools such as E-Verify.
Kobach highlighted that Alabama was the first state to legitimately prevent illegal aliens from conducting business transactions, and invalidated all their contracts. This is in addition to the withholding of public benefits to illegal aliens, and preventing them from acquiring a job.
North Carolina, which is estimated to have over 325,000 illegal aliens living in the state, is expected to be the next state to mobilize tougher enforcement legislation. North Carolina state Rep. Harry Warren said he is looking at Alabama's laws as he puts together a package for his state's 2012 legislative session.
"The only thing you can do in your state is make it less attractive [for illegal immigrants] to come to, a little harder to live here legally," Warren said.
SOURCE
Now migrants flooding OUT of Europe in search of jobs as tens of thousands flee Portugal, Ireland and Greece
Tens of thousands of Portuguese, Greek and Irish people are abandoning their homelands as job prospects look increasingly dire. Migrants used to see the EU as a top destination for work and a better lifestyle, but now a stream of Europeans are leaving the continent, figures show.
In the past year, 2,500 Greeks have left for Australia alone and at least 10,000 Portuguese people have moved to Angola, according to the Guardian.
Ireland's official statistics office predicted that 50,000 people will have deserted their home country by the end of the year, with many heading to Australia and the U.S.
The trend could become even worse, with Britain potentially losing its pull for workers who have vital skills to contribute.
With migration trends reversing, unusual routes have apparently become popular, including Lisbon to Luanda, Dublin to Perth and Barcelona to Buenos Aires.
Portugal's foreign ministry reportedly said 97,616 of its people are now registered at the consulates in Benguele and Luanda - almost double the number who were there in 2005.
The Portuguese are also heading in their droves to former colonies such as Brazil and Mozambique, with Brazil seeing a 50 per cent rise in foreign residents in just a year. Goncalo Pires, a graphic designer who moved from Lisbon to Rio de Janeiro, told the Guardian: 'It's a pretty depressing environment there [in Portugal]. 'In Brazil, by contrast, there are lots of opportunities to find work, to find clients and projects.'
Joy Drosis, who left her homeland of Greece for Australia, said she felt she would have been doomed if she had stayed.
In Ireland, where 14.5 per cent of the population are jobless, emigration has climbed steadily since 2008, with 40,200 Irish passport-holders said to have left in the 12 months to April this year, up from 27,700 the previous year.
There are reports of similar trends in Spain and Italy, and fears young European sports stars are leaving their birth countries for places such as Australia.
Experts believe the exodus from Ireland will only increase, given the £1.4bn tax rises and austerity measures just announced.
Greece lost 9.4 per cent of its doctors in just one year, with most immigrants arriving from poorer countries and often lacking the skills to replace them in the economy.
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