Immigration Watch International (2)

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Montana: Groups sue to stop immigration initiative

An immigrant's advocacy group and others have filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn a voter-approved initiative that requires proof of citizenship for people to obtain certain state services and benefits.

The Montana Immigrant Justice Alliance, the MEA-MFT union and 22-year-old Alisha Blair of Missoula filed the lawsuit on Friday. Blair was born in Canada but is a U.S. citizen.

The lawsuit seeks to block Legislative Referendum 121 from becoming law on Jan. 1 and asks a judge to prevent it from taking effect until arguments can be heard.

The referendum requires certain state agencies to certify that people requesting services are citizens. The plaintiffs argue that the referendum violates the Montana Constitution's right of individual privacy

Supporters argue that it will prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining services at the expense of citizens.

SOURCE

Recent posts at CIS below

See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.

New Publications

1. As the Numbers Surge: Border Incidents Increase in Arizona

2. Projecting Immigration’s Impact on the Size and Age Structure of the 21st Century American Population

Blogs

3. Class Action Case May Shed Light on a Dark Portion of the H-1B Program

4. Good Fences Make Good Neighbors

5. New USCIS Data Show How DACA Delays Decisions in Other Programs

6. Fraud Acknowledged in Part of EB-5 (Immigrant Investor) Program

7. Notre Dame Professor: Upwardly Mobile Mexican-Americans Not Moving Right

8. Overdogs Claiming to be Underdogs

9. Who Wins the Visa Lottery?

10. "Homegrown" Terror and the Importance of Words

New Topic Pages on the CIS Website

11. Tourist Visa Fraud

12. Visa Fraud

13. Canada and Immigration

14. Marriage Fraud

15. Washington Post and Immigration

No comments:

Post a Comment

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.

Immigration Watch International (2)

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors