Sunday, June 30, 2013

Rep. Stockman: If Immigration Bill Passes, GOP Can Kiss AZ, TX, and FL Goodbye

Representative Steve Stockman (R-Tex.) predicts that the Republican Party will lose Arizona, Texas, and Florida if the Senate Gang of Eight’s  immigration bill passes.

“If that bill passes in the current form from the Senate side, you can kiss Arizona, Texas, and Florida gone – that’s why the Democrats are so interested in this,” Stockman said during an interview last week with Iowa radio host Steve Deace.

“It has nothing to do with fairness and it has everything to do with election politics . . it was really to be used, along with the gun bill, in 2014 as the reason to turn over the House to the Democrats.”

Stockman noted that Republicans lost control of California following the amnesty bill signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986.  “None of the people voted for us. They did the exact opposite – it was like we did it and then we got punished for it.”

When asked about the fate of the Senate immigration bill in the House of Representatives, Stockman said that the Gang of Eight cannot withstand the “gang of millions” of Americans who donot support amnesty for illegal aliens.

When Deace asked him if “there was any chance at all” the GOP House leadership would pass the Senate bill, Stockman replied that House Speaker John Boehner assured him that it would not even be brought up in the House chamber.

“I had a meeting with the speaker, and it’s entirely possible that, you know, he could be lying to me, but he tends to agree that this is the way the Senate bill is, and the way I understood his communication to me... the Senate bill was not palatable and would not even really be brought up in the House. I hope he keeps to his word on that. We’ll see.”

The Senate’s  comprehensive immigration reform bill, currently consisting of 1,922 pages, would provide a pathway to citizenship for approximately 11 million illegal immigrants. Republican Senators Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) support it. But GOP Senators Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), Rand Paul (R-Tenn.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) , who have labeled the reforms as amnesty without border security, are among its chief critics.

The House of Representatives has introduced its own package of immigration legislation, including the Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement (SAFE) Act, the Legal Workforce Act, the Agricultural Guestworker Act, and the Supplying Knowledge-based Immigrants and Lifting Levels of STEM Visas (SKILLS) Act., which have been assigned to various House committees for consideration.


Britain's education system is feeling the force of mass immigration

The population explosion in England and Scotland, fuelled by mass immigration, has affected our society in many ways. Education is one of them, with it being revealed today that 250,000 extra primary school places will need to be found by September 2013, according to the Commons Public Accounts Committee. The phrase "ticking time bomb" springs to mind.

The likely outcome of this mad, unnecessary rush? Schools that are performing poorly will be relied upon to increase their intake out of desperation. Kids have to go to school, even if it is a terrible one.

The whole situation demonstrates the utter chaos that open border EU migration is having on Britain. We don't know how many kids year-to-year are going to need schooling in this country, we can only guess. The result is sheer pandemonium that puts a ridiculous strain on the system and is unfair to the kids who will probably end up getting shoved anywhere that will have them.

The increase in class sizes is likely to make the job of teaching that bit harder too. How many of the children in this generation of exploding numbers will even speak English? The task is daunting and absurd in equal measure.

The British education sector is currently experiencing the type of chaos also faced by the NHS, the police force, the border agency and so many other pillars of British society. There is one simple way to restore some sanity to proceedings: bring back proper border controls and control the numbers coming into Britain, so that we can plan and deliver quality for our children.


Friday, June 28, 2013

Secrecy in plain sight

Promises, Promises     

   The track record on enforcement guarantees is not encouraging

The core criticism to S.744 has been that it places amnesty before enforcement. The concern is that once the illegal population has been legalized, it will be highly unlikely that the bill's promises of enforcement will be honored. The Center for Immigration Studies finds the long track record of broken promises regarding immigration enforcement suggests this concern is warranted. Here are highlights from a long list of those broken promises:

1986 - Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which for the first time prohibited the employment of illegal aliens. This was part of a package that included amnesty for long-term illegal aliens who passed criminal checks, paid fees, and took classes on English language and U.S. civics and history. The promised enforcement started weakly and petered out. It got so bad than in 2004, only 3 employers in the entire nation were fined for hiring illegal aliens. An estimated 7-8 million illegal immigrants continue to hold jobs.

1996 - In the wake of the first World Trade Center bombing, Congress passed a wide-ranging enforcement law, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Among its provisions was a requirement to develop an automated check-in/check-out system for foreign visitors, so the government could identify those who stayed past the time they were supposed to depart. Congress mandated such a system five more times, including in the USA Patriot Act, which required a biometric system (using fingerprints or photo recognition, for instance), in line with the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. No such system yet exists.

2005 - The REAL ID Act required that state driver's licenses meet certain minimum standards to be acceptable for federal purposes, such as boarding airplanes. The standards included requiring proof of legal presence in the United States before issuing a license; this is an important immigration enforcement objective, because the driver's license is essential to illegal aliens seeking to embed themselves in American society. The original deadline for state compliance was 2008, later postponed to 2011, then 2013, and now 2017. It seems likely the deadline will be extended yet again, permitting several states to continue issuing licenses to illegal aliens.

2006 - The Secure Fence Act of 2006 required "at least 2 layers of reinforced fencing" along a total of roughly 650 miles of specifically designated stretches of the Mexican border. So far, less than 40 miles of such double-layered fencing have been built. The remainder is a mix of single-layer "pedestrian" fencing (designed to prevent people from infiltrating on foot) and vehicle barriers, which are low fences intended only to prevent trucks from driving across the border.

View the article  here.

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: Contact: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185,  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

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Rise in Illegal Crossing Roils Immigration Debate

There was a striking moment in the Senate Judiciary Committee's debate on the Gang of Eight's comprehensive immigration reform bill when Republican Jeff Sessions and Democrat Charles Schumer argued over the number of immigrants who would be allowed into the country under the new legislation.

Sessions cited reports suggesting the figure would be more than 20 million over the next decade in addition to the 11 million or so who are already in the United States illegally. Schumer took issue with that, although he wouldn't name a figure of his own.

Then Schumer declared the whole dispute beside the point. "It is not that, 'Oh, this bill is allowing many more people to come into this country than would have come,'" he said. "They are coming. They're either coming under law or not under law."

The Democratic leader of the Gang of Eight continued: "This argument that there are going to be 20 million new people in this country under this bill ignores the fact that there are going to be lots of millions ... in the country illegally if we don't have a bill."

What made the exchange notable was that many Democrats who oppose more stringent border security measures argue that after recent increases in spending and resources the U.S.-Mexico border is already pretty secure -- "as secure now as it has ever been," in the words of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. They also suggest that the number of illegal crossers is at an all-time low and will likely never rise again to levels seen in the 1990s and 2000s.

What Schumer conceded, perhaps in an unguarded moment, is that the border remains quite porous, and the U.S. can expect "lots of millions" to cross illegally in coming years if nothing more is done. The disagreement on Capitol Hill, of course, is over what should be done, but Schumer's off-the-cuff analysis provides a lot of material for Republicans pressing for a guarantee of greater security measures before millions of illegal immigrants are given legal status.

That GOP position received an even bigger boost with a recent report from the border in The New York Times. The crux of the story is that the number of illegal crossings is rising, and in response to greater security measures in Arizona, the flow from Mexico has shifted east to the Rio Grande Valley in Texas.

Yes, the number of illegal crossers is down from a dozen years ago as the U.S. economy remains a less powerful magnet than it once was. "But after nearly a decade of steady declines, the count has started to rise again over the past year," the Times reported. "The Rio Grande Valley has displaced the Tucson enforcement zone as the hot spot, with makeshift rafts crossing the river in increasing numbers, high-speed car chases occurring along rural roads and a growing number of dead bodies turning up on ranchers' land, according to local officials."

"There is just so much happening at the same time -- it is overwhelming," a Brooks County, Texas, sheriff's deputy told the Times.

Border Patrol agents are outnumbered; extensive, passable stretches of the border are unwatched; whole groups of immigrants cross unseen. "People are just crossing without fear," said an alderman in La Joya.

It's happening in part because the American economy, hit so hard by the economic downturn, is finally improving, becoming a draw again for immigrants, especially those from Central America who travel through Mexico on their way to the Texas border. Also, crime remains a terrible problem in many immigrants' home countries. And word is spreading that the U.S. Congress is contemplating a measure to legalize millions of illegal border-crossers.

That is the backdrop for this week's Senate debate on border security in the Gang of Eight plan. Democrats are dead set against any proposal that would make permanent legal status and a path to citizenship contingent on measurable improvements in border security. On the other side, many Republicans believe those improvements will never happen unless the law says legalization won't be allowed without security first. The only question is whether Republicans will stick to their guns or give in to Democrats.

In the debate, supporters of the Gang of Eight bill will almost certainly pronounce the border more secure than it has ever been; such rhetoric is a staple of such debates. But the situation on the border remains troublesome, and if the American economy continues to improve, as everyone hopes it does, the problem could become worse.

Schumer is probably right. In coming years, "lots of millions" will seek to come to the U.S. illegally unless something is done.


