Miss. gov backs immigration-enforcement proposal
Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant says if an immigration-enforcement bill becomes law, it would apply to all immigrants "not just to people who are south of us or Hispanic by descent."
But the Republican says violence has caused "chaos" in Mexico, and the U.S. should not ignore people coming illegally from that "very violent atmosphere."
Bryant spoke Wednesday at a Capitol news conference hosted by the Mississippi Federation for Immigration Reform and Enforcement and the Mississippi Tea Party.
An immigration enforcement proposal, House Bill 488, awaits consideration in the House Education Committee.
Two Catholic bishops in Mississippi say they're concerned immigrant families could be hurt by the bill. Bishop Roger Morin of the Biloxi diocese says immigration is best handled by the federal government.
SOURCE
Staff transfer visa loophole is robbing Britain's migrant cap of its 'bite'
The Government’s supposedly strict cap on migrant workers is ‘not biting’, an expert warned yesterday. In a bid to bring immigration under control, ministers ruled that only 21,700 visas should be given to non-EU workers each year.
A report released yesterday by the Migration Advisory Committee shows that as few as 10,000 have entered the UK under the cap in the past year.
However, nearly 30,000 have entered via so-called intra-company transfers, which allow firms to bring in workers whom they already employ overseas without contributing towards the capped total.
The transfers – long criticised as a backdoor into Britain by campaigners – were originally set to count towards the limit of 21,700.
They were excluded after Liberal Democrat Business Secretary Vince Cable protested during a trip to India, where many intra- company transfers (ICTs) originate.
When both ICTs and visas issued under the cap are taken into consideration, there has been only a slight reduction in the number of non-EU workers entering the UK.
The number of ICTs rose from 22,000 in 2009 to 29,700 in the year ending last September. The MAC said the amount of ICTs per million of the population was ‘substantially higher for the UK’ than in comparable countries such as the U.S., Australia and Germany.
Net migration – the difference between the number of people entering Britain and those leaving – remains close to record levels at 250,000. The Conservatives have pledged to reduce this to tens of thousands. Ministers are now likely to face calls to tighten the visa cap.
The MAC’s chairman, Professor David Metcalf, said the current cap was ‘not biting’ but warned that tightening it ‘could affect perceptions of the UK as an attractive place to do business’.
He said the Government would have to keep ICTs under review if it wanted to hit the ‘tens of thousands’ target.
Immigration Minister Damian Green said: ‘We welcome the report and we are considering the recommendations. The Government will announce its decisions in the near future.’
Home Secretary Theresa May will today announce new rules stating that migrants working in the UK must earn at least £35,000 a year if they want to stay longer than five years.
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