Friday, August 30, 2013

Romanian immigrant who raped a woman three months after arriving in Britain was allowed to enter the country despite conviction for similar attack in his homeland

A Romanian immigrant raped and battered a woman in a brutal sex attack just three months after arriving in Britain.

Questions are being asked as to why George-Josif Blaj, 20, was allowed into the country in December last year, despite the fact he had been jailed for rape and burglary offences in Romania.

Within three months of moving to Northampton, he subjected a woman in her 20s to a harrowing assault in her own home on February 1.

A court heard the victim found Blaj standing over her bed clutching a garden spade after he had broken in through a downstairs window at 7am.

After throttling her until she was unconscious, Blaj waited for the woman to wake up before attacking her with the spade and then raping her.

He only stopped the 'gratuitous and completely unnecessary' attack when police arrived at her home after her worried housemates dialled 999.

Blaj was arrested nearby and pleaded guilty to assault, burglary and rape - as well as asking for a burglary at a mosque in Northampton to be taken into consideration.

He was given an extended sentence of 15 years - comprising of 11 years in custody and four years on licence - at Northampton Crown Court on August 22.

Sentencing Blaj - who will be deported following his jail term - Judge Rupert Mayo said: 'She was an ordinary young woman who went to bed and woke up to a nightmare.  'This has left the victim with permanent psychological scarring.

'What makes this case more disturbing is your young age and your previous convictions for rape and burglary in Romania.

'I am told you have no memory of the events and that you consumed illegal drugs and alcohol before you entered the house.'

The court heard the victim was so traumatised she had since left the country to start a new life abroad.

It also emerged that Blaj had been previously convicted of rape in his native Romania when he was aged 16.

And speaking after the case, Michael Ellis, MP for Northampton North, blasted authorities for letting the rapist into Britain so easily.

He said: 'This is another appalling example of a person who has been permitted to enter the UK despite the fact that his presence was against the public’s interest.

'The question needs to be asked why the Romanian authorities did not inform the UK that this person should not be permitted entry.'

A Home Office spokesperson said people travelling to the UK were checked against a range of watch-lists but said the onus for flagging someone’s criminal history lay with the authorities in their home country.

They added: 'Where we receive information that foreign nationals present a genuine threat to society, we are able to take action to prevent their entry to the UK.'

In April this year, Lithuanian immigrant Gintas Burinskas, 36, was jailed for raping a woman just one month after arriving in the UK.

He raped and attacked the 32-year-old victim in Northampton on Boxing Day last year, only five months after he finished a 10-year sentence in his home country for rape.


'Insulting and inaccurate': Jamie Oliver faces fierce backlash over his claim that young British workers are 'lazier' than Europeans

Mr Oliver's view is widely shared in Australia.  Australians know the English well.  About 5% of  the Australian population is English-born and Australians have often spent some time in England.  Some English people are of course willing workers but many are not

Jamie Oliver has received a barrage of criticism after his attack on young British workers branding them lazy compared with his 'tougher' immigrant staff.

The 38-year-old celebrity chef sparked outrage yesterday after he claimed that his restaurant empire would be forced to close if he had to rely only on Britons.

Chefs, political groups and the general public lined up to defend British workers saying they are hard-working and reliable.

Migration Watch vice-chairman Alp Mehmet said it was unfair to compare immigrants desperate for a job with young Britons trying to establish a career.

'Jamie Oliver is simply wrong,' he told MailOnline. 'It wasn't that long ago that he was a young British worker.  'This generalisation is wrong and it's damaging.  'Hundreds of thousands of young British people are very hard-working and bright and desperate for a job.'

A spokesman for UKIP echoed his comments: 'To simply say that British workers aren't as good as European or foreign workers is insulting and inaccurate. There might be some workers that give British workers a bad name but it's not the vast majority.'

Fellow celebrity chef Antony Worrall Thompson insisted Brits were often better.  He told the Mirror: 'A lot of European staff are good workers, but they don't have that passion for food.

'When I find a young Brit I find them incredibly creative and enthusiastic. The country needs young people to train as there aren't enough young British chefs. We need to encourage them, rather than knock them.'

Essex-born Oliver, who worked his way up from the kitchen in his father’s Essex pub, said working an 80 to 100-hour week was 'really normal' when he started his career.  But he said young British workers nowadays don't have the same work ethic.

'The EU regulation now is 48 hours, which is half a week’s work for me. And they still whinge about it!' he said.

‘British kids particularly, I have never seen anything so wet behind the ears. I have mummies phoning up for 23-year-olds saying to me, “My son is too tired.” On a 48-hour-week! Are you having a laugh?

‘I think our European immigrant friends are much stronger, much tougher. If we didn’t have any, all of my restaurants would close tomorrow. There wouldn’t be any Brits to replace them.’

But several British chefs voiced their disagreement.

Chef Sam Carlton, who works at a brasserie in Halifax, wrote on Twitter: 'I'm a British female chef who works over 48hrs and doesn't whinge. Don't tarnish us all.'

Chef Mike Counsel said: 'So Jamie Oliver employs immigrants because British workers are soft? Is he for real? ‏The guy has forgotten his roots and should be ashamed'


Thursday, August 29, 2013

The negative value of US citizenship

Kirk Semple has a big piece today on a longstanding phenomenon: the millions of people who live in America, who are eligible to become citizens, and yet who never do so. The numbers: there are roughly 8.8 million green card holders who are eligible to naturalize; about 750,000 people naturalized in 2012. Overall, if you’re still in America and you received a green card more than 20 years ago, there’s roughly a 60% chance that you became a citizen somewhere along the way.

This being a NYT story, there’s lots of talk about national identity: the lead anecdote is about a man who worries that he would “feel a little less Italian” if he became a citizen. And there are many people who become citizens, or who don’t, on purely patriotic grounds. But there are lots of other forces at play here, many of which Semple ignores entirely, or barely touches on.

Firstly there’s the fact that in many cases becoming a US citizen is a trade-off: while you acquire certain rights in the US (foremost among them the right to vote), you also lose certain rights — and sometimes your very citizenship — in your country of origin. For instance, consider a landowner with a green card who owns land in both her native country and the US. Often, the minute she becomes a US citizen, she can no longer own land back “home”.

More generally, if your home country requires that you give up your native citizenship when you become an American, then the choice can be a very tough one.

But beyond, that there are numerous much more practical considerations at play. Semple touches on one, which is the sheer cost, both financial and psychic, of going through the naturalization process. Another is jury duty. Being a non-citizen is like having a permanent “get out of jail free” card whenever you get a jury summons; many US citizens would value such a thing very highly.

And then there’s travel. It’s much easier to travel the world on a US passport than it is on a passport from, say, Syria, or Bangladesh — but, that said, there are countries which really don’t like admitting Americans, and if you already have a passport from Canada, or the EU, then you’re going to find it just as easy to travel as you would if you had one from the US. Especially given that green card holders are eligible for line-jumping programs like Pre✓ and Global Entry.

The weirdest omission from Semple’s piece, however, is the whole issue of taxes. A green card holder can leave the US at any time, give up her green card, and thenceforth never have to pay a cent in US taxes, or even file a US tax return, ever again. Again, this is an option which would be valued extremely highly by many Americans. By becoming a US citizen you essentially give up that option, as the likes of Eduardo Saverin have learned to their cost. If there’s even a small probability that you might want to move or retire to a low-tax jurisdiction, then it makes financial sense to keep the green card but not become a citizen.

Finally, it’s worth noting a statistical symmetry: the proportion of green card holders who eventually become US citizens is pretty much the same as the proportion of US citizens who vote. Voting is the top reason to become a citizen — and it’s something which roughly 40% of American citizens don’t bother to do. The NYT comments section is full of angry people who are deeply offended at the idea that people might be living in the US and not becoming citizens at the earliest opportunity. But really, if you have the same attitude towards voting as 40% of the US population, why bother? After all, if you take the option value of remaining a green card holder into account, becoming a US citizen probably has negative value, overall.


McCain: If President Doesn't Enforce Border After Path-to-Citizenship, 'We'll Go to Court'

Is this his dumbest line yet?

Sen. John McCain said that if Congress passes the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill, which provides a path to citizenship for illegal aliens, and the president still does not enforce the border "we'll go to court" to force him to do it.
“We have the court system. That’s the way our government runs. If the executive branch does not enforce laws, then we can go to court and make sure that those laws are enforced,” McCain said Tuesday while participating in an immigration town hall.

“The fact is that if we pass this legislation, we will exercise congressional oversight number one.  And number two is, if the executive branch is not enforcing the law, then we’ll go to court and I have confidence the courts will make them enforce the law.”

McCain criticized the rationale that securing the border must be done before the nation's immigration system is reformed.  “If you use that logic, which people are saying, ‘well, don’t pass legislation because the president won’t enforce it,' then let’s not pass any laws.”