Australia: Illegal imigrants dilute charity resources

PROCEEDS from the $5.3 million Vinnies CEO Sleep Out will be shared with asylum seekers, leaving one high-profile participant "disappointed".

Dozens of high-profile business leaders slept rough for a night last week to raise the money for the St Vincent de Paul Society's homeless services, which also help asylum seekers.

Australian Hotels Association CEO Paul Nicolaou, who is also a former Liberal Party state candidate, raised $88,000 and says he is "disappointed" a charity like Vinnies is needed to help asylum seekers paid 89 per cent of the dole.

"There are 100,000 people who are homeless across the country. If we are allowing refugees to go on the streets and not providing for them and it has to be funded by charities like St Vincent De Paul, there is a huge problem, the federal government needs to pick up its act," said Mr Nicolaou, who is nursing a cold after his night on the streets.

"The resources (of St Vincents) are needed to help existing people."

The Coalition condemned the government for putting more than 14,000 asylum seekers into the community and leaving charities to provide additional support.

"Labor's community dumping policy of illegal boat arrivals is occurring without any consultation or thought for the consequences on communities and organisations like St Vincent de Paul who do their best to provide much needed services to our most needy," Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said.

Immigration Minister Brendan O'Connor's spokesman said the welfare payments to asylum seekers were "adequate but not generous" because the government did not "want the provision of support to be an incentive that encourages people to put their lives in the hands of people smugglers".

A spokeswoman for the charity said it did not discriminate and some of those assisted would be refugees living in the community.

"The St Vincent de Paul Society provides assistance to the most vulnerable and marginalised people in our community and has done so, without discrimination, for close to 160 years in Australia," she said.

"The Society in NSW runs over 30 homeless services across the state assisting men, women and children including rehabilitation and learning centres. The society assists all people at risk of or experiencing homelessness and this would include people living in our community as refugees."

Meanwhile, Foreign Affairs Minister Bob Carr told caucus colleagues that Iranians were coming to Australia by boat to escape an economy crippled by international sanctions, not to flee persecution.

Mr Carr also told colleagues people smugglers were fuelling the trade and the economic boat migrants were taking places from the humanitarian program for genuine refugees.

Of the more than 13,000 people who have arrived this year, 4136 have been from Iran, compared to just 2749 for all of last year.

Mr Carr's comments came during a fiery caucus meeting, during which Victorian backbench MP Laura Smyth told Mr O'Connor the government's no-advantage policy was "indefensible."

Under the policy, asylum seekers could be left in the community without their refugee claims being processed for as long as they would have waited if they were in an overseas camp.


Wednesday, June 26, 2013

French government cuts immigrants welfare by 83%

It seems that migration policies of a leading country in Europe, France, are seriously changing. The country is no longer able to hold back the crowd of migrants, many of whom do not want to integrate into the social and economic life of their new home country. The upcoming radical changes for migrants were announced by French Interior Minister Manuel Valls.

After a meeting on the National Immigration and Integration, French Interior Minister Manuel Valls announced significant changes in the country’s migration policy. The government will reduce financial assistance to immigrants, and this reduction will be substantial. Starting March 1 of next year, French immigrant benefits will be reduced by 83 percent. The amount of compensation to immigrants who voluntarily want to return home will be also reduced. If earlier the government paid 300 euros for every adult and 100 euros for every minor, in March of 2013 these amounts will be reduced to 50 and 30 euros, respectively.

One of the main provisions of the new immigration rules in France is the reduction of unemployment benefits. New rules will directly affect many of the immigrants who do not want to be of real assistance to the country and whose main goal is the existence at the expense of French taxpayers. Now immigrants who are EU citizens receive an allowance of 2,000 euros per adult and 1,000 euros per child.

Under the new policy, according to Valls, the payments will be reduced to 500 and 200 euros, respectively. Manuel Valls said that the previous immigration policy did not lead to the desired effect, and the existing outreach programs for immigrants do not work as they were expected to, therefore, the rules must be changed. If this is not done, the costs for the maintenance of migrants now paid by the French Treasury will continue to devastate the economy of France that is already suffering from the crisis caused by international factors.

Earlier this year, during the election campaign in France, Nicolas Sarkozy, the then President, strongly advocated for the changes in migration policies in France. He stated that the delays could adversely affect the entire domestic policy of France. Francois Hollande, the current President of France and at that time the main opponent of Sarkozy, spoke on the subject more softly, avoiding naming any specific measures. Does this mean that life itself supports the statements of the eccentric ex-president of France?

According to the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies, in the second half of 2010, France was home to over five million migrant workers, or about 8 percent of the total population. The largest number of migrants arriving in France, according to the data for 2007, was from Algeria, Morocco and Portugal. In 2011, French citizenship was granted to 66,000 people. It is getting increasingly more difficult for the government to provide financial assistance to migrants, given that many of them do not work or study. In fact, this is not surprising given the amount of aid that the government was ready to provide to its new citizens.

With a growing number of migrants, mainly from Muslim countries, France is experiencing many internal problems. They include rising unemployment and crime, and increasingly greater sums of money from the state treasury spent on support of migrants and their families, which has a detrimental effect on the economy. Finally, France is simply awash with the migrant population with an alien ideology, reluctant to accept European values ​​and often hostile.

Sooner or later, the government had to take measures. It seems that the time has come. On the wave of changes in French policy towards migrants, in 2007 Nicolas Sarkozy won presidential elections. Since his arrival to power, the government began to pursue a policy of the so-called selective migration, whose aim was to attract to France mainly skilled personnel. Under Sarkozy a quota system was introduced in the country that determined the number of required workers. In March of 2012, during the presidential campaign, Nicolas Sarkozy reiterated the importance of addressing domestic problems of migrants. Sarkozy, a son of an immigrant from Hungary, suggested cutting the amount of social assistance provided to migrants and reducing the number of issued residence permits by 50%. In addition, he threatened that France would leave the Schengen Treaty in order to prevent infiltration of unwanted migrants into the country.

Francois Hollande, the current president of France, was not that radical in his vision of the issues associated with migrants. He was not ready to control all categories of migrants, but in March of 2012 called for limiting migration for economic reasons. It looks like it is the economic conditions that are forcing the French authorities to toughen the policy towards migrants. This is indicated, in particular, by the disappointing data in the Global Competitiveness Report on the state of competitiveness of France, which the government discussed in November. According to the report, the competitiveness of the French industry is falling. In 2000, the share of industry in the economy of the country accounted for 18 percent, and now – 12.5 percent as companies are going bankrupt. In part, it is due to the heavy burden of social security contributions that businesses are required to make.

French business payroll taxes are among the highest in the world at approximately 50 percent. It could not have been different because the country had to feed a large number of migrants.

In March of 2012 Sarkozy suggested reducing the number of migrants from 180 thousand to 100 thousand. A significant decrease in the number of migrants could be expected in five years. It seems that the government of Hollande has adopted such measures and is moving towards action.

A significant decrease in the amounts allocated for subsidies for migrants might be somewhat effective. The treasury will have more resources that can be allocated to job creation and overall economic recovery. There is a likelihood that the reduction in benefits will be an incentive for some workers to step up their job search.

There is another side to the coin. Many migrants, especially those from Arab countries-former colonies of France, are used to living on government subsidies. They have been doing it for years, and have been teaching their children this model of social behavior. According to the National Institute of Statistical Studies, children from immigrant families tend to be weaker students than their peers who are not immigrants. This is especially true for migrants from Turkey. In the labor market, only 14 percent of children of immigrants attain high social positions.

Reduction of benefits would hurt many migrant families. Will this provoke antisocial behavior where migrants would outpour their anger in the streets of French cities, destroying everything around them? Will the migrant riots of 2007 be repeated? There is an obvious need in new approaches towards migration policy. However, in their implementation the government should take into account various possible consequences. Only a balanced approach will lead to positive results.


One reason why Britain should make more of an effort to deport its many illegals

An illegal immigrant was jailed today for breaking the neck of a young ballet star in a violent street mugging.

Doctors feared Jack Widdowson, 19, would spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair after being robbed for his mobile phone on a night out.

He was found unconscious on a canal path and paralysed after being targeted in the robbery of his iPhone.

But the court heard that nine months later Mr Widdowson - an apprentice with the Bern Ballet in Switzerland - had fought back to full health due to his extreme fitness, strength and flexibility.

His attacker Mohammed Mohamoed, 27, was jailed for 13 years after being found guilty of attacking Mr Widdowson. Egyptian-born Mohamoed will be deported from the country when he is released from prison.

Judge Justice Wyn Williams told him: 'You as a dangerous offender. You caused Jack extremely serious injury and he was very fortunate he didn't suffer permanent, devastating effects.

'You left him lying in the street which was callous in the extreme. Much credit is due to the young man who came across him and helped him and the medical staff who treated him afterwards.

'You will be subject to an automatic deportation when you have served your sentence - that will be in the hands of the home office.'

Mr Widdowson, one of the youngest apprentices to be taken on by the Swiss company Bern:Ballet, was attacked while visiting his brother who is studying at Cardiff University.

The day before the attack he had his 'big break' when he was called up as an understudy for a leading ballet role.

But Cardiff Crown Court heard his night came to a violent end when he was attacked by Mohamoed who took his Apple iPhone and left him for dead in the street.

A jury was shown a video interview with the rising star, from Bath, Somerset, as he lay in a hospital bed wearing a neck brace after the attack.

He told police: 'I have broken neck, that's going to have to have a hell of a lot of rehab and physio to get back to where I was.

'I've been told I'll make a full recovery and that's what I want to do - I just want to put this whole thing behind me.'

The court heard that minutes after the alleged attack Mohamoed was seen laughing and joking in the city centre, even kicking a football around with a group of boys.

Unemployed Mohamoed was later arrested at his home in Splott, Cardiff. The court heard Mohamoed was born in Egypt and his parents, who are farmers, still live there.

He drifted through Europe first moving to Italy before settling in Cardiff where he claimed to be a Palestinian refugee.

Mohamoed lied to the UK border agency giving them a fake name and date of birth - he later tried to mislead the police in the same way.

Prosecutor Michael Mather-Lees QC told Mohamoed: 'You broke his neck, then you lied to police because you realised you had committed a dreadful offence.'

Mohamoed was caught on CCTV prowling Cardiff city centre looking for a victim to attack.

He admitted meeting Widdowson and stealing his mobile phone which he later used to make a call to a friend in Italy before selling it at a market.

But he denied attempted murder and told the court the young ballet dancer was unharmed when he left him in the dark alleyway in Cardiff Bay.

Mohamoed, who admitted theft, was found guilty of grievous bodily harm and jailed for 13 years. After the case his parents Julian and Celia, who have since set up a charity called the Dance Again Foundation, praised Jack for his recovery.

It said: 'Jack has made an amazing recovery from a horrific injury and we would like to htank the many people who have helped to achieve that.

'He has been performing for some time now and has already performed publically on a number of occassions. We and he are just delighted that he has been able to resume his career as a dancer despite what happened to him.'

Detective Constable Mike Owens of South Wales Police said: 'Jack had been enjoying a night out with family and friends when he was subjected to a shocking level of violence by Mohammed Mohamoed.

'Amazingly Mr Widdowson, who is such a talented young man, has made a full recovery and we are delighted that he is back dancing again.

'Today's decision will hopefully allow Jack and his family to finally put this incident behind them.'


Tuesday, June 25, 2013

How Come Mexico Can Require Voters To Prove Citizenship And Arizona Can’t?

The news from the U.S. Senate is bad enough: the new 1200 page Hoeven-Corker “Border Surge” amendment to the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill will be voted on Monday—requiring Senators to read 24 pages an hour for 16 hours a day over the weekend. But the Supreme Court made things even worse last week by striking down Arizona’s attempt to require voters in federal elections to prove citizenship.

Let that sink in just a moment. The Supreme Court has ruled that it was bad for the state of Arizona to require proof of citizenship for voters. In a serious country, this wouldn’t even be an issue. And it isn’t —in Mexico.

The real culprit here, legally speaking: the Motor Voter Act, passed in 1993, to “make it easier” for folks to register to vote by letting them register when applying for driver’s licenses. According to our Supreme Court, nothing besides the actual Motor Voter form can be added by any state, without special permission.

And, incredibly, all the Motor Voter act requires is for an applicant to state that he is a citizen—without requiring any proof whatsoever!  Which means it’s easier to register to vote in this country than apply for a video rental card.  Well, priorities are priorities.

In the Supreme Court hearing on the case in March, Thomas Horne,   Attorney General of  Arizona pointed out that the Motor Voter form, “…is extremely inadequate. It’s essentially an honor system. It does not do the job.”

Wise Latina Sonia Sotomayor, however, responded that “Well, that’s what the federal system decided was enough.”

As VDARE.COM readers are well aware, Arizona has been Ground Zero in the battle to resist the illegal invasion, and has put up a bigger resistance than the other three border states (California, New Mexico and Texas) put together. That’s why the state is the target of federal mugging on immigration–related matters.

In 2004, the voters of Arizona passed Proposition 200 which required applicants to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote. That sounds totally fair and logical. But the voting registration part has now been struck down.

To their credit, two justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, displayed some common sense in voting no. Justice Thomas wrote that the Constitution “authorizes states to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied.”

Arizona still has an option: to ask the federal government to add state-specific material requiring additional documentation on the Motor Voter form. The state of Louisiana successfully obtained that. The problem: the Election Assistance Commission, to which Arizona would apply, currently has no members. New members are supposed to be nominated by the president.

El Universal, Mexico’s paper of record, combined the Arizona story with one about in-state- tuition-for-illegals in New Jersey. It began:

"The Supreme Court of the United States ruled yesterday against an Arizona law that requires persons to present proof of citizenship to register for the voter rolls, the same day that legislators in New Jersey approved a proposed law to permit immigrants that are in the country without authorization [AW: i.e. illegal aliens] to have access to lower rates in state universities. [AW: i.e. to discriminate in favor of illegals and against Americans from other states].

Note, though, that in the comments section, a reader remarked: “In Mexico they are stricter and nobody says anything.”

Which is simply the truth. Mexico’s voter registration system is much better, and much stricter, as I have observed firsthand and described several times:

In Mexico, every registered Mexican voter has a Voter ID card, supplied by the government, complete with photograph, fingerprint, and a holographic image to prevent counterfeiting.

At the Mexican polling station, the card is used in conjunction with a book containing the photograph of every voter in the precinct. This book is available to the poll workers and observers from various parties. If there's a doubt as to someone’s identity, the poll workers can simply look up the person's name and see if the photo matches up.

When he votes, the Mexican voter's thumb is smudged with ink. That way, if he shows up at another polling site to vote, they know he's already voted elsewhere. (The ink wears off after a few days.)

Notice, that the Mexican government supplies the card. Apologists for slipshod voter registration claim that it’s too hard for many minorities to use photo ID. Given today’s inexpensive photo technology, I really doubt that. But, in Mexico the government provides the card anyway, at government expense.

In order to register for the voter card, a prospective Mexican voter must prove his citizenship.  And Mexico doesn’t just take his word for it. Documented proof must be provided.  According to the website of the Mexican IFE (Instituto Federal Electoral), the applicant must either produce

(1) A “certified copy of a birth certificate”, or

(2) A “document that authorizes the Mexican nationality by naturalization.”

Isn’t that great? Why can’t we do that? What’s so difficult about it?  If Mexico can do it, why can’t we?


Australia:  Tony Abbott (conservative leader) attacks Gillard (Leftist leader) over restrictions on legal immigration

Pauline Hanson is a generally conservative independent politician who is known for her criticism of Asian immigration into Australia.  Many of the skilled workers whom Gillard wants to bar are also Asian.  Abbott is generally sympathetic to minorities so is appalled by Gillard's stance

OPPOSITION Leader Tony Abbott has called Julia Gillard worse than Pauline Hanson and used the government's chief spin doctor's foreign worker visa to attack and mock legislation to crackdown on 457 visas.

After accusing the government of "dog whistling" and creating a distraction from its failure to stop tens of thousands of asylum seekers arriving on boats, Mr Abbott told Parliament the Prime Minister was dividing Australia.

"I never thought I would see the day it wouldn't just be an independent Member of Parliament, a disendorsed member of a political party but it would be the PM of this country (seeking) to deliberately divide Australian from Australian to serve a political purpose, it is an embarrassment," he said.

The proposed laws which would force employers to market test and advertise to prove no Australian was available to fill a position was "false patriotism from a failing government," he claimed.

Mr Abbott mocked Ms Gillard's head of communications John McTernan, who is working in Australia on a 457 visa, calling his employment a case of "complete hypocricy."

"I've got nothing against the Prime Minister having someone working in her own office on a 457 visa, if he is the only person who can do the job, fair enough," he said, mocking the new legislation.

"For all I know there wasn't a single Australian capable of giving political advice to the current Prime Minister. For all I know not a single Australian wanted the job.

"I don't say that person is stealing the job of an Australian, I assume that person is making a unique and special contribution to our country. But if it is right in the PM's office, why isn't right for the other employers in this country?

"If the PM didn't have to advertise, if the PM didn't have to engage in six months of labour market testing why should every other employer in this country?"

He claimed the government "can't get tough on illegal arrivals by boat so they've decided to get tough on legal arrivals by plane."

"It is happening because this government has a political problem. Never mind the facts, never mind that everyone who has seriously looked at this knows the system is working well and if there are one or two problems or abusers they can be sorted out in the normal course of events," he said.

"The government has got a political problem, so what do they do? They look for someone to blame, they look for more people to demonise in their attempt to hold onto office.

"This government has a serious political problems, it's the border protection disaster which has meant since August 2008 we've had more than 700 illegal boats, we have had more than 44,000 illegal arrivals by boat. A problem this government cannot solve, a problem this government has effectively surrendered to the people smugglers."


Monday, June 24, 2013

The Amnesty Mob vs. America


You can try to put "conservative" lipstick on the lawless amnesty mob. In the end, however, it's still a lawless mob. The big government/big business alliance to protect illegal immigration got a lot of mileage using foolish Republicans Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan as front men. But the true colors of the open-borders grievance-mongers always show through.

After America said no to a pork-filled security-undermining amnesty bill in 2007, the No Illegal Alien Left Behind lobbyists changed their overtly thuggish tactics. They put down their upside-down American flags, stopped wearing their commie Che Guevara T-shirts and cloaked their radical "Aztlan" aspirations in the less divisive rhetoric of "reform" and "opportunity."

It was all just an act, of course. Inevitably, the mask has slipped. Over the weekend, illegal alien protesters descended on the private residence of Kansas Secretary of State and immigration enforcement lawyer Kris Kobach. As reported on Saturday, 300 amnesty activists marched into Kobach's neighborhood and barged up his driveway and right onto his doorstep. It's how the Alinskyite "community organizers" roll.

Shouting into a bullhorn and waving their fists from his front porch, the property rights-invaders dubbed Kobach "King of Hate" for his work representing border security activists and federal customs enforcement agents who are fighting the systemic sabotage of immigration law. Thankfully, Kobach, his wife and their four young daughters were not home at the time.

But the aggrieved amnesty demanders are not done yet. And Kobach is not the only one in their crosshairs.

After tea party activist turned Kansas state representative Amanda Grosserode condemned the mob action publicly on Facebook, racist insults and threats littered her page. Roberto Medina Ramirez wrote: "I'll give her something to be disgusted about!" Doris Lynn Crouse Gent chimed in: "OMG! Maybe her drive should be next." Matt S. Bashaw echoed the call: "Maybe her house should be next." Facebook user Jude Robinson also ranted on Grosserode's page: "Since Kobach steals taxpayer money spreading hate around the country, he deserves what he gets."

Dennis Paul Romero left this message for Grosserode: "(N)azi kkk and she is proud of it." A user writing as "Paul-says Fckmarkzuck" left death threats under Romero's comment: "Gotta start killing all the Nazis. Politicans (sic), bankers, and priests. Cops, lawyers, and Judges. ASAP." The same user added: "Just another b*tch that needs to die off already."

The radicals of Occupy Kansas posted an inflammatory photo of Grosserode with the race-baiting caption: "Kansas State legislator Amanda Grosserode says she is 'disgusted' by Hispanic protesters." Grosserode wasn't disgusted by their ethnicity. She was disgusted by their actions. No matter. Race/ethnic card: activated.

Gina Long pounced: "(S)he is stupid and doesn't like brown people." So did Diana Bauer: "Ah, poor Ms Grosserode; sorry that you find our Constitution so difficult to stomach. Or is it only whites that have the right to freedom of speech." One Lupe Ramirez left his own message for Grosserode: "We are starting our fundraising and campaign to unseat you. Do you not realize how many Hispanics are in Kansas. You no longer live in Dorothy's Kansas. You cannot represent your state, you don't even know who they are."

Grosserode isn't backing down. She told me Tuesday that she will remain "vigilant" and has given local law enforcement a heads-up. The conservative mom and lawmaker notes sadly that "there are some who would say that when you are in elected office that you should expect this kind of thing. I would disagree. No one deserves threats nor threats to their home and family."

But the amnesty vigilantes have no respect for borders, let alone private front porches, in their quest for another massive federal illegal alien bailout. They have no respect for law-abiding U.S. workers. They have no respect for law-abiding foreigners applying to get into our country the right and proper way.

As they besiege Capitol Hill this month demanding more rights and payoffs, take note: These groups do not stand for the American dream. They are a nightmare conglomeration of George Soros-funded social justice operatives, transnationalists and La Raza militants who detest U.S. sovereignty. National People's Action, which spearheads progressive "direct actions" at the private homes of their political foes and led the march on Kobach's home, is a "community organizing" nonprofit based in -- you guessed it -- Chicago.

NPA's past shakedowns have involved busing in protesters and schoolchildren (using public school buses) to invade the private property of their victims and intimidate their families. They relish their brass knuckles with this anthem:

         Who's on your hit list NPA?

         Who's on your hit list for today?

         Take no prisoner, take no names.

         Kick 'em in the (a--) when they play their games.

As I first reported in 2004, NPA is funded by the Tides Foundation, the Ben and Jerry's Foundation, and the MacArthur, Ford and Rockefeller foundations. It's also funded by your tax dollars. My research found that the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Massachusetts Department of Education had all given tens of thousands of dollars in grants to NPA members for left-wing activism, identity politics and illegal alien benefits.

Rubio, Ryan and other Republicans who've made common cause with these welfare-state goons have betrayed fundamental principles of limited government and the rule of law. They've allied themselves with the mob. There's nothing, not one thing, "conservative" about mass illegal alien amnesty. It's the complete Chicago-ization of America.



Oh Say Can You See The Contradiction?


As a proud Latino Conservative (yes, we do exist), I often find myself simply mystified by the blatant and despicable contradiction and hypocrisy so inherent in the entire illegal immigration campaign waged by the Left and its pet media, including Univision and Telemundo, the two powerful Spanish networks who clearly exhibit the same liberal bias so prevalent in mainstream media.  Imagine CNN, CNBC, and ABC wearing sombreros or dancing salsa and you have Univision and Telemundo.

Whenever I have my parents over for a visit, they ask me to turn on one of these channels so they can hear the news, and I reluctantly agree knowing full well that I am about to get a cold reminder of not only the despicable bias mentioned above but, perhaps worse, a healthy dose of the ridiculous hypocrisy and selective ire so fundamental to the mainstream media's pathetic liberal propaganda. Worse still, to hear and see Latinos claim to care about Latinos and then ignoring or bashing any who do not kneel at the altar of the Democratic Party is nauseating.

No sooner had I turned on Univision when I was hit with a report on the ignorant rants against 11-year-old Sebastian De La Cruz, the precocious and quite talented singer of America's Got Talent fame who was blasted in racist tweets after singing the national anthem before Game 3 of the NBA Finals in full Mariachi gear. There is no doubt that these despicable, ignorant rants directed at an innocent, talented boy in particular and Latinos in general are idiotic and wrong. However, what I cannot for the life of me understand is the hypocritical contradiction of those who sing Cielito Lindo out of both sides of their mouths.

The Univision reporters and anchors were outraged by the racist rants assuming Sebastian was an illegal immigrant, lumping all Latinos together, and demonstrating a profound resentment, intolerance, disdain, and even hatred of immigrants through a slew of names, labels, and vulgar references.  To punctuate their point, the network recounted Sebastian's wise suggestion that we should never judge a book by its cover, that respect and tolerance are instilled at home, and that he loves this country while equally loving his cultural roots as well. It was very touching to see this child's classy response to hate, but you would have to be touched in the head to not realize the laughable contradictions of Univision's backlash.

To begin with, Mexico's vile hypocrisy in demanding  wide-scale immigration reforms, lecturing Arizona on how to treat its immigrants, while treating its own illegal immigrants like trash is well-documented and utterly embarrassing.  Not surprisingly, the Univision report did not happen to mention Mexico's terrible record of abuse toward those who enter its borders illegally, perhaps because this reality does not fit the Left's script.  This hypocrisy is so blatant that even liberals recognize it.

Secondly, the report expressed disgust that anyone would assume that a Latino child was an illegal immigrant simply because he is a Latino or dressed as a mariachi. This follows the common liberal sentiment that profiling is inherently wrong because it lumps people together and makes assumptions about them, ignoring individuals' unique traits and backgrounds in the interest of some overriding agenda. Never mind that legal immigrants joining ranks with illegal ones, often demanding that the latter not be differentiated from them in any way promotes the very discrimination and profiling that the Left claims to abhor.  If legal immigrants lock arms with illegal ones, often singing the same tune of protest, are they not themselves promoting the notion that an immigrant, legal or not, is an immigrant?  Taken as a whole, this absurd situation results in legal immigrants lumping themselves with illegal ones and then arguing that it is wrong to lump all immigrants as illegal.

To listen to Univision, the liberal mainstream media, and all liberals, there is no distinction between illegal immigrants and legal ones. This is the context and the core of all arguments against the term "illegal immigrants" and in favor of using the term "undocumented", which is like calling a burglar a temporary possessor, a forger a creative financier, or a radical terrorist murdering his fellow soldiers a case of workplace violence. This should not surprise anyone familiar with the Left's penchant by creative euphemistic spin and semantic gymnastics to perfume what is fishy in their arsenal.

Lastly, Univision and Telemundo, the other major Latino network, gleefully splash images of crying children, hysterical wives, confused grandparents, wasted laborers, and frustrated scholars all lamenting the evil forces that are preventing them from realizing their dream of a better life. For every Sebastian De La Cruz proudly singing the National Anthem, happy to combine his cultural roots with being an American, there are many other immigrants stomping and cursing on the American flag and defiantly declaring that America will soon be all theirs.  Again, not surprisingly, Univision did not provide a report showing immigrants burning or spitting on the flag, which would have perhaps been a negative backdrop to their claims that all immigrants are just peachy about integrating and eternally grateful to this country for their new lease on life. Where are the reports on illegal immigrant crime rates?

