New National Survey: Americans Prefer Illegal Immigrants Head Home

73 Percent Feel Very Strongly About This View

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) today released a new report, Americans Prefer Illegal Immigrants Head Home: Results of a National Survey, based on polling conducted by Pulse Opinion Research. The poll found that of likely voters, 52 percent preferred that illegal immigrants in the United States return to their home countries versus 33 percent who preferred they be given legal status.

“Poll wording matters. Most post-election polls on immigration policy have given the public the false choice of conditional legalization or mass deportations.  This poll uses neutral wording that allows us to know the views of the American public,” comments Dr. Steven Camarota, CIS Director of Research. “With border security and the enforcement of immigration laws being a key issue with legislators, the fact that 70 percent of those polled were not confident that immigration law would be enforced if there is a legalization and 69 percent believed providing legal status to illegals would encourage more illegal immigration is a good indicator of public sentiment.”

The report can be found online at:http://cis.org/americans-prefer-illegal-immigrants-head-home-results-of-national-survey

Among the findings of this poll:

 *  Of likely voters, 52 percent responded that they preferred that illegal immigrants in the United States return to their home countries, compared to just 33 percent who would like them to be given legal status.

 *  There is an enormous gap in intensity between the two views on immigration. Of those who want illegal immigrants to head home, 73 percent indicated that they felt “very strongly” about their view, while just 35 percent of those who want illegal immigrants to get legal status said they felt very strongly about their view.

 *  One reason the public may prefer that illegals head home is a strong belief that efforts to enforce immigration laws have been inadequate — 64 percent said that enforcement of immigration laws has been “too little”, while just 10 percent said that it had been too much, and 15 percent said it was “just right”.

 *  When asked why there is a large illegal population in the country, voters overwhelming (71 percent) thought it was because we had not made a real effort to enforce our immigration laws. Only 18 percent said it was because we were not letting in enough immigrants legally.

 *  Another reason for skepticism about legalization is that most voters (69 percent) agreed with the statement that “giving legal status to illegal immigrants does not solve the problem because rewarding law breaking will only encourage more illegal immigration.” Just 26 percent disagreed.

 *  When asked if they had confidence that immigration laws would be enforced in the event of a legalization, just 27 percent expressed confidence that there would be enforcement, while 70 percent indicated that they were not confident immigration law would be enforced.

 *  Enforcement remains politically very popular. Of likely voters, 53 percent indicated that they would be more likely to support a political party that supports enforcing immigration laws versus only 32 percent who said they would be more likely to support a party that supports legalization.

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: center@cis.org. 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






Revival of Australia's "Pacific solution" beginning to bite

The Australian Left has been forced to revive the illegal immigration policies of the conservative Howard government

THE boats are being readied along Java's west coast to ferry thousands of fresh asylum seekers to Christmas Island.

But some among the potential customers are having second thoughts, prompted by Australia's toughened policies.

They are not waiting for a boat, but for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to pronounce them genuine and find them a refugee visa. In the language of Australia's politicians, they want to join the queue and enter through the front door.

The difference, they say, is "the rule" - people arriving without a visa after August 13, 2012, could be sent to Nauru or Manus Island.

"If the rule was not announced then maybe I'd have arrived two, three months ago, I would have arrived in Australia," Mohamad said. "But because of that rule we are waiting. And not just me … there are a lot of people that are waiting for a visa."

Before the rule was introduced he tried take a boat to Australia but says, "I missed it".

He says Labor's policies have been responsible for a steep drop-off in people making the trip from Afghanistan and Pakistan to Indonesia. Those with good reason to fear for their lives still come, but many don't.

"It's stopped - 50 per cent it's stopped, and people are not coming. They are not coming because of that rule."  It worked, Mohamad said, because of the stories of people going crazy when sent to Nauru.

Waiting in Indonesia, though, is tortuous. A UNHCR place is reckoned to take three years - during which time they must often beg money from their families to support them in a country where they cannot work.

They were sent originally to be providers for those families, not a burden.

"The Australian government announced, 'Don't go by boat, every year we [will] send 1000 visas'. But we've seen nothing," says an older man, Muhammad Juma, who has waited for almost two years already, much of it in a shabby detention centre.

Many, though, are still taking the illegal route.  Last weekend two boats arrived on Christmas Island, one carrying 132 people. As the monsoon season ends and the sea grows calmer, sources say, people smugglers have 50 or more boats ready to sail.

Ashya Danesh has with him his wife, Golsaman, and two sons, Ammer, 16, and Mahdi, 12. Mr Danesh is tortured by his inability to support his family.

The boys cannot go to school in Indonesia and none of them is allowed to work.  "If UNHCR helps us and gives house, money, we stay [in Indonesia]. If not, we go by boat," Mr Danesh says.

Rosia - a rarity in that she's a middle-aged woman travelling alone - is also looking for a people smuggler, but does not know how to find one. "I will go on a boat. It's difficult for me to stay here. We don't have any money. A long time we stayed here … no interview with UNHCR." Asked if she was worried about sinking, she smiles: "I don't worry. It's in God's hands."