Under the Senate's immigration proposal, which would provide immediate legal status to millions of illegal immigrants, the U.S. Border Patrol would increase in size and 700 hundred additional miles of fencing would be completed.

The plan also calls for installation of a variety of high-tech surveillance systems and ground sensors to be used to monitor the U.S. border with Mexico.


Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Amnesty galore!  Obama Administration To Stop Deporting Younger Undocumented Immigrants And Grant Work Permits

The Obama administration responded to years of pressure from immigrants rights groups on Friday with an announcement that it will stop deportations and begin granting work permits for some Dream Act-eligible students.

"They pledge allegiance to our flag. They are Americans in their hearts, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper," President Barack Obama said of those young people in a press conference announcing the policy change.

Some 800,000 people are expected to come forward to receive deferred action from deportation, as first reported by the Associated Press on Friday morning. The policy change will apply to young undocumented immigrants who entered the United States as children, along the same lines as the Dream Act, a decade-old bill that passed in the House of Representatives but failed in the Senate in 2010.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told reporters that the policy change is part of a general shift by the Obama administration to focus on deporting high-priority undocumented immigrants.

"This grant of deferred action is not immunity," she said. "It is not amnesty. It is an exercise of discretion so that these young people are not in the removal system. It will help us to continue to streamline immigration enforcement and ensure that resources are not spent pursuing the removal of low-priority cases involving productive young people."

"More important, I believe this action is the right thing to do," she continued.

The policy change will effectively enable Dream Act-eligible young people, often called DREAMers, to stay in the United States without fear of deportation, and without legislation from a Congress that is unlikely to pass a bill.

Undocumented immigrants who came to the United States under the age of 16 and have lived in the country for at least five years can apply for the relief, so long as they are under the age of 30, according to a memo from DHS. They also must be either an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or armed forces, or a student who has graduated from high school or obtained a GED. Immigrants will not be eligible if they "pose a threat to national security or public safety," including having been convicted of a felony, a "significant" misdemeanor or multiple misdemeanors.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as well as Customs and Border Protection, were instructed in a memo to immediately react by reviewing individual cases and preventing eligible immigrants from being put in removal proceedings. Those already in proceedings could be granted deferred action for two years, and then may apply for renewal. They will be given work authorization on a case-by-case basis.

A senior administration official told reporters on the condition of anonymity that most eligible undocumented immigrants will be required to go to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to provide documents and pay a fee.

Still, there will be no pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants eligible for the policy change, because "Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights," according to the DHS announcement.

The administration has been under intense pressure from immigrant rights groups, some led by undocumented youth themselves, to make an executive order protecting DREAMers from deportation. Previously, though, officials had said the administration did not have the power to make an executive order blocking deportations for undocumented young people.

Asked about that change, a different senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told reporters that this is "the next step of prosecutorial discretion" along the same lines as it is already being applied, and not inconsistent with past statements.

The administration also emphasized that the policy change is no substitute for legislation on the issue. Obama called out Republicans -- some, like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), by name, and others, like Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), more vaguely -- for supporting immigration reform in the past but opposing it now. Hatch was one of the original cosponsors of the Dream Act in 2001, but voted against it in 2010. In time, Obama said he thinks Republicans will come around to support the bill as well.

"I've said time and time and time again to Congress, send me the Dream Act, put it on my desk, and I will sign it right away," Obama said. "Both parties wrote this legislation."

McCain responded in a statement, calling the action "a politically-motivated power grab that does nothing to further the debate but instead adds additional confusion and uncertainty to our broken immigration system."

The announcement comes several months before the presidential election, where Obama hopes to win a significant portion of the vote from the Latino population, which supports the Dream Act by large margins. The majority of the population at large also supports the Dream Act, as defined by the 2010 bill, although by lower margins. The announcement also comes on the heels of Obama announcing his support for same-sex marriage -- similarly after years of urging from advocacy groups.

Presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has said he would veto the Dream Act under the 2010 framework, but has expressed some openness to considering upcoming legislation on young undocumented immigrants from Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). That plan, which has yet to be introduced, would allow some undocumented immigrants who came as children to stay legally, but without any path to citizenship. A spokesman for Rubio did not respond to a request for comment on the administration announcement by the time of publication, nor did the Romney campaign.

A senior adviser for Romney told MSNBC's Chris Cilliza later Friday that the candidate will "focus intently on the economy," including in his message to Latino voters.

Rubio later said in a statement that the administration's action would hurt "broad support" for the idea that undocumented young people should be helped, but without encouraging unauthorized immigration. He said the new policy "will make [it] harder to achieve in the long run."

"Today's announcement will be welcome news for many of these kids desperate for an answer, but it is a short term answer to a long term problem," Rubio said. "And by once again ignoring the Constitution and going around Congress, this short term policy will make it harder to find a balanced and responsible long term one."

Romney aligned himself with that position later in the day, telling reporters "the action that the president took today makes it more difficult to reach that long-term solution." Romney promised to seek that solution as president, but he did not address whether he would end Obama's policy change.

Republicans in Congress have largely decried legislation on the issue as amnesty. Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) said on Fox News Friday that the policy change could be "a backdoor opportunity to allow people to vote" -- though eligible young people would not be given voting rights under the new policy -- and that it should go through the legislative process instead.

Some Republicans plan to swiftly investigate whether the administration overstepped its authority by making the policy change. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) announced in a statement that he will launch "an immediate review into the possibility that DHS will direct Border Patrol agents to conduct selective enforcement." Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) later told Mike Huckabee that he plans to sue to block implementation of the policy. Earlier, a spokeswoman for King, one of the biggest critics of the president on immigration reform, did not respond to requests for comment.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who chairs the House Judiciary committee, which focuses on immigration, said in a statement that the policy change will serve as a magnet for undocumented immigrants -- although only those already in the country would be eligible.

"President Obama's decision to grant amnesty to potentially millions of illegal immigrants is a breach of faith with the American people," Smith said. "It also blatantly ignores the rule of law that is the foundation of our democracy. This huge policy shift has horrible consequences for unemployed Americans looking for jobs and violates President Obama's oath to uphold the laws of this land."

A spokesperson for Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.), who leads the House subcommittee dealing with immigration issues, did not respond to requests for comment.

Democratic supporters of the Dream Act applauded the decision. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), one of the most vocal critics of the administration on immigration, called the announcement a "tremendous first step," while Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said he was "profoundly grateful" and that the policy change "will change [DREAMers'] lives forever." Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who introduced the Dream Act in 2001, called it a "historic humanitarian moment."

"This action will give these young immigrants their chance to come out of the shadows and be part of the only country they’ve ever called home," Durbin said in a statement.

DREAMers said on Friday they were cautiously optimistic about the news, but happy that the administration responded to their concerns.

Lizbeth Mateo, an undocumented 27-year-old who works with the National Immigrant Youth Alliance, said she has been disappointed before by seemingly positive announcements from the administration on immigration, such as when it took up stronger application of prosecutorial discretion, with the stated intent to close a number of deportation cases. Although many cases have been closed, immigrant rights groups argue that the policy has fallen short.

Another undocumented advocate for the Dream Act, Gaby Pacheco, said she, too, is waiting to see how far the policy goes in implementation.

"We feel that the work that we have been doing for the past couple of years has really come to fruition," she said. "A community has been able to organize and to speak out, and the president has responded."


The U.K.’s Honest Immigration Debate

In places like Britain, the debate’s a lot broader. Do we even want more legal immigrants?

The immigration-reform debate in Washington is often cast as a struggle between those favoring a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants on one side and those who oppose it on the other — with little debate over what else comprehensive legislation might mean.

For example, there has been surprisingly little discussion about the Gang of Eight’s proposed changes regarding legal immigration, which would result in 16 million more legal immigrants over the next ten years, almost double the number projected under current law. Never mind that only 23 percent of Americans (and just 29 percent of Democrats) favor increasing immigration levels, according to a recent Gallup survey. Or the fact that, because many of the new arrivals would be low-skilled workers, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the Gang of Eight bill would reduce average wages and increase unemployment over the next decade. Proponents bristle at or simply ignore the suggestion that passing such legislation in the middle of a fragile economic recovery, in which low-skilled workers have already suffered disproportionately, might not be the wisest move.

The United States has managed to avoid a meaningful discussion of these issues (to the delight of the Gang’s supporters, one reckons), but other countries are debating immigration reform in a far more open fashion, and in ways that some Americans might find unsettling.

In the United Kingdom, for instance, pollsters have long been asking questions that have been largely absent from the immigration debate in the U.S., such as whether or not members of the public “think that it is wrong for the U.K. to recruit from overseas while a million young people are struggling to find jobs” — three in four said yes. As far as I can tell, only NumbersUSA, a group that favors “lower immigration levels” and is often described as “nativist” by liberal groups, has sought to gauge public support for a dramatic influx of low-skilled workers, as proposed by the Gang of Eight, and whether or not this would help the economy. As it turns out, most voters opposed the idea and thought it would be harmful.

British lawmakers of every political stripe discuss immigration in relatively frank terms. Nick Clegg, leader of the left-wing Liberal Democrats, is reconsidering his party’s stance on “earned citizenship” — a phrase often used by the Gang of Eight and its supporters — amid concerns that granting citizenship to certain illegal immigrants might not be “feasible or desirable” given the current economic climate, and could undermine public trust in the immigration system.

In May, Labour leader Ed Miliband apologized on behalf of his party for its lax immigration policies in the past. “Low-skill migration has been too high and we need to bring it down,” he said.

Conservative immigration minister Mark Harper recently said that future immigrants to the U.K. “must be working, studying, or self-sufficient.” “Those who are tempted to come here and try and abuse public services should know that we are not a soft touch,” he explained.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., attempts by some conservatives in Congress to raise questions about the long-term costs of welfare use by current and future low-skilled immigrants are casually dismissed, if not scorned. Most Americans are probably unaware that the Gang of Eight bill would not consider whether an immigrant is likely to become a “public charge,” defined as any individual likely to become “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence,” in determining whether or not he or she is eligible for legal status.

Of course, the U.S. and the U.K. are different countries and will naturally take different approaches to immigration reform. But the differences in the scope of the debates are telling. In 2007, concern over the economic impact of increased low-skilled immigration (including among Democrats) helped derail President George W. Bush’s push for comprehensive immigration reform. This time around, Democrats have gone silent, and the issue is rarely discussed in public debate. Maybe public opinion has shifted on the issue, but it seems as though the Gang of Eight and its supporters would rather not find out.


Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Public Safety, National Security Priority of the SAFE Act

House Judiciary Bill Would Restore Enforcement

A new Center for Immigration Studies analysis of the SAFE Act (H.R. 2278) finds that the bill would improve public safety by getting tougher on illegal alien criminals. Crimes like the horrific murder of 19-year-old Vanessa Pham in Virginia, whose killer had escaped deportation despite prior arrests; the drunk driving crash in Virginia that killed Sister Denise Mosier, which was the illegal alien driver's third DUI offense; and the recent series of three rapes in Lake Highland, Texas, all might have been prevented with the tools and practices mandated by the SAFE Act.

"We are told that illegal immigrants are in this country to do the jobs Americans won't do, but unfortunately crime is not a job Americans won't do," says Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies at the Center. "The SAFE Act will give ICE and local law enforcement agencies the tools they need to rid our communities of criminals and others who are living here in defiance of our laws. Police and sheriffs, as well as career immigration enforcement officials, who have witnessed the recent decline in enforcement with concern, have welcomed this bill as a constructive alternative to the Schumer-Rubio bill."

To view the entire publication visit:

In contrast to the Schumer-Rubio amnesty bill (S.744), which would legalize nearly half the ICE criminal alien caseload, the House Judiciary committee has approved readable, logical legislation presently in stand-alone pieces that address the need for more enforcement first. The need is clear, in light of the federal court statistics showing that non-citizens make up more than 9 percent of all murderers, 31 percent of all drug traffickers, 49 percent of all kidnappers, 31 percent of all money launderers, 17 percent of all auto thieves, and 24 percent of all federal-level fraudsters, sentenced in 2012.

The SAFE Act will help reverse the recent steep decline in enforcement by institutionalizing cooperation between ICE and local law enforcement and closing loopholes in federal law that allow criminal aliens to enter and stay. Key findings of the analysis include:

The SAFE Act would establish federal supremacy in immigration law, but preserve the ability of state and local governments to enact and enforce ordinances within certain parameters, recognizing that the impact of illegal immigration is felt most profoundly at the local level.

To assist ICE in locating the approximately one million aliens who are arrested for state and local crimes each year, the bill encourages local law enforcement agencies to assist in enforcement. It balances a mandate for local agencies to cooperate with ICE with a requirement for ICE to respond to local requests for ICE to take custody of criminal aliens. It improves information sharing in both directions to facilitate cooperation.

The act clarifes that local jails must not release criminals who will be deported and penalizes sanctuary jurisdictions that obstruct enforcement.

The SAFE Act incorporates recommendations from career senior ICE o?cials that would make it easier to disrupt and remove terrorists, gang members, fraudsters, and other dangerous people. It also would make it harder for such individuals to receive visas, asylum, green cards, citizenship, or other bene?ts.

Unlike the Senate Gang of Eight bill (S.744), which would excuse a huge array of crimes and immigration fraud committed by illegal aliens seeking amnesty, the SAFE Act would deal ?rmly with those who have been arrested for drunk driving, sex crimes, gang crimes, espionage, identity the?, immigration fraud, repeat o?enses, and other serious violations by providing for expedited removal and limiting appeals and waivers.

The SAFE Act seeks to restore integrity to our immigration system by cracking down on those who game the system by submitting frivolous applications, who ignore deportation orders, or who fail to appear for hearings. ICE estimates that there are more than 850,000 aliens living here despite being ordered removed, and even more who have failed to show up for hearings.

View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony and commentary 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

Recent posts at CIS  below

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


1. Op-Ed: Return of the 'E' Word: An immigration-enforcement vision for the new century

2. Video: An Interview with David North: Liberal Voice Laments Mass Immigration's Inequitable Impact on the Labor Market


3. Better SAFE Than Sorry House Judiciary Bill Would Restore Enforcement, Prioritize Safety


4. Zuckerberg Shares Stage with Admitted Felon; Turns His Back on Innocent American Children

5. DHS (Albeit Slowly) and the Courts Move on Immigration Abuse Cases

6. Two Forms of Presidential Immigration Misconduct: Executive Action and Administrative Fiat

7. Enforcement Declining Despite High Rates of Alien Crime

8. A One-Time $36 Billion Treasury Raid Would Follow a Major Amnesty

9. ICE Apologetic for "Rounding Up" Immigrants

10. The GOP's Immigration Reform Dilemma: Presidential Enforcement

11. In Which I Agree with Josh Marshall

12. New Twist on Immigration Fraud - Employers Are the Victims!

13. The President's Immigration Villains: Part 2

14. Univision Reports Pressure on Obama to Take Direct Action on Immigration

15. A Trifecta of Non-Immigrant Worker Programs

16. The President's Immigration Villains: Part 1

Monday, August 26, 2013


Breitbart News’ Brandon Darby walks viewers from the Rio Grande River into a U.S. neighborhood, revealing just how unsecured the U.S./Mexico border really is. Darby walks viewers through the unfinished “Border Fence,” which had no gate or security of any kind. The location was west of Penitas, Texas.

Darby, who is on assignment along the U.S./Mexico border investigating cartels and public corruption, stated by telephone:
"The southeastern stretch of the Rio Grande river is where most of Texas' illegal immigration occurs. The area has many desolate regions and there simply aren't enough resources being applied to the issue.

"Cartels and street gangs control the human smuggling. The region where I took the video is currently heavily disputed between the Mexican Gulf cartel and the Los Zetas cartel, which is actually an armed insurgency," said Darby.

"Transnational crime syndicates usually have a stash house just on the other side of the wall. People cross the river and go to these houses. Then they are taken up various highways and let out just before the known immigration check points. They walk miles and miles from that point to the next stash house."

Darby was referencing a 2012 report from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime in his assertions about human smuggling.

"Breitbart News has just begun to open the taps on the human stories and issues of public corruption occurring on our southern border. We will continue to surprise our readers and the American public with the information we are uncovering," said Darby.



The Remembrance Project, a national organization that dedicates itself to bringing awareness to victims of violence and crime perpetrated by illegal aliens, is calling on key U.S. Senators to dump the 1,200-page “Gang of Eight” immigration bill this week and start over.

The Remembrance Project’s director Maria Espinoza made the call in letters to Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Jon Tester (D-MT), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Bob Casey (D-PA), Max Baucus (D-MT), Rob Portman (R-OH), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Johnny Isakson (R-GA) and Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) on Tuesday evening.

“I am writing to you today on behalf of all these suffering families to plead with you to vote against final passage of the immigration bill now before the U.S. Senate,” Espinoza wrote to each of the senators. “The most forgotten part of the immigration debate are the victims of illegal alien violence and the lives that will be lost in the future if we don’t learn from the mistakes of the past."

"Sadly, the current senate immigration proposal guarantees more—not less—future victims of illegal alien violence. The Senate proposal provides immediate amnesty to illegal aliens with multiple criminal convictions including child abusers, domestic abusers, sex offenders, drunk drivers, and many violent criminals. It also explicitly provides amnesty to gang members who are responsible for countless deaths in our country each year. These provisions are a slap in the face to the families and memories of victims of illegal alien violence.”

Espinoza argues that citizens in each of those aforementioned senators’ states could find themselves in harm’s way if this bill ever became law. “The citizens in your state, and in every state, would be needlessly and directly endangered by this legislation,” Espinoza wrote.

Espinoza points to how Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) National Council president Chris Crane has noted that this bill would make it worse for interior immigration enforcement, and how that would put people in each of those senator’s states at risk.

“The authors of this legislation worked hand-in-hand with rich businessmen and amnesty advocates while never once considering the rights of the victims of illegal alien violence,” Espinoza wrote. “For instance, the legislation includes a provision that would create an “enforcement holiday” for 2.5 years on interior immigration enforcement during the application period. Obviously, criminal offenders will take advantage of this provision to evade deportation and commit further violent crimes against our families.”

Espinoza went on to say that Congress should “shred this bill and go back to the drawing board with American families as their priority.”

Espinoza spoke out against the bill for its lack of enforcement mechanisms last week at a Tea Party press conference on Capitol Hill. “One American life stolen by an illegal alien is one life too many,” Espinoza said at that press conference.


Sunday, August 25, 2013

Violent Bosnian with string of convictions can't be deported from Britain because it would violate his human rights

A foreign criminal jailed for a series of violent attacks cannot be deported because it would violate his human rights, it has been ruled.

Sanel Sahbaz, a Bosnian who now lives in Hertford, came to Britain as a child in 1993. Since 2005 he has committed a string of offences including common assault, handling stolen goods, theft, public order offences and assaulting police.

In one incident he attacked his landlord, pushing him to the floor, repeatedly kicking him and stamping on his head until the man fell unconscious.

Sahbaz, 30, qualified for automatic deportation after he was jailed for four years, and the Home Office told him he would be sent home.

But he has now been told he can stay indefinitely after he brought a legal challenge under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to  private and family life.

His lawyers argued that if he was sent back to Bosnia it would separate him from his parents, brother and cousin, who are also in Britain, which would breach his rights.

Last night critics said that the ruling by a judge in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber reinforced the need for urgent reform of immigration laws.


Vital migrant I.D checks scrapped: Stowaways no longer fingerprinted at Calais which means they can keep trying to sneak back into Britain to claim asylum

The UK has abandoned identity checks on illegal immigrants trying to sneak into the country from Calais.  In a huge security downgrade,  Border Force officials no longer  photograph or fingerprint immigrants found stowing away in lorries at the Channel ferry port.

Instead, they are handed to French police, who free them, enabling them to try again and again until they succeed.

The scrapping of fingerprinting means that if the migrants reach Britain and apply for asylum under a false identity, claiming to be refugees, immigration officers have no way of identifying them as having previously tried to enter Britain illegally. As a result, they cannot expose their new identity as fake.

Economic migrants, criminals and terrorists can now slip much more easily through the net. This contrasts with the increasingly strict checks on holiday-makers, who have to hand over their passport which contains biometric information to confirm their identities.

Tory MP Peter Bone last night called for the ‘extraordinary’ and ‘disturbing’ loophole to be closed. The scandal, which makes a mockery of Government promises of tougher immigration controls, has been going on for more than three years. It came to light during an official inspection, which published its report two weeks ago.

The security gap also means migrants’ details cannot be checked against prints and photos taken in the EU country where they first enter Europe – often Italy, Greece or Malta. Under the rules, migrants are meant to live in the EU country where they arrived while their asylum claim is processed there.

But many immediately head straight for Britain because the benefits system is more generous. Once in the UK, they can avoid being sent back to the original country of entry by lying about their identity.  Terrorists and foreign criminals can create horror stories about their past lives and pretend to be refugees.

Economic migrants seeking a ‘better life’ are also able to fabricate tales of needing urgent asylum, claiming they come from war-torn countries. This creates havoc in the UK’s overburdened asylum system as officials try to sort out who is a genuine refugee.

The Border Force claims it catches 8,000 would-be illegal migrants in lorries in northern France each year.

But this official tally is now in doubt because a migrant whose identity goes unchecked in Calais can make multiple attempts as a stowaway to get to Britain while being counted again and again as a new ‘catch’.

John Vine, independent chief inspector of Borders and Immigration, who wrote the report, said: ‘It seems odd that ordinary travellers are subject to 100 per cent checks when those travelling illegally are not subject to this regime. People attempting to enter the UK concealed in freight vehicles, who are discovered by Border Force, are no longer fingerprinted at Calais.’

British border officials stopped processing ‘clandestines discovered in freight vehicles’ at the port in January 2010. They blamed the lack of available ‘detention’ facilities.

However, the chief inspector has called for the Home Office to ‘reconsider’ identity checks to protect UK borders.

Mr Bone said last night: ‘It is very disturbing that the Border Agency is not doing the basics when it catches illegal immigrants. By definition illegal immigration is a crime and it is very hard to see why it should be treated any differently from any other crime.

‘If we stopped fingerprinting burglars because we lacked detention facilities there would be uproar. Ministers will now have to explain why this offence should be treated differently. The Government needs to take urgent action to correct this extraordinary situation.’

Charlie Elphicke, Tory MP for Dover, said he had been assured that the Home Office would review the situation.  He added: ‘It is clearly important that we have the tightest possible border security. The report is clear these people should be fingerprinted and it is right that the Home Office is going to review it.’

Last night the Home Office said scrapping checks freed up the Border Force to concentrate on searching vehicles for stowaways and was decided by the last Labour government.  A spokesman added: ‘Would-be illegal immigrants found by Border Force in freight vehicles are handed to the French authorities for processing, including fingerprinting where appropriate.’

However, during a Daily Mail investigation, migrants caught on the lorries said they had not been fingerprinted or photographed by either the British or French authorities.  Syrian Rami Kazaz, 35, told the Mail: ‘The British officials hand us over to the French police who let us go.  ‘I don’t know of anyone found on a lorry who has had their fingerprints checked. This encourages us to try again.’

Fawzi Aloui, a 29-year-old Tunisian, said he was fingerprinted and photographed in Lampedusa, Italy, after fleeing there by boat from the North African coast three years ago.

‘They checked my identity thoroughly. I have tried to get through to Britain on a lorry every night for three months in Calais. Each time I am caught, the British take no details of who I am or ask which country I came from. I have not been fingerprinted by the French either.’

People-trafficking gangs smuggle at least 30 migrants every day to this country from Calais.


Friday, August 23, 2013

Finland Aids in Aliens' Self-Deportation

When Gov. Mitt Romney suggested that illegal aliens would "sell-deport," many in the media and in pro-illegal alien and amnesty groups laughed and dismissed the idea.  However, the government of Finland has moved swiftly to introduce legislation that allows Helsinki to assist immigrants -- illegal aliens, failed asylum seekers, et al. -- who wish to voluntarily return to their home nations.

Currently, such voluntary repatriations are spearheaded by non-governmental organizations such as the Interional Organization for Migration and international bodies such as the EU.  These joint efforts have seen over 1,000 people voluntarily leave Finland -- self deport, in other words -- between January 2010 and July 2013.  While these numbers are not huge, Finland, with a population of 5.4 million, sees the benefit of this program and wants to let the national government help in the process.  Newly-appointed Interior Minister Jaana Vuorio said:

    "In Finland we often think that there may be illegal immigrants and that the police could deport then. But it is also the case that there has been an increase in the number of residence permit denials. On the other hand the idea is that a voluntary return is always better since the individuals themselves are committed to returning."

The Finnish government, as well as the EU as a whole, sees voluntary repatriation as a more humane way of removing non-legal immigrants from a country. Unfortunately, many in the United States still see this method as too barbaric a method to be carried out


Congresscritters facing opposition at town-halls, and in primaries!


More than half way through the Congressional recess, good news continues to emerge indicating that Senate-style comprehensive amnesty legislation won't gain any traction in the House of Representatives. As you may recall, key House Republican leaders already announced the anti-American worker Senate bill is unconstitutional so it is unlikely to get a House vote.

House Judiciary Chair Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) made some strong statements during TownHall events in his district and on radio this week against a comprehensive amnesty bill and amnesty in general. The Washington Post lamented Chairman Goodlatte's comments may indicate there is no future for amnesty in the House (see below). Perhaps Chairman Goodlatte is feeling some of the same heat his colleagues across the country have been feeling at TownHalls this month.

As Melanie reports in her blog, NumbersUSA activists have attended more than 200 TownHall and other events during the August recess to express their opposition to amnesty and immigration increases. These are constituents seeing their own Congressman and not a case of busing people in from the outside or staging political theatre as the other side has done so often.

If constituent pressure during the Congressional recess isn't enough evidence that support for the Senate amnesty bill is a political miscalculation, Members of Congress may be cautioned by the recently announced primary challengers to two of the Senate's most ardent amnesty supporters.

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, a member of the Gang of Eight and chief spokesperson for the Senate amnesty, now faces three primary challenges and likely a fourth. As well, a primary challenger to Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander was announced last week. Citing Sen. Alexander's support for the Senate amnesty, his primary challenger is making the case that Sen. Alexander is out of touch with the desires of most Tennesseans.

Advocates for the Senate immigration bill have a tough sell and their job isn't getting any easier. Trying to convince a public whose chief concern is jobs to support a bill that would increase permanent work permits for new immigrant workers from 10 million over the next decade to 20 million is a tough job and you're not making it any easier! There's no recess for hardworking citizen-activists like yourself.


Thursday, August 22, 2013

In New Interview, Liberal Voice Laments Mass Immigration's Inequitable Impact on the Labor Market

An internationally recognized authority on immigration policy and a Fellow of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), Mr. David North, argues in a new video that the United States immigration policy is "tilted against the people at the bottom of the American labor market."

The Democrats' tendency towards "third world identification, ethnic identification, and political gratification" contributes in part to poor immigration policy, leading to inequities in the labor market. "The American dream of doing better than the earlier generation is not happening now because wages have stagnated at a deplorably low rate supported by the continued flow of illegal and legal temporary immigrants," noted North, who was a political appointee in both the JFK and LBJ Administrations and has been studying labor and migration matters for 50 years.

North suggests more vigorous enforcement of immigration laws in the interior of the United States to decrease the flow of illegal immigrants into the country and to increase the flow out. "Until the illegal population is down to a reasonable number, I do not think 11 million is a reasonable number.we should not be doing anything else."

View Mr. North's interview at:

View the CIS interview series at:

Among the points made by Mr. North:

1. High Skilled Immigration's Effect on Labor Market

Silicon Valley is replicating the agri-business scenario. Employers are bringing in a large number of docile foreign workers to do what employers want done at a depressed wage, distorting the labor market for the worse and discouraging American workers.

2. The Effects of Continued Mass Immigration

The combination of bringing in a large number of temporary foreign workers and illegal immigrants with little education and not enforcing immigration laws increases the labor force on the bottom end of the scale, causing decreased wages and deteriorating working conditions.

3. Employers and worksite enforcement

Employers exert political pressure to avoid worksite enforcement and keep immigration policy tilted in favor of employers and against the rest of us. If illegal immigrants are discouraged to work, wages would increase and working conditions might have to be improved.

4. The 1986 IRCA and Current Reform Efforts

The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act legalized nearly three million illegal immigrants and promised enforcement of laws to prevent the future flow of illegal immigrants. Given the failure of the enforcement component, more vigorous enforcement of our laws in the interior of the United States is needed to encourage people here illegally to leave before any large scale legalization is considered.

5. The Winners and Losers of Immigration Policy

Our immigration policy is tilted towards the winners in life, the people and the corporations who have assets and power. Employers have created the idea that there is a labor shortage allowing them to bring in workers from overseas. In reality, offering better wages or better conditions would allow them to tap into the millions of unemployed.

View a new CIS series analyzing the House of Representatives bill, H.R. 2278, at:

View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony and commentary 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

The RNC Chair's Horrific Open-Borders Pandering

By Michelle Malkin

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus had a message last week for outspoken conservatives who support strict immigration enforcement policies: Shut up.

Yes, the head of the RNC is more concerned about protecting the party's Hispanic vote-pandering campaign than protecting law-abiding citizens from the devastating consequences of illegal immigration.

At the RNC's annual summer meeting in Boston, Priebus complained that openly advocating self-deportation policies during last year's election season was "horrific" and that rule-of-law rhetoric "hurts us." Yes, really.

So is it OK to discuss during off-year election cycles? Leap years? Weekends? Holidays? Can the GOP sensitivity police let us in on their approved immigration discussion calendar?

Priebus has yet to explain what exactly is "horrific" about telling foreign rule-breakers that they shouldn't wait for the government to eject them, and that the right thing for them to do would be to abide by our laws and go home on their own. This is an exceedingly and ridiculously polite policy suggestion, given how most other countries treat illegal line-jumpers, border-crossers, visa overstayers and deportation fugitives.

But Priebus treats the idea as if it were an international human rights violation.

Tellingly, the RNC chair has no response to the families of all races, classes and creeds who have raised their voices against America's perilous deportation abyss, systematic non-enforcement and coddling of illegal alien DREAMers who have wreaked violence and havoc on their lives.

The relatives of murdered Los Angeles teen Jamiel Shaw posed a question to Priebus on Twitter after the RNC chair's remarks at the GOP event last week touting minority outreach and diversity: "How many Americans Have U Talked To Whose Kids were Killed by illegals?"

Priebus has not answered.

As I first reported in 2008, 17-year-old Jamiel was gunned down by 19-year-old illegal alien Mexican gang member Pedro Espinoza. Young Espinoza was smuggled into the U.S. illegally when he was a toddler, just like all of the DREAMers the open-borders propagandists are always extolling in sweeping terms.

One day after he was released from jail for serving time for assault with a deadly weapon, this known illegal alien gang-banger was back on the streets. The feds failed to deport him. Local authorities failed to detain him.

Espinoza celebrated his freedom by shooting star student athlete Jamiel execution-style in the head for carrying a red Spider-Man backpack, which the Latino 18th Street Gang thug mistook for gang colors. Jamiel's mother, Army Sgt. Anita Shaw, had to travel home from serving in Iraq on her second tour of duty to join her family in burying her son.

Illegal alien teen killer Espinoza was sentenced to death last fall. Grieving parents Anita and Jamiel Sr. and their loved ones have valiantly kept Jamiel's memory alive by supporting efforts to repeal dangerous illegal alien sanctuary laws, spotlighting lapses in detention and deportation policy, calling attention to violent illegal alien gangs targeting blacks in L.A, and opposing reckless bipartisan amnesty proposals.

As Mr. Shaw told Breitbart's Matthew Boyle: "Just because you were brought here under no fault of your own doesn't mean you give amnesty to everybody." Amen. And instead of phony promises of enforcement later for blanket amnesty now, we need immediate reform of our bloodstained, loophole-ridden, under-funded and systemically sabotaged criminal alien detention and deportation system. Pronto.

Jamiel Shaw's family members are vigilant community organizers against illegal immigration. But their activism will never be hailed by Hollywood, The New York Times op-ed page, the White House or the RNC's elitist open-borders outreach panderers. Mr. Shaw, who testified at a House GOP panel hearing on the horrific consequences of our failed deportation policies earlier this summer, warns astutely that Republicans are "up to something" as they prepare to cut deals with open-borders Democrats in conference.

I think he's right. I also believe it's no coincidence that the RNC is now publicly marginalizing those who dare to challenge the rose-colored DREAMer propaganda of McCain-Graham-Rubio-Ryan-Mark Zuckerberg-La Raza - just as the forces of Amnesty Incorporated conspire behind closed doors.

Question: Why won't Priebus acknowledge the horrific suffering of the Shaws and countless other families who have been harmed by illegal alien nightmares? The political timing is inconveeeenient. Innocent lives be damned.


Wednesday, August 21, 2013

STEM Visas Should Be No-Brainer In Immigration Debate

Although the conversation on immigration reform tends to unfold in terms of border security, enforcement of laws, and pathways to citizenship – there is one critical aspect this debate that has failed to break through all of the other noise. Immigration reform could help the economy grow--if done the right way.

Instead of getting bogged down in negotiations about amnesty and its various forms, conservatives should drive the conversation toward STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) and H1-B visas. These visas can help bring the world’s best and brightest to America--the kind of people who will start businesses, buy homes, pay taxes, and contribute to society.

Conservatives can take a solutions-oriented lead in driving economic growth in America’s high-tech sector by pushing through Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) Skills Visa Act independent of other legislation. The bill would make more H1-B visas available to foreign graduates of U.S. universities with advanced STEM degrees who are already in America, allowing us to capitalize on the investment we have made in educating these young people. By bringing this legislation to an immediate floor vote and pressuring the Senate to do the same, House Republicans can set the narrative on the immigration debate.

At a briefing on immigration reform at Microsoft’s offices in Washington, DC, this week, some of the brightest minds in the conservative movement discussed the tricky intersection between technology, immigration, economic growth, and electoral politics.

Doug Holtz-Eakin, president of the conservative think tank American Action Forum, presented on the potential economic benefits of immigration reform. With birth rates in America slipping toward the low levels of continental Europe, we are increasingly reliant on immigrants to keep our population--and accordingly, our labor force, GDP, and economy--from declining.