Do not get me wrong; I believe that some kind of reform is needed whereby honest, hard-working, law-abiding immigrants sincerely trying to integrate and enhance our country with their virtues can be provided with a logical, fair, and clear path to citizenship. However, unlike liberal Latinos such as journalists Jorge Ramos and Maria Hinojosa, who have the dangerous combination of being Mexican mouthpieces with a powerful influence over Latino opinion in this country, I can objectively see both sides and seek a more balanced, fair, accurate, and unbiased portrayal of the immigrant issue.

The kind of blatant bias that we saw during the last major election whereby ABC let Jorge Ramos bash the Republican Party while ignoring a powerful speech by  Latina Governor Susana Martinez is the sort of vile, one-sided propaganda that renders Univision and Telemundo nothing more than the Spanish versions of CNN, CNBC, ABC, and NPR.

It is ignorant to bash a talented, proud kid singing the National Anthem just because of his culture or background while folks like Roseanne Barr, Michael Bolton, Hillary Clinton, and Cristina Aguilera, among others, have butchered it. I will take Sebastian's version any day over Roseanne's infamous crotch-grabbing rendition.  At the same time, it is despicable to ignore the fact that many immigrant protestors have burned and spit on the flag and illegal immigrants do, contrary to liberal fiction, actually commit crimes. Likewise, it is the height of vile absurdity to protest lumping all Latinos together while, you guessed it, lumping all Latinos together.  With the increasing power and influence of the Latino vote in this  country, conservatives who want to see the inside of the White House as tenants rather than tourists had better figure out a way to counteract this insidious propaganda..... pronto.


Sunday, June 23, 2013



America at the Midnight Hour on Immigration

A Mexican USA beckons

With the Supreme Court's June 17 decision prohibiting the state of Arizona from verifying the citizenship of voters, the reality behind the government charade of preserving the integrity of the nation (one of its primary constitutional mandates) is coming unraveled. On the surface, it does appear that the high court has grounds to claim that it is merely abiding by the hierarchy of governing authority as stipulated in the Constitution. However, that assertion must completely ignore the actual conduct of the federal government, which has been to abdicate such responsibilities and thereby flagrantly facilitate vote fraud by non-citizens on an unprecedented scale.

Had the federal government been duly enforcing laws which already exist, the good people of Arizona would never have instituted Proposition 200, the 2004 ballot initiative by which their state sought to confirm the identity and citizenship of those registering to vote in their elections. Sadly for Arizonans, and for all Americans who wish to keep their country, a decision was made many years ago at the highest levels of the U.S. government to turn a blind eye to illegal border crossings, the establishment of false identities by which to freely operate within the United States, and even their seditious involvement in the governing process. At every juncture, the American people have been betrayed by the political class, amid promises that the glaring problems of illegal immigration will somehow be completely remedied by the next legislative sellout.

The latest United States Senate attempt at amnesty for illegal aliens S.744, is more of the same. From start to finish, it is saturated in fraud and treachery, the only purpose of which is to convince enough Americans to accept its passage to make it the law of the land, after which complaints and concerns about its "unexpected" repercussions will be deemed inconsequential and thereafter ignored. It does not matter that the bill seems to be gaining support from "Republicans," some of whom claim to be conservatives. The glaring inconsistencies with which it is being promoted are too stark to have gone unnoticed. Rather, they reveal the consuming arrogance of the "Ruling Class," and its contempt for the American people who live and work on Main Street.

For starters, consider the number of 11 million being bandied as the total illegal immigrant population. Senators on both sides of the aisle, and particularly within the "Gang of 8" invoke that figure with absolute authority, and in truth, too much authority. It is incessantly presented to the American people as if the Census bureau diligently went to every corner of the nation and tabulated the total population of border breaching foreigners with unassailable precision. Yet every American who has ever visited a shopping center cannot doubt that many more than one in thirty of the people they encounter are hardly lifelong Yankees.

Of course the very mention of such things is deemed "politically incorrect" and "offensive," which is merely another liberal tactic to suppress the truth. Yet in the same manner that the implementation costs of Obamacare were eventually admitted by "surprised" high level government accountants to be several times the paltry trillion dollars originally promised, once amnesty happens, the bogus "11 million" will suddenly swell to several times that number.

Of course the immediate excuse will be that no one could possibly have known for sure how many illegals were living in the legendary "shadows" about which we have lately heard so much. Yet from its onset, this discussion has clearly been riddled with malicious deceit, which is standard practice for advancing the liberal statist agenda. On the one hand, Barack Obama regularly makes reference to these elusive "shadows" in a shameless ploy to invoke sympathy for those fearful huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Meanwhile, Republican amnesty poster boy Marco Rubio just as matter of factly asserts that the current situation already amounts to amnesty, and that only its legal codification can assuage the rampant lawlessness that created it in the first place. And if such "logic" sounds deliberately convoluted and evasive, it should.

No less an insult to the intelligence of the American people is the entire discussion of securing the nation's southern border. Those who seek to legitimize, and more significantly, empower, the current influx of illegals have no more intention of ever securing the border with this iteration of amnesty than they did during the disastrous and fraudulent "Simpson-Mazzoli" amnesty bill of 1986. Touted back then as the all-time fix to the problem of approximately 3 million illegals in the country, a secured border was promised as an essential component of that measure, and likewise never happened.

Amnesty advocates are already telegraphing their underhanded intentions of abandoning border security the moment S.744 becomes law. Senator Charles Schumer (D.-NY) has decried the ostensible time needed to secure the border, rendering it infeasible for inclusion in the law. But this is just a smokescreen. In May of 1961 President John F. Kennedy committed the nation to a monumental undertaking. His goal was not to build a fence or start enforcing laws that were already on the books, but to land an American on the moon. Eight years and two months later, that dream was realized. To allege that, forty four years later, the mere construction of a barrier between the United States and Mexico is too great of a logistical and technical challenge for the United States of America is another outright lie.

Contrary to the vile and coordinated attacks from the liberal political establishment and its foot soldiers on both parties against Americans who oppose amnesty, opposition to S.744 is not rooted in irrational bias against people who, according to Obama's condescending sanctimony "aren't like them." Rather, Americans properly foresee the ramifications of a fully legally empowered invasion of foreigners with no ties to their nation's past, and no interest in its future, and what such an upheaval will mean to those currently living here.

Border enforcement is not part of the plan, nor is the reestablishment of a great nation in which all of its inhabitants can flourish and fulfill their dreams. And assimilation is nothing but a pipe dream. If amnesty passes the Congress and is signed by Barack Obama, does anyone doubt whose flag those illegals will be flying the next day in celebration? A fractured and struggling nation with a permanent underclass is beneficial to a government that thrives on the perpetually troubled and "needy" condition of its subjects. From the disastrous economic downturn of the past four years (and counting) to the vast expansion of the welfare state, to the imposition of socialized medicine, every policy of the Obama White House has been directed toward this end. The results have been undeniable, and if amnesty passes, things will only get worse. It is indefensible for any cognizant politician to claim otherwise.


Friday, June 21, 2013

Raw deal: Immigrants who paid a legal price say focus on illegals is ‘discouraging’

When Lucinda Sweazey’s family immigrated from Canada in 1999, it took seven years and an estimated $45,000 in legal, passport and visa fees for her parents and siblings to secure permanent resident status in the U.S.

“Our lawyer even mentioned to us when we were going through the process legally that it would have been easier if we came in illegally. We would have saved money, and there’s a good chance we would be citizens by now,” Ms. Sweazey said.

Now an undergraduate student at the King's College in New York City, the British Columbia native said the massive immigration overhaul working its way through the Senate could make a “mockery of legal immigration.”

If lawmakers offer a shortcut to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants, she said, “it becomes rather discouraging to someone who came legally.”

Ms. Sweazey and other legal immigrants are voicing concerns that providing amnesty for those who arrived illegally will only encourage more of the same.

“We should not reward people for breaking the rules while we maintain burdensome rules for immigration,” said Liye Zhang, a software engineer in Castro Valley, Calif., who emigrated from China when he was 10.

Mr. Zhang, a strong opponent of amnesty, noted that one of his co-workers plans to obtain a master’s degree in order to get into “a slightly shorter line” for a green card — a process that ultimately will cost more than $300,000 in tuition and loss of salary.

“Giving green cards to illegal immigrants while not giving them to these people seems very much stupid and foolish,” Mr. Zhang said.

Mr. Zhang’s father secured a job in the U.S. in 1999 as a software engineer and obtained visas for his immediate family. Although they pursued citizenship as soon as they could, it took Mr. Zhang seven years to become a citizen.

“The process was long and exhausting,” he said, recalling his visits to immigration offices in San Francisco, many of which required early morning travel and long hours in lines. “It cost a great deal of money even though I am unsure how much precisely it was.”

In 2012, roughly 1 million people obtained legal permanent resident status and 750,000 received naturalization in the U.S., according to Department of Homeland Security numbers.

That is far fewer than the estimated 11 million people living in the country illegally.

