Migration to Britain will fall sharply this year ‘but it won’t hit PM’s target’
Immigration to Britain will fall sharply this year, a think-tank said yesterday – but not by enough to meet the Prime Minister’s target. The Institute for Public Policy Research claimed that net migration – the difference between the number of people arriving in the UK, and those leaving – would be cut from a record 252,000 in 2010 to 180,000.
But the figure falls short of David Cameron’s commitment to reduce net migration to the ‘tens of thousands’ during the lifetime of the current Parliament, it said.
The IPPR, considered New Labour’s favourite think-tank, claimed the best hope of fulfilling the pledge was for an economic downturn to make the country less attractive to migrants and drive away EU migrants already here.
Its report predicted that the number of migrants coming to the UK from outside the EU would fall by about 10 per cent in 2012, fuelled by new restrictions on foreign students and worsening economic conditions. But the IPPR said further curbs on skilled migrants coming to the UK were unlikely to reduce overall numbers by more than 10,000. More restrictions on family migration were also likely to have little immediate effect as they are expected to be held up by legal challenges.
Matt Cavanagh of the IPPR said: ‘While policy changes will start to achieve significant reductions in immigration from outside the EU, this will not be enough to put the Government on track to hit its target.’
But Immigration Minister Damian Green insisted the Government’s aspirations could still be achieved. ‘The IPPR’s predicted reduction in net migration of 70,000 by the end of 2012 is consistent with hitting our target of reducing net migration to the tens of thousands by the end of this Parliament,’ he said.
‘We’ve limited non-EU workers coming to the UK, overhauled the student visa system and will shortly announce reforms of the family migration and settlement routes.’
Mr Green added: ‘The latest quarterly figures show that student visas issued are down 13 per cent and the main work visas issued are down 18 per cent compared with last year – an early sign that our policies are starting to take effect.’
Alp Mehmet, vice chairman of the pressure group MigrationWatch, said: ‘The fact is that the Government is on course but has a very long way to go.’
SOURCE
Alabama Immigration Law, section nine now in effect
With several changes to Alabama's immigration law since Governor Robert Bentley signed it in June 2011, businesses contracting with any governmental agency, must now register with a federal system called e-verify. It allows them to check employees' immigration status.
"What we are going to require is that each business sign a document saying they've e-verified their employees. They must sign it with the city saying they are complying with the federal law," said Finance Director with the city of Auburn, Penny Smith.
This new portion of the law falls under section nine. An example of someone needing to register with e-verify is a contractor doing road work, or sewer work for an Alabama city.
"What we are asking is that the construction company give us an affidavit and that affidavit specifically state in it that they are in compliance with the law, and they are going to start using e-verify," said Smith.
The bill was set to go into effect on September first, but lawsuits filed by civil-rights groups delayed it going into effect.
"For Alabama companies it may not be as big of a deal, but when you're dealing with companies out-of-state or international, this may be difficult for them to administer," Smith said.
All business owners in the state of Alabama will have to register with e-verify by April first.
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