Holtz-Eakin cautioned, however, that immigration reform must be designed to attract more skilled immigrants looking for work. Among the industrialized nations, the U.S. grants comparatively few visas for economic reasons and by far the most visas for family reunification reasons. For immigration reform to work, he argued, America should follow nations like the U.K. in prioritizing work visas for immigrants with specialized knowledge.

Nowhere is this specialized knowledge more needed than in the STEM fields, where despite the Obama economy’s high unemployment, there are more jobs available than qualified applicants.

According to BLS statistics, the economy creates 3 jobs requiring a B.S. in computer science for every one college student graduating with a B.S. in computer science. These fields represent an opportunity for the brightest tech minds of the world to help jumpstart our economy here in America.

Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst at the CATO Institute, remarked that the system that many of our ancestors used to enter the country in the early 20th century no longer exists. Finding a modern-day answer to Ellis Island could help streamline legal immigration and fix our broken system.

Immigration reform also represents a ticking time bomb for the Republican Party. Whit Ayres, director of Resurgent Republic, showed charts detailing the decreasing percentage of whites in the electorate, and the Hispanic community’s increasing preference for Democrats. With non-Hispanic whites expected to become a minority of the population by 2040 and the Hispanic population’s continued growth, Republicans simply must make inroads with nonwhite immigrants to remain a national party.

On this point, it was encouraging to hear Dr. Barret Duke of The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention talk about his efforts to engage his membership in the immigration debate, and discuss the importance of the evangelical community’s support to the success of broad immigration reform.

STEM visas may not be a “magic bullet” to drive minority voters to the GOP, but they represent a facet of immigration reform that conservatives can embrace. The panelists at this event explained the multitude of reasons why these visas are good, conservative policy, and by promoting a plan to reform immigration based around STEM, Republicans can show the nonwhite community that they are serious about reaching out and welcoming them into the party.


Australian conservative leader takes a tough line on illegal immigrants

Says they will NEVER be granted citizenship

The Coalition has ramped up its hardline stance on refugees, announcing on Friday that almost 32,000 asylum seekers who have already arrived in Australia by boat will never get permanent settlement as well as stripping them of the right to appeal to the courts.

The Coalition would also introduce indefinite work-for-the-dole obligations for those found to be refugees.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott channelled former prime minister John Howard from 2001 when announcing the change to the policy in Melbourne.  "The essential point is, this is our country and we determine who comes here," Mr Abbott said. 

In 2001, Mr Howard, in the wake of the Tampa stand-off, made a speech at the Coalition's election campaign launch and declared: "We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come."

The crackdown on asylum seekers already in Australia has outraged the Greens and refugee advocates, with Greens immigration spokeswoman Sarah Hanson-Young likening it to an "arms race on who can be the cruelest".

As part of the toughened policy, a Coalition government will scrap the right of asylum seekers to appeal to the courts, which in the March quarter brought the number of asylum seekers who were granted refugee status from 65.3 per cent to more than 90 per cent.

Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said the Coalition would return to a "non-statutory" process, in which a single caseworker would decide the fate of asylum seekers.

According to Department of Immigration figures compiled last Friday, 31,986 asylum seekers are either in the community on bridging visas, in community detention, in mainland detention centres or on Manus Island and Nauru.

Mr Morrison and Mr Abbott said on Friday that a Coalition government would deny them the right to ever settle in Australia, creating a crucial point of difference between the two parties, now united on stopping the boats.

"The key points of difference are that Labor would give them permanent visas, but we'll give them temporary visas," Mr Morrison said.

He also flagged tough new rules for assessing the refugee claims of those who arrive by boat without documentation, despite it not being illegal to claim asylum in Australia without papers.

Evoking Howard

The Coalition Leader said he wanted to get back to the "effectiveness" of border protection that operated during the Howard years.

During the last five years of the Howard government, there were on average, three boats a year, he said.

"I will regard myself as having succeeded very well if we can get back to a situation of having three boats a year," he said, adding that the "ideal" would be zero boats.

Mr Abbott said that he was "confident" that the Coalition would reach the three-boats-per-year level by the time it was "well into" a first term of government.

Mr Abbott praised Mr Morrison, saying he had showed "tremendous strength" and "a touch of compassion" in the shadow immigration portfolio.

Mr Morrison said he wanted to end the "tick and flick" approach of Labor, "which is seeing nine out of 10 peopl


Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Immigration or Invasion?

What we insist on calling “immigration” from the Third World to Western European countries like Britain is a historically new phenomenon, for which a case can be made that other, more appropriate terms should be used — like “colonization” and “invasion.”

The definition of “colony,” from which the word “colonization” is derived, is: a) a body of people living in a new territory but maintaining ties with their homeland or b) a number of people coming from the same country, sharing the same ethnic origin or speaking the same language, who reside in a foreign country or city, or a particular section of it.

Either could apply to the people coming to live in Europe from Asia and Africa.

In reference to colonization, dictionaries add “relating to the developing world,” but this is only because colonization primarily occurred there in the past. Word meanings have to change to adapt to the new historic realities.

Similarly, the expressions “native” and “indigenous” previously referred to the original inhabitants of non-European continents, whereas now they are used to describe Germans, French, British, Swedes, Dutch and so on.

“Invasion” has three main meanings: a) the act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer; b) a large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease; c) an intrusion or encroachment, an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.

The latter is a perfectly apt description of what is happening in Western Europe.

Even “ethnic cleansing” could be used, since local populations are being replaced by different ethnic groups. London, for instance, is no longer a white-British-majority city, although mainstream media like the BBC and London’s own paper, the Evening Standard, barely mention it, to say nothing of the city mayor Boris Johnson.

From Wikipedia:

    "The official United Nations definition of ethnic cleansing is “rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group.”


    Terry Martin has defined ethnic cleansing as “the forcible removal of an ethnically defined population from a given territory” and as “occupying the central part of a continuum between genocide on one end and nonviolent pressured ethnic emigration on the other end.”

European native populations are being replaced because many locals, tired of being colonized, flee their countries, cities or neighborhoods.

The proportion of white British Londoners fell drastically from 60 percent in 2001 to 44.9 per cent in 2011, partly due to the arrival of so many foreign nationals and partly to a mass exodus of white Britons. David Goodhart, director of Demos, writes in The Financial Times:

    "Over the decade between the 2001 and 2011 censuses, the number of white British Londoners fell by more than 600,000 (17 per cent). That is about three times the fall over the previous census period, 1991 to 2001.

    “Most of the leading academic geographers did not expect London to become a majority minority city for another 20 or 30 years – they underestimated the extent to which white British people have opted to leave an increasingly diverse London,” says Eric Kaufmann, an academic at Birkbeck College who is leading a project on “white flight” at Demos, the think-tank I lead."

Six hundred thousand is a big city disappearing in just 10 years.

Are we sure that Londoners have abandoned their city because of this “cultural enrichment”? Looking at the areas where white flight mostly occurs provides reasonable evidence that they do: the most multi-racial districts tend to experience high levels of it.

What the large-scale influx of foreigners to Europe can no longer be called is “immigration.” Immigration is what you have when, for example, small groups of French go to live in Britain or the British in Spain.

What distinguishes invasion from immigration are three things: the volume of people involved in the movement, the span of time and frequency of these movements — the same number of people moving to live in a country over 4 years as opposed to 400 years — and the kind of people, in particular how similar or alien to the natives they are, and how easily or improbably they’ll integrate.

The sheer numbers of people who have come to live in the UK in the last few decades have negatively affected the indigenous population’s quality of life in a serious, profound way, even assuming that those people were all law-abiding, upright citizens, which they are not.

There are many areas where this is occurring, including jobs, social services, education and public health – with tuberculosis constantly rising largely due to immigration.

A classic example is the current housing shortage. The UK is suffering its worst housing crisis in modern history. Two or more household units cram into one dwelling, and young people, not being able to afford to move out, live with their parents.

It would be trivializing the issue to say that all housing problems are created by immigration, but it’s impossible to deny the obvious fact they are exacerbating it.

There are other factors contributing to the housing crisis, including the very low interest rates, which result in fewer forced sellers, and the welfare system that, by underwriting sometimes exorbitant rent bills for people who’ve never worked, indirectly encourage landlords to charge more, thus driving up both rental and purchase prices for those who do work.

But one of the main causes is the high number of immigrants increasing the demand for dwellings, while the supply remains low, therefore pushing up house buying and renting prices.

Liberal commentators say that there is no evidence for that, but the evidence is in the most self-explanatory statistics: the more people are in the country, the more properties are needed.

Most immigrants rent, rather than buy, a property in the first 5-10 years since their arrival, which inevitably increases rental prices for everyone, including the indigenous people.

Social housing is also in limited supply. Therefore, the immigrant population that takes a share of it deprives the natives. The percentages are roughly the same: 17 percent of British live in council-rented accommodations, 18 percent of foreigners do.