Of those 11 million, 1.4 million qualify as “Dreamers” — illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children who have been offered a temporary reprieve from deportation by the Obama administration.

Deferral applications for the Dreamers are expected to further slow approvals for the 4.4 million people worldwide waiting for green cards, according to the Center for Immigration Studies.

The backlog for those going through the process legally is expected to grow: Over the next 10 years, the immigration bill is expected to help legalize 32.5 million to 33.5 million people, including the 11 million current illegals, according to estimates by the left-wing Center for American Progress and NumbersUSA, which opposes the bill.

Looking for a solution

Supporters say the population boost will help the economy, and the path to citizenship will help solve one of the nation’s most vexing legal problems. And don’t call it amnesty, they say.

Rep. Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, points to provisions in the bill that require illegal immigrants to undergo background checks, pay taxes and a fine, and wait for a probationary period before obtaining citizenship, which can take up to 15 years.

“Earned legalization is not amnesty,” he said during an immigration forum last week sponsored by the National Association of Manufacturers. “I will debate anybody who tries to suggest that these ideas that are moving through Congress are amnesty. They’re not. Amnesty is wiping the slate clean and not paying any penalty for having done something wrong.”

But Luis Pozzollo, a naturalized citizen from Uruguay, said the immigration bill is “plain amnesty” because it provides benefits for illegals such as in-state tuition, does not help stem illegal immigration and provides no efficient border security.

“Coming illegally to a country and breaking every law you can, misusing and abusing all the benefits in America, is not the way to get citizenship or a green card,” said Mr. Pozzollo, a safety and operations supervisor at an auto plant. “Citizenship for immigrants is a privilege, not a handout.”

Mr. Pozzollo arrived in Lexington, Ky., in 2003 on a work visa and waited several years to apply for his green card and then for citizenship. He was naturalized last year.

Mr. Pozzollo is involved in several organizations that “support legal immigration and oppose illegal immigration.”

By considering amnesty for illegals, Congress will be taking away chances from qualified applicants and giving them to people, he said, who “failed to comply with American laws.”


CBO: Gang of Eight Bill Will Fail to Stop Illegal Immigration

Nearly 5 million new illegals and their children expected by 2023

The central purpose of the Schumer-Rubio bill (S.744) is to reduce future illegal immigration. In fact, Sen. Chuck Schumer has said that its passage would mean "Illegal immigration will be a thing of the past."

But the Center for Immigration Studies finds that the new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of the legislation, S744.pdf, confirms that the bill will almost completely fail in this regard. According to CBO, if S.744 passes, "the net annual flow of unauthorized residents would decrease by 25 percent." Because S.744 fails to stem a larger portion of illegal immigration, CBO projects that nearly 5 million new illegal immigrants and their children will be living in the United States 10 years after the bill passes.

Among CBO's findings:

· CBO projects 4.8 million new illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children will be living in the country by 2023 if the bill becomes law, compared to 6.4 million without it – a mere 25% reduction in future illegal immigration (page 23).

· CBO projections mean that in the first ten years after the passage of S.744, new illegal immigration will add nearly 500,000 illegal residents and their children to the U.S. population each year.

· CBO projects that by 2033 7.5 million new illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children will be in the country if the bill passes, compared to 10 million without the bill, so even in the very long term S.744 only reduces illegal immigration by 25% (page 23).

· To be clear, the 4.8 million new illegal immigrants and their children in the country by 2023 and the 6.4 million by 2033 are new arrivals, plus the children they will have once here.

· One of the reasons that illegal immigration will remain so high, according to CBO, is the bill itself will encourage illegal immigration. CBO states, "aspects of the bill would probably increase the number of unauthorized residents – in particular, people overstaying their visas issued under the new programs for temporary workers"(page 23).

· None of the costs associated with the 4.8 million illegals and their children in 2023 or the 7.5 million in 2033 are considered by CBO because they are assumed to be part of the "baseline" costs that would exist anyway. CBO only "scores" changes from the baseline. Thus, the projected slight fall off in illegal immigration (25%) is scored as a positive by CBO, no matter how large the actual costs of new illegal immigrants and their children.

Explaining CBO projections of future illegal immigration

On page 23 of its report CBO projects future levels of illegal immigration. Like much in the CBO report, the discussion of future illegal immigration is not particularly clear. However, CBO does state, "the net annual flow of unauthorized residents would decrease by about 25 percent relative to what would occur under current law, resulting in a reduction in the U.S. population (including a reduction in the number of children born in the United States) relative to that benchmark of 1.6 million in 2023 and 2.5 million in 2033." Thus, according to CBO, the total new illegal immigrant population (plus children) would have been 6.4 million by 2023, but will be 4.8 million if S.744 passes, which is 25 percent (1.6 million) smaller than it otherwise would have been. By 2033 the illegal population (plus children) will be 7.5 million which is 25% (2.5 million) smaller than the 10 million it would otherwise have been.

The costs of S.744

CBO also estimates the costs of S.744. But how those costs are calculated is not clearly explained, so they are difficult to evaluate. It is the intention of the Center for Immigration Studies to evaluate these cost estimates in future publications.

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: Contact: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185,  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

Thursday, June 20, 2013

Obamacare’s tariff on hiring American workers still plagues immigration bill

An unnamed staffer for Sen. Marco Rubio has caused the latest stir over the immigration bill by telling the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza that, “There are American workers who, for lack of a better term, can’t cut it…There shouldn’t be a presumption that every American worker is a star performer.” Rubio himself was quick to explain that the quote did not represent his own views. But in reality, the immigration bill Rubio is pushing, when combined with President Obama’s health care law, would actually do something much worse than make it easier for employers to hire immigrant workers over American citizens – it would provide a massive financial incentive to do so.

As I’ve outlined previously, under Obamacare, businesses with over 50 workers that employ American citizens without offering them qualifying health insurance could be subject to fines of up to $3,000 per worker. But because newly legalized immigrants wouldn’t be eligible for subsidies on the Obamacare exchanges until after they become citizens – at least 13 years under the Senate bill – businesses could avoid such fines by hiring the new immigrants instead.

Let’s be clear about something. In a free market, if a new immigrant worker can do a job better than an American worker for a cheaper price, there shouldn’t be a problem with a business hiring the immigrant. But when the immigration bill interacts with Obamacare’s employer mandate, it functions as a reverse tariff against hiring American citizens. It would be like subjecting Americans to a $3,000 tax on purchasing American cars, while allowing them to avoid that tax by purchasing cars from Germany, Japan, or any other country other than America. That’s not free trade. That’s government rigging the game against American citizens.

Sadly, Rubio, who is losing more and more credibility by the day among conservatives, has shown absolutely no leadership on trying to resolve this problem. When I first reported on the issue in April, Rubio spokesman Alex Conant responded that this was the sort of technical problem that could be fixed through amendments as the bill moved through the legislative process. But the issue was never addressed in the more than 200 amendments offered before the Senate Judiciary committee.  None of the listed amendments filed since the bill made it to the Senate floor last week tackle the problem either. Despite this, Rubio declared on Sunday, “I think 95, 96 percent of the bill is in perfect shape and ready to go.” I don’t even think Obama would make such an audacious statement about Obamacare to this day.

When I contacted Conant for an update on Monday, he said that Rubio’s position is that “the problem is Obamacare, and it’s an argument for repealing Obamacare.” But that’s just a nonsense position. However unlikely it is that Obamacare ever gets fully repealed, there’s zero chance it gets repealed while Obama is president. And if the immigration bill passes, immigrants would be granted legal status before January 20, 2017 (and that date assumes that a Republican president and Senate could magically zap out Obamacare in one day). So, immigration law has to be crafted assuming that Obamacare will remain the law of the land.

Even putting that aside, however, there’s another problem with Rubio’s position. If this is such a good argument for repealing Obamacare, then why isn’t he making it? Specifically, why isn’t he making the argument that because of Obamacare, it’s difficult to reform immigration without creating the unintended consequences of slapping a massive tariff on hiring American citizens? The reality is that Rubio has become so invested in immigration reform that he doesn’t want to seriously grapple with a complex issue like this that could blow the whole thing up.


Recent posts at CIS  below

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


1. Mark Krikorian Debates S.744 with David Bier

2. Mark Krikorian Debates S. 744 with Dianne Rehm

3. CIS Press Release: Mark Up Process Further Weakens Prospects for Improved Enforcement


4. 2 Weeks in a Row, Rubio Produces an Awkward Sunday Disconnect

5. Reid and Goodlatte Press Opposite Agendas

6. Glowing Portraits of Illegals vs. the Categorical Imperative

7. Sanders and Sessions: Odd Couple of Immigration Debate

8. Yahoo Lobbyists Should Read Yahoo Education on Tech Skills "Shortages"

9. U.S. Judicial Conference: Immigration Bill Would Overwhelm Federal Courts

10. Portman Takes on Gang of Eight's Flawed Version of E-Verify

11. Sen. Schumer's Reach Exceeding His Grasp

12. Two More EB-5 Projects, in Vermont and Virginia, Are in Trouble

13. Obama on Immigration, Now and Then

14. Here's a Checklist of the GOP Senators Who Voted to Advance S.744

15. False Promise: Immigration Policy in the President's First Term

16. From 2002, a Cautionary Tale for the Gang of Eight

17. Amnesty, Government Surveillance, and High-Tech Companies

18. It's Quite Indirect, but Every Bit Helps

19. The President's Reelection Immigration Policy

20. Looking at the Mavericks in the House Voting on DACA

21. Soros' Prophets of Baal

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Amendments to Immigration Bill Weaken Enforcement and Border Security

Key flaw remains: Amnesty before improvements to border

 The Schumer-Rubio bill has emerged from the committee mark up process with changes that further weaken prospects for improved immigration enforcement. The Center for Immigration Studies has outlined the most significant changes to the enforcement and security sections of the bill and concluded that while a few token amendments to improve enforcement plans were adopted, several other amendments adopted will weaken enforcement still further.