Leftists and charities would want the government to “build more affordable housing” and “enough homes to meet demand” rather than limit immigration, although it’s difficult to see why the government should act like a construction company in preference to a body that protects and defends the country’s borders.

Recent posts at CIS  below

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


1. A Mexican Actor's View of Hollywood's Projection of Illegal Immigration to 2154

2. That Handsome Illegal Wanting to Be a Marine - Tell It to the President!

3. RNC Head: U.S. Sovereignty "Horrific", Doesn't Have "Anything to Do with Our Party"

4. Media Misleads on True Nature of H-1Bs

5. Would U.S. Gain Financially if Illegals Joined the Tax System?

6. Mark Zuckerberg's Clever Response to Steve King

7. President Obama's Immigration Sophistry: Part 2

8. Good Reason to Say "No" to Amnesty: It Helps South-of-Border Tyrants

9. Asylum Antics

10. President Obama's Immigration "Bipartisan" Sophistry: Part 1

11. A New Immigration Policy Maker — John Sandweg, Acting Head of ICE

12. Republican Establishment Swallows the Democrat Line on Immigration Reform - Hook, Line, and Sinker

13. A SAFE Ending

14. The GOP's Immigration Leverage: The Power of Options

15. Everything Ezra Klein Knows About Immigration Is Wrong

16. Four Levels of Immorality Within the Illegal Immigration Business

Monday, August 19, 2013

Australian Left  accused of demonising migrants

TONY Abbott has called on Kevin Rudd to distance himself from a $1 million union advertising crackdown on foreign workers, accusing the Prime Minister of demonising migrants who came to Australia through proper legal avenues.

The Opposition Leader said he was appalled at the stance taken by Mr Rudd on the issue, saying that 457 visa holders contributed to Australian society by working and paying taxes.

“Mr Rudd really should disassociate himself from this particular union campaign, particularly given one of the first things that he said on coming back into the Prime Ministership was `I'm sick of all the politics of division',” Mr Abbott said.

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) will spend $1 million over the next two weeks in its advertising campaign to claim Mr Abbott wants to “massively expand” the temporary 457 visa program and put foreign workers first.

The campaign includes radio and billboard advertisements as well as television advertisements that began screening last night on free-to-air television networks in Tasmania and Queensland.

One of the ads features a worker who was among 106 redundant employees made to train 457 visa holders kept on by the employer.

Mr Abbott today said employers already had to meet requirement conditions to use foreign workers and that it was already more cost effective to source domestic workers to plug skills shortages.

“It's far more expensive to employ a 457 visa holder than it is to employ a local,” Mr Abbott said.”They aren't stealing our jobs, they are building our country.

“It appalls me, it really appalls me that the unions and Mr Rudd are running this campaign effectively to demonise the skilled migrants upon whose backs our country has been built.

“Just about every Australian is a migrant or a descendent of migrants and frankly we should be honouring and cherishing the contributions that migrants who've come to this country legally, the right way to join our team, have made.”

Mr Abbott made the comments in the western Sydney seat of Lindsay, where he released the Coalition's policy to crack down on gun imports.

Earlier, he was in the Sydney electorate of Bennelong to announce his small business policy.

Mr Rudd's first act after being returned to the prime ministership was to pass through the lower house Labor's contentious 457 visa legislation, placing more onerous requirements on employers.

The new restrictions include labour market testing provisions for employers, tougher monitoring of compliance by the Fair Work Ombudsman and strengthening the ability of the immigration department to prosecute wrongdoers.

It also includes a new dob-in hotline, allowing employees to report employers for unfairly treating foreign workers. It will also require businesses to allocate one to two per cent of payroll for training purposes for every year of the visa sponsorship.

The legislation was opposed by business and industry groups who pressed for evidence of rorts under the current regime.


Jealousy of LEGAL immigrants in West Australia

THE Irish are threatening to boycott WA over a Budget policy to impose $4000 public school fees for children of parents working here on 457 visas.

While some families look at moving interstate or overseas because they can't afford to pay up to $20,000 a year for five children, doctors warn the health system will suffer and principals fear some children simply won't go to school.

The decision to charge $4000 a child, announced in the State Budget this month, is being criticised internationally, making headlines in Dublin's The Irish Times this week.

Australian Medical Association WA president Richard Choong said he had received worrying feedback from Britain and Ireland and the fees would be a "game changer" for many overseas-trained GPs looking to move to WA on a 457 visa.

"This is one of the most negative policy decisions that I have seen for some years and one that will have a seriously negative impact on health in WA," he said. "We know from comments already made to us that this will encourage some GPs on 457 visas to leave WA for other states, or to move to another country.

"For others looking to come to WA from overseas it will mean a complete rethink of their plans. Not many will be able to carry a $4000 fee for the education of their children, especially if they have three or four children."

WA Primary Principals Association president Steve Breen said there was an incorrect assumption that 457 visa holders were highly skilled and therefore highly paid.

"For example, in Katanning there are a number of 457 workers in the abattoir  they will struggle to pay the $4000 per student to send their kids to school," he said. "There is a potential for these children to not come to school."

The latest report from the Immigration Department shows there are 6180 people from the UK working in WA on 457 visas, followed by 4070 from Ireland, 3130 from the Philippines and 1330 from the US.

Education Minister Peter Collier said he had received mixed feedback and the Government was working towards making more information available soon.

Irish Families in Perth president Eimear Beattie said families of up to five children were considering moving elsewhere.

"There is a lot of panic out there because a lot of people have got huge families," she said. "This will deter a lot of people from coming out here. A lot of people who want to come out here are now asking if it's even worth coming here on the 457 visa.

"A lot of the families already here are actually thinking of leaving the country altogether, or moving to another state, or going to private schools."

Mother-of-five Claire Calvey said her family, who moved to Paraburdoo last year after arriving on a 457 visa from Ireland, was considering a move to Canada. She is circulating a petition, which has almost 1000 signatures.

Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive James Pearson said the school fee threatened to "undermine the effectiveness of the 457 visa scheme for current visa holders and their employers".

Opposition education spokeswoman Sue Ellery said a parliamentary inquiry had recommended any school fees be means-tested. "I am concerned that this is going to create a hidden class of children who are not educated," she said.

Mr Collier said the details would be finalised "as soon as possible" but he was confident "that WA will continue to be an attractive working destination for people from overseas".
The number of children of 457 visa holders attending public schools has jumped from 290 in 2005 to 8600 this year.


Sunday, August 18, 2013

More immigration puts public tolerance at a tipping point

IMMIGRATION – Ooh! You said a rude word… Not any more. The “I- word” has broken the sound barrier constructed by the Progressive Consensus.

The British public will no longer allow itself to be silenced by the political class on the topic that is now its greatest concern.

Future historians will be baffled to comprehend how the demographic revolution – or rather imposition – of the past half century was implemented. Since the engineering of population movement has always been the most controversial activity imaginable, normally provoking war, the apparent acquiescence of the British public, long known for its sturdy outspokenness and sense of identity, in the drastic reconfiguring of society will appear inexplicable. The obvious question will be: was the population initially favourable to immigration? Hardly. When Enoch Powell made his speech warning against uncontrolled immigration in 1968, the polls recorded 74 per cent of the public in agreement with him.

So, what happened? What happened was the emergence of guided democracy under a new liberal political coalition. The cross-party consensus had tested the water by abolishing capital punishment against the wishes of the public; that emboldened it to extend the dictatorship of the consensus by imposing immigration. Edward Heath’s sacking of Powell was an iconic moment in developing this system of soft totalitarianism. Free speech was eroded, nominally by a succession of “race relations” laws, effectively by the demonisation of all contradictory opinions. The BBC, the print media, modish “opinion formers” all conspired to stifle debate on an issue of critical national importance. To query unrestricted immigration was “racialist”, later modified to “racist”; ­society was induced to police itself.

Under New Labour the onslaught was intensified. As Andrew Neather, former speech writer to Tony Blair, revealed in 2009: “It didn’t just happen: the deliberate policy of ministers… was to open up the UK to mass migration… the policy was intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.” Again, historians will marvel at the frivolity of so irresponsible an approach to such an important issue. So far from rendering “the Right’s” arguments out of date, the migratory flood New Labour encouraged has brought them to the top of the political agenda. Under New Labour “net” immigration quadrupled as three million legal, and probably one million illegal, migrants entered Britain, while one million Britons left.

The weasel term “net” immigration is a favoured device of those whose interest it is to sweep immigration statistics under the carpet. The presumption is that the departures are homebound Polish plumbers; the reality is that many are native-born Britons, further aggravating the demographic imbalance. Today, 12 per cent of the population were born outside the UK; in 2011, 25.5 per cent of births in England and Wales were to mothers born overseas and in London the figure was 56.7 per cent. The lower figures for Scotland are seen as a reproach by Scottish ministers who avow their commitment to increase immigration. Send for the sanity inspector.