These adopted amendments threaten the effectiveness of E-Verify, increase protections for criminal aliens, complicate enforcement for the Border Patrol, and impose inappropriate oversight of enforcement.

“Instead of seeking a real compromise that would address the public safety concerns of the many federal and state law enforcement officers who have expressed opposition to this bill, the Gang of Eight and their allies on the Judiciary Committee made the bill worse by tacking on irresponsible provisions that serve only to protect lawbreakers instead of the public,” said CIS Director of Policy Studies Jessica Vaughan.

To view a complete list of changes to the bill, including discussion:

The following are some of the most significant changes to the enforcement and security sections of S.744:

Undermining E-Verify

· ICE will be prevented from punishing employers for first-time hiring violations if the error rate for E-Verify queries exceeds 0.3 percent. This is an extremely high standard, which seems designed primarily to thwart enforcement against employers. (Section 3101(a)).

· The bill creates an office in USCIS to advocate for small businesses that would have the authority to block an enforcement action or reverse penalties imposed on an employer. This is an astonishing infringement on ICE’s authority to enforce laws against illegal hiring. (Section 3107).

Protecting Criminal Aliens

· The Attorney General could decide to give illegal aliens (or groups) a taxpayer-funded defense attorney to help them fight deportation in court. (Section 3502).

· Illegal aliens fighting deportation will be entitled to see all of the documents in their file, including those obtained by ICE from other law enforcement agencies, which may be law enforcement-sensitive or even classified. If ICE refuses to release any documents, if they are sensitive or classified, for example, then the alien cannot be removed. This provision is most likely to be exploited by aliens who are criminal and national security threats. (Section 3502).

· The bill reverses ICE’s timid efforts to cut back payments to sanctuary jurisdictions under the SCAAP program. (Section 1110).

Interfering with Border Enforcement

· Border Patrol and ICE agents must determine if the illegal aliens they apprehend are parents or caregivers, and then determine how that parent or caregiver’s removal would impact the child’s welfare, or the alien’s own personal safety. It implies that parents and caregivers (or those who claim to be) will have a chance to contest or delay their removal on those grounds, or on the grounds that the area they just chose to travel through in order to cross illegally is not safe enough for them to return to. (Section 1115).

· It forbids the Border Patrol from removing people to Mexico at night without the approval of the Mexican government. (Section 1121).

Inappropriate Oversight

· It expands the mandate of the newly-created DHS Ombudsman’s office, which is likely to be staffed and led by political appointees, to include inspections of detention facilities and to review policies and programs of CBP, ICE, and USCIS. These are activities more appropriate for the existing and relatively independent Office of the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility. (Section 1114).

View the Senate bill, and CIS analysis, testimony, and commentary on the bill, at:

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: Contact: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185,  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

Australian conservatives to deport refugees convicted of crimes

Refugees could be sent back to their countries or imprisoned indefinitely for committing most crimes in Australia under a Coalition government.

This comes despite warnings by legal experts that the changes would be illegal under international law.

The federal Coalition announced on Sunday that, if it was elected, foreigners convicted of crimes punishable by more than one year in jail would have their visas cancelled automatically, even if they were sentenced to less than a year's imprisonment.

Such people - including refugees, asylum seekers and visitors - would lose their right to appeal except in "special circumstances". They would be detained until they could be deported and would not be allowed to return to Australia for 20 years, double the present period.

This follows Bureau of Statistics figures in March that showed asylum seekers living in the community on bridging visas were about 45 times less likely to be charged with a crime than members of the general public.

The proposed changes would significantly broaden the immigration minister's power to cancel the visa of people sentenced to more than one year in prison.

Shadow immigration minister Scott Morrison said the minister would consider the circumstances of each case, but confirmed that, under the changes, refugees could be sent back to the countries they came from.

The Refugee Convention allows signatory countries to deport refugees in limited circumstances, including those who present "compelling reasons of national security" and a "danger to the security of the country in which he is" or, having been convicted of "a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country".

Mr Morrison said that foreigners could also be held in detention indefinitely in cases where it was not possible to deport them, citing examples of people who had been detained indefinitely despite having committed serious crimes in Australia.

A senior lawyer at the Human Rights Law Centre, Daniel Webb, said it was unlawful to deport someone to a place where they were at risk of persecution.

Liberty Victoria president Jane Dixon, SC, said the changes would include most Australian crimes, and raised concerns that the Coalition was guided by "maximum sentences rather than the context of what led to the offending".


Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Swiss vote for tougher asylum laws amid spike in refugee numbers

Swiss voters have overwhelmingly backed government moves to tighten asylum restrictions, amid a spike in the number of refugees in the country.

Switzerland's number of refugees, relative to its population, has been double the European average, and asylum applications are at their highest level in a decade.

The referendum was sparked by human rights activists who had hoped the vote would reject the laws.

Instead, almost 80 per cent of voters gave a green light to the tougher laws.

People can no longer seek asylum through Swiss embassies, and military desertion is no longer a valid reason to be granted asylum.

Opponents of the tightened laws have called the measures "inhumane".

Human rights advocates shocked by scale of defeat

"The referendum is a disaster for asylum seekers and refugees and leaves no winners," the committee that had requested the vote on the changes said in a statement, hailing the "minority of the population that still has a conscience".

Manon Schick, the head of Amnesty International's Switzerland section, also lamented the "very, very high" percentage of Swiss who had voted in favour of the revision.

"We knew in advance that we would lose," she said, pointing out that the Swiss have repeatedly voted to tighten their asylum law since it went into effect in 1981.

"But that it was this bad was very disappointing."

But Celine Amandruz of the populist Swiss People's Party welcomed the strong support for the tougher law, insisting that nine out of 10 people who seek refuge in the wealthy country did so "for economic reasons".

"There is clearly a need to change this system," she said.

Deserters no longer allowed to apply for asylum

One of the most controversial revisions was the removal of military desertion as a valid reason for asylum.

That has been the key reason cited by Eritreans, who accounted for most applications to Switzerland last year and whose country imposes unlimited and under-paid military service on all able-bodied men and women.

Swiss justice minister Simonetta Sommaruga has insisted that the changes largely benefit the asylum seekers themselves, highlighting especially the efforts to speed up the application process.

The revision also removed the possibility - which had been unique in Europe - to apply for asylum from Swiss embassies.

Opponents of the laws say it means people unable to make the often dangerous journey from their country to Switzerland would remain without help.

The rejigged asylum law also clears the way for the creation of special centres for asylum seekers considered to be trouble-makers and limits the right to family reunification to spouses and children.

Spike in asylum seeker numbers

Switzerland currently counts some 48,000 people in the process of seeking asylum, including 28,631 who arrived in 2012.

The surge, attributed in part to the Arab Spring uprisings, marks the highest number since the height of the Balkans war in 1999, when nearly 48,000 people sought refuge in the country.

Switzerland counts one asylum seeker for every 332 inhabitants, trailing only Malta, Sweden and Luxembourg, and ranking far above the European average of one asylum seeker for every 625 inhabitants.

Besides the asylum law, the Swiss also voted on a series of other national, regional and local issues on Sunday.

Among them was an initiative for the people to elect their government directly instead of it being chosen by parliament. That was rejected by an overwhelming 76.3 per cent of Swiss voters.

Other votes included one in Zurich, where voters embraced a bid to impose tougher measures against hooliganism.

Only 39 per cent of the 5.2 million people eligible to vote cast their ballot, but low turnout is not uncommon in Switzerland, which hosts numerous popular votes each year.


Finally, some realism in the GOP

Seventy House Republicans are planning a politically risky showdown with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to try to force additional debate on an immigration bill they say will mean amnesty for illegal immigrants and have dire consequences for the country.

The 70 members are petitioning for a special Republican conference meeting on the bill, a “highly unusual” move to go head-to-head with the speaker, according to Reps. Michele Bachmann (Minn.), Steve King (Iowa) and Louie Gohmert (Texas), who are serving as spokespersons for the group.

Bachmann, King and Gohmert told TheBlaze the group is invoking the Hastert Rule: requiring support from a majority of the majority to bring a bill forward.