For decades, politicians were banned from discussing immigration: any attempt at debate was denounced as “playing the race card”. Bogus asylum seekers were awarded benefits and houses, allowed to indulge in endless spurious legal appeals at taxpayers’ expense and, when the last legal resort was exhausted, still not deported. As EU migrants became the focus of concern, the “racist” charge could hardly be sustained when those being objected to were white-skinned, so “xenophobic” was substituted in the liberal lexicon of knee-jerk abuse.

Now it has emerged that, even before next January’s open-doors deadline, there has already been a 35 per cent increase in immigration from Romania and Bulgaria since last April. To the dismay of the liberal consensus, the public is not dancing in the streets to celebrate this increase in diversity; instead, it looks like a tipping point in public tolerance, not just of immigration but of the political class. This is partly fuelled by awareness that there are already 2,400 Eastern European immigrants enriching our culture in venues such as Wormwood Scrubs, at an annual cost of £90m.

The politicians are making noises about controlling immigration; of course they will do nothing, beyond inanities such as sending out vans with posters advising illegal immigrants to return home. We would not even be talking about it but for the advent of Ukip, the first party to break the consensus and give the public a voice. Among Ukip voters, Europe is down at fifth place in their list of concerns: immigration and homosexual marriage share first place. Such unenlightened attitudes are enough to make a BBC executive on a six-figure salary choke. There is a bad time coming for the progressive consensus.


Papua New Guinea is 100% behind asylum deal with Australia

PNG'S Prime Minister Peter O'Neill has confirmed his country's commitment to the asylum seeker deal agreed with the Rudd government.

Fairfax media reported on Saturday that Mr O'Neill had said his country had not agreed to settle all asylum seekers found to be genuine refugees after they were processed on Manus Island.

Mr O'Neill reportedly said Australia would need to take back a share of them.

"There is no agreement that all genuine refugees will be settled in PNG," he said.

The coalition and the Australian Greens seized on the report, saying it showed the deal was unravelling.

But Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said the PNG government had confirmed its "100 per cent support" again on Saturday and he could guarantee that no person sent by a a people smuggler on a boat to Australia without a visa would be settled in Australia.

In a short statement released on Saturday night, Mr O'Neill said PNG reaffirmed its 100 per cent commitment to the agreement signed with Australia.

"People who are found to be refugees, identified through the process in collaboration with United Nation High Commission for Refugees will be settled in Papua New Guinea and other participating countries in the region," he said.

"They will not be returned to Australia under the agreement. PNG remains 100 per cent committed to the Regional Resettlement Agreement with Australia."


Friday, August 16, 2013

Canada's Asylum Reform Reduces Claims by Half

Our northern neighbor shows that do-gooder aspects of immigration needn’t be masochistic self-flagellation for the receiving country. By contrast, the United States of Obama is currently doing a doormat imitation by its reaction to a new invasion gimmick of demanding asylum using just the right complaint phrase, namely that the pesticans have a “fear of persecution.” Mexicans et al are mouthing the correct words, even though their situation is one of high crime, not state oppression.

By that standard, Chicagoans could claim asylum in welcoming welfare havens like Sweden or Britain.

Canada has reasonably determined that not all nations are gulags of torture and cruelty. Claimants from genuine totalitarian states are therefore accorded more credibility than likely moochers.

Interestingly, the article below observes that a number of Mexicans have been admitted under the new rules. Some Mexes — specifically police officers, government officials and journalists who have opposed the cartels — might be allowed entry given the criteria of genuine individual danger. But that Canadian policy is entirely different than the surrender to invasion happening now in the US Southwest.

Michael Coren, of Canada’s SunTV, defended the new policy from accusations of it being mean-spirited from the usual open-borders suspects and diversity cultists.
Asylum claims down by more than half in 2013,, August 12, 2013

OTTAWA — Little more than six months after the government first unveiled a list of so-called “safe” countries considered to be unlikely producers of refugees, the number of asylum claims has dropped dramatically.

In total, Canada received half as many asylum claims in the first half of this year as it did during the same period last year — 4,558 compared to 10,375.

Between January and June of this year, Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) received just 104 claims from Hungary — once the chief producer of asylum seekers, many of them Roma, and a particular concern for the federal government which has argued many of them are illegitimate and merely abusing the system.

During the same period last year, Canada received 13 times as many claims from Hungary — 1,389 of them to be exact.

Meanwhile, 68 claims from Mexico — another mega producer of refugee claimants — were referred to the IRB during the first six months of this year. During the same period last year, Canada received 224.

“This is proof that our government’s reforms to Canada’s asylum system are working. We have seen a significant reduction in the number of claims from countries that have traditionally had high numbers of unfounded claims,” Immigration Minister Chris Alexander said in an email.

“This is good news, especially for genuine refugees whose cases are heard more quickly and benefit from Canada’s protection sooner.”

Between Dec. 15, 2012 and May 31, 2013, Canada added 37 nations to a designated country of origin list introduced as part of a massive refugee reform bill. Because Canada considers these countries to be respectful of human rights and more likely to offer state protection, claimants from these countries are treated differently. They now have their cases expedited, those who are denied refugee status have no right to appeal to the new Refugee Appeal Division and they are deported more quickly.

According to IRB figures, the 37 countries produced a total of 463 claims in the first six months of this year. For the same period last year, these countries produced 2,928 claims. The top producers of claims are now: China (374); Colombia (259); Pakistan (250); Syria (202) and Nigeria (178).

Canadian Council for Refugees executive director Janet Dench called the drop in asylum claims “shocking.”

“Focusing on how to reject people more quickly who don’t deserve protection . . . means also that you’re not giving enough time for some people who do need protection to make their case,” she said.

“Having fewer claims seems to be a goal of government when we would have thought saving more people’s lives would be something we should be happy about.”

Figures obtained by Postmedia News suggest the government is also getting close to meeting new timelines set for determining whether a claim from a designated country is valid or not. According to the IRB, it takes an average of 57 days to make such a determination. The government has vowed to get that down to 45 days.

That said, the board has exceeded expectations when it comes to non designated countries. New guidelines call for determinations to be made within 216 days. The IRB said it now takes, on average, just 86 days for a file to be processed. However, it still takes about 20 months to process older files received before the new rules took effect, according to the IRB.

The figures also don’t account for the time it takes to deport an unsuccessful claimant following a negative decision. However, the Canada Border Services Agency, which is responsible for removals, said it deported 6,345 failed refugee claimants between January and June 2013. The agency could not immediately say which countries the individuals were deported to.

Meanwhile, the IRB approved just a third of all asylum claims during the first six months of this year, a slight drop from 35 per cent during the same period last year.

Of the 1,178 Hungarian claims that were completed in the first six months of this year — a figure that includes both those who applied under the old refugee system and those who applied under the new, more rigid system — about 16 per cent were accepted, an improvement over the same period last year when just six per cent were accepted.

Of the 680 Mexican claims that were completed, 19 per cent were accepted compared to 15 per cent the previous year.

Dench said she’s disappointed to see acceptance rates continuing to drop. Up until 2010, she said, they typically stood over 40 per cent. Given all the restructuring at the IRB after the new refugee determination system was put in place, she expected new adjudicators would err on the side of caution. Instead, she argues, it appears they’ve bought in to the prevailing “negative” view of refugees as fraudsters and queue-jumpers. Between that and the government’s desire to clear cases quickly, she fears bona fide refugees are falling through the cracks as a result.

The fact that 183 Hungarians and 132 Mexicans were accepted as legitimate refugees, “tells us clearly that these are not safe countries,” she added.

“It just confirms how wrong it is for Canada to be labeling certain countries such as these as being safe.”

According to the figures, no other counties with a “safe” designation produced that many bona fide refugees this year. The next closest was Croatia with 28 accepted claims.


Australian conservatives  will henceforth deny  settlement to illegals

THE Coalition's asylum seeker policy will take away the people smuggling model of permanant residency, deputy opposition leader Julie Bishop says.

"We will provide temporary residency, so should the situation in their home country improve, then they will be sent back to their home country to help rebuild that nation," Ms Bishop said on the Nine Network on Friday.

"It takes away the people smuggling model that they are selling and that is permanent residency."

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott and his immigration spokesman Scott Morrison will announce on Friday that almost 32,000 asylum seekers already in Australia after arriving by boat will never get permanent settlement, creating a crucial point of difference between the coalition and Labor, Fairfax reported.

Ms Bishop said asylum seekers would also have work rights under the policy.

"There is a mutual obligation, if you are here on a temporary protection visa you will be expected to work," she said.