The petition is expected to go to the House leadership on Friday, but it’s possible some signatories might remove their names due to political risk, or that Boehner could head off the challenge by striking a deal. Going against leadership in such a way could have harsh political consequences for the signatories, including retaliation such as permanently getting passed over for chairmanship positions.

A Boehner spokesman did not comment on the letter.

Boehner is on a tight schedule for getting immigration reform passed in the House, predicting this week that Congress could finalize a bill for President Barack Obama’s signature by the end of the year. Any major challenge could ignite pushback from the American public that could force lawmakers to scrap the bill, as happened in the 2007 immigration effort.

The three representatives told TheBlaze that more than half of the Republicans in the House were elected after 2007, and have no concept of how strongly the public opposed the bill.

In an interview with World Net Daily this week, Bachmann predicted that if the immigration bill becomes law, “the whole political system will change.”

“This is President Obama’s number one political agenda item because he knows we will never again have a Republican president, ever, if amnesty goes into effect. We will perpetually have a progressive, liberal president, probably a Democrat, and we will probably see the House of Representatives go into Democrat hands and the Senate will stay in Democrat hands,” Bachmann said.

She also said that if it passes, the bill will create a permanent progressive class.

“That’s what’s at risk right now. It may sound melodramatic, I don’t mean it that way, but this is that big and that important,” Bachmann said.

UPDATE: House Speaker John Boehner said Thursday he doesn’t “intend” to push an immigration bill that violates Republican Party “principles.”


Monday, June 17, 2013


I have undergone two medical procedures today so will not be able to update all my blogs.

Should be back to normal tomorrow

Sunday, June 16, 2013

Asylum claims that cost  £538m: Britain's  huge annual bill to tackle 37,000 applications

The Home Office spent £538million on 37,000 asylum claims last year - nearly £1.5million a day.

Nearly 14,000 people applying to stay in the UK had already waited three years or more for their claims to be processed, while two out of three had spent at least a year on the waiting list.

The spending - about £14,400 per case - went on paperwork, legal bills, housing and cash handouts.

It does not include individual councils' spending or legal aid bills, or the cost of handling the backlog of 300,000 other migration cases, reports the Daily Express.

On average, 37,299 'work in progress' cases were open during 2012, up from 36,838 at any point during 2011.

More than 23,000 of these cases were asylum seekers who had their applications turned down and were waiting to be removed from the UK.

About 6,200 people were waiting to hear if their applications for refugee status were successful - up from 4,851 the year before.

Applications for those asking for 'further leave to remain' in the UK increased to 2,986 from 2,761 in 2011.

In March, Home Secretary Theresa May killed off the Border Agency after five years of catastrophic failure.

The agency behind a string of immigration scandals was split in two and brought under Home Office control as Mrs May condemned the agency, set up under Labour, as suffering from a 'closed, secretive and defensive culture'.

The Home Secretary said the backlog of 320,000 cases would take 24 years to clear at the current rate of work.

The agency was split into two organisations - one to deal with visas and the other to track down illegal immigrants.

Alp Mehmet, of MigrationWatch, told the Express: 'We have no problem with the numbers granted asylum but we do have a problem when they are not dealt with quickly and those who have no right to be here are not removed in a timely way.  'The longer they are here the more the bill will mount up for the poor taxpayer. These are eye-watering amounts.

'Some say there are not enough resources put into it. These figures could back the argument for putting more resources in because in the long term it could save money.'

Last week, Home Office minister told the House of Commons that the money set aside by the Government to support asylum seekers would be frozen for the next year.

MP Mark Harper said: 'Under these arrangements we provide the claimant and any family members with free fully furnished and equipped housing with no bills to pay, as well as modest rates of financial support to meet their essential day to day living needs.'

A Home Office spokesman told MailOnline: 'This government is committed to streamlining the asylum process and last year the average cost per asylum case fell by almost £1,000.

'Our changes to the system have already seen asylum cases resolved more quickly, the number of appeals fall and the cost of asylum support reduced by £200million.'


Australia's Refugee system all at sea

Dishonesty in a system run by Leftists?  How unsurprising!

THE refugee determination process in Australia is a sick and dysfunctional farce. This is the verdict of people at its coalface. Their collective judgment is that you could get a blind donkey refugee status in Australia.

It is not that the system is run by bad people, certainly not by corrupt people. But the system is so loosely designed, so completely open to manipulation by asylum-seekers, people-smugglers and community groups emotionally committed to asylum-seekers, and then interacts inappropriately with the Australian legal system, that it has become a multi-billion-dollar joke that is more or less completely worthless.

This week I have spoken to a number of serving and former Immigration Department officials, members of the Refugee Review Tribunal, the independent assessments review body and workers at various detention centres.

I have obtained a copy of a written account by a former senior Immigration Department official. It is very depressing. The official writes: "In the case of boatpeople, most are flying to Indonesia or Malaysia and there has been a growing trend to effectively prebook their voyage. They are less interested in seeking protection than in gaining work and residence rights in Australia. These are people who would largely be ineligible for normal migration but by claiming to be in fear of persecution they are usually allowed to stay in Australia, even though many will later visit their homeland once they have an Australian passport.

"I can confidently say that we are approving large numbers of people who are fabricating claims, and indeed the current refugee determination system works in favour of those who are most adept at spinning a yarn.

"That is not to say that myself, and others, did not deal with people who had been badly affected by generalised violence in countries like Afghanistan and Sri Lanka, but this is quite different from having a credible contemporary claim of persecution. It appeared to me the majority of people I was dealing with had been fed claims which were known to be the sort of statements that were being accepted for approval.

"I remember one young applicant saying to me that it is known in the detention centre that you had to say you had been kidnapped if you wanted to be approved, and it is this sort of enhancing and inventing of claims, no doubt aided by the communications facilities we provide to the detainees, which is contributing to the deluge of boat cases we are currently experiencing.

"There was a small number of claimants who were being honest and these people often told quite sad stories of poverty, owing money lenders, being involved in family disputes (or) being threatened because of a romantic involvement. Such claims were likely to be refused for being outside the (Refugee) Convention but if a vague story was presented involving threats by groups like the Taliban or the Sri Lankan military, such applications were more likely to be approved. As the Captain Emad episode showed, it is easy to hide your identity, and even your nationality, in the refugee process, so presenting a fabricated story is not a difficult undertaking.

"Unlike other visa classes there is no objective criteria ...

"There is a benefit of the doubt test in the convention which weights the decision-making process towards the applicant and various court decisions have leant towards the view that if a claim cannot be disproved then it is difficult to refuse.

"While there is some public acknowledgment that many members of ethnic communities in Australia are paying and organising (at least in part) the travel of friends and relatives on the boats, much less attention is given to those who are monitoring the decision-making process and are identifying the type of claims that are having most success.

"From interviewing many asylum claimants the overwhelming primary objective is to obtain the right to work in Australia. This is so they can send money back to their families and repay loans which have been taken for their travel. There are other factors such as the welfare and houses we provide."

This experienced immigration officer, like numerous others, refers to the new experience of middle-class Iranian asylum-seekers dissatisfied with social conditions in Iran. A former member of the Refugee Review Tribunal, who also participated in the independent review assessments of refugee claims, told me: "I was dealing with Iranians who had left Tehran a week before arriving at Christmas Island."

He, like others, spoke of an aggressive entitlement mentality among Iranians. This was backed up by a health worker at a detention centre who said he had told an Iranian there was a three-week waiting list for an appointment with an optometrist. This was no good, the Iranian said. He had money and could pay to go private.

Another worker at the camps described assaults and intimidation of staff that are never reported or acted on and for which asylum-seekers suffer no penalty.

The senior immigration officer says that if the refugee convention is interpreted the way the UN High Commissioner for Refugees wants it to be interpreted, then there is absolutely no limit to the "literally millions" of people who could claim asylum so long as they get to Australia.

The former RRT member says his work was demoralising and meaningless. He was charged with reviewing departmental decisions not to award refugee status to an individual. If he upheld the department's decision - that is, said no to an asylum claimant - he might have to write 20 to 40 pages of argument justifying his decision as it was certain to be appealed in the courts.

If he overturned the department and recommended granting refugee status, he need only write one page and no one would ever review or question the decision.

While no one told him to decide in favour of asylum claimants, there was an overwhelming pressure to clear numbers as quickly as possible.

This will get worse in the future, as processing is temporarily suspended and a huge backlog is building up.

Refugee acceptance rates after all levels of review are now 95 per cent and above. Any quasi-judicial process that achieves a result like that has to be questioned, he says.

"I would sometimes receive a completely compelling story that was impossible to refuse.

"The problem is I would receive exactly the identical story a hundred times over, with only the names changed. People on Christmas Island would tell me to my face they had copied their story from someone else."

All the cases that went to court resulted in transcripts produced by the courts. These transcripts, with key winning testimony highlighted, were widely circulated among claimants, and their advocates, at Christmas Island.

What the officials describe is a process degenerated into farce, which costs billions of dollars. Even those who are refused refugee status are not sent back. This system has nothing to do with fairly determining refugee status and nothing to do with protecting Australia's national interests. It is folly, futility and charade.