No one Fairfax Media spoke to this week were familiar with the Opposition's policies, including the latest statements by its immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, that all boats from Sri Lanka would be intercepted by the navy in international waters and turned around. But they know enough to realise no Australian politician is their friend.

"I don't care about the election or things because when a rule is announced that will be followed by the government," Mohamad said.

SOURCE

You can't pick 'n' mix your cultures when living in the UK, immigrants told

Immigrant communities cannot adopt a ‘pick ’n’ mix approach’ to living in a liberal democracy, a Home Office minister will insist today.  Liberal Democrat Jeremy Browne will attack multicultural doctrines which have meant the state turning a blind eye to so-called ‘honour crimes’, forced marriage and female genital mutilation.

He will condemn ‘misplaced cultural sensitivities’ for a failure to tackle such issues in Britain.

Speaking at an event in the House of Lords, Mr Browne will warn that ‘thousands – perhaps hundreds of thousands’ of women and girls in this country are not enjoying the proper ‘benefits of living in our liberal society’.

He will add: ‘That is not because of some accident or oversight. It is because of a deliberate rejection of the emancipation revolution and the equal opportunities now afforded to women and girls.

‘This situation is wrong. It is unacceptable for the individual women and girls whose freedom and opportunities are stifled.

'And it is wrong for our society. There cannot be a pick’n’mix approach to living in a benign liberal country. The benefits must be universal, without exceptions or exemptions.

‘I do not believe that cultural relativism provides an excuse to opt out of our shared liberal social settlement. Everyone should enjoy the freedom to make their own choices, without the fear of social coercion.’

Mr Browne will insist that forced marriage has ‘no place’ in British society, pointing out that the victims are ‘overwhelmingly young women and girls’.

Up to 8,000 young women a year are being pushed into marriage without their consent in Britain, it is feared. Their families are mainly from Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and East Africa.

Currently, the authorities have to try to prove that other laws, such as kidnapping, false imprisonment, harassment or assault, have been broken by those responsible.

But Mr Browne will say the Coalition will create a specific criminal offence making it illegal to force a child or grandchild into a marriage against their wishes.

Ministers argue a blind eye has been turned to extremism for too long for fear of offending minorities.

Some schools have even refused to put up posters advising pupils about forced marriage for fear of causing offence or being branded racist.

Mr Browne will also express alarm about the ‘abhorrent’ practice of female genital mutilation, citing evidence that around 20,000 girls in Britain are at risk.

SOURCE




German cities plead for help from Berlin as 'social peace' is threatened by large number of Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants

Cities in Germany have warned that ‘social peace’ there is at risk due to an influx of economic migrants from Bulgaria and Romania.

Reports tell of an epidemic of illegal working, chaos in schools because so many children can’t speak German, and an alarming increase in organised crime since the migrants arrived.

Dortmund, Hanover, Berlin and Hamburg say they are struggling to absorb a six-fold increase in economic migration from the two countries since 2006.

The rise is exacerbated by the euro crisis, which has forced Bulgarians and Romanians to seek a better life in their nearest big economy.

A report by the German Association of Cities says they face ‘significant costs as a result of this poverty migration’.

They are demanding financial support from Chancellor Angela Merkel, telling her ‘the social balance and social peace is extremely endangered’.

In Germany there are more than 90,000 Bulgarians and 159,000 Romanians. They are not allowed to work legally until January 1, as in Britain. But they can stay under EU rules if they declare themselves to be ‘self-employed’.

However the report by the German cities says: ‘The Roma in particular end up in desolate conditions once they are here.’

Police claim Romanian gangs send children out each morning with instructions to steal. And in Munster new arrivals from Romania and Bulgaria last year formed a tent city alongside a canal.

SOURCE

White House Shuts I.C.E. Agents Out of Immigration Reform

Unionized Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents are speaking out against the White House immigration reform plan and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. Agents claim the White House has completely shut them out of discussions about how immigration reform will affect the safety of agents, specifically of those working along the dangerous southwest Border with Mexico.

"We went directly to the Obama administration as well as the AFL-CIO with real matters of life and death for unionized American law enforcement officers and they shunned us," explained Crane, "we're talking about 50,000 AFL-CIO affiliate members.  We asked both the AFL-CIO and President Obama for help with corruption within our respective Federal law enforcement agencies, climbing officer suicide rates, assaults against officers, and perhaps most alarming, offenses against pregnant female employees. 

Following the White House meeting, the Obama Administration cut us off. Cecilia Munoz refuses to correspond with us, and President Trumka hasn't so much as made one public comment fighting for the safety of AFL-CIO federal law enforcement officers.  He just doesn't speak on behalf of our union workers."

As usual, Trumka is standing behind Obama will full support, but doesn't have the full support of the union members he claims to represent.

Regarding President Obama's recent speech on immigration reform, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka was quoted yesterday by YAHOO NEWS! as stating "Unions did have at one point some differences on the issue, but the entire labor movement is entirely behind this now.  We'll be at the table the whole time this thing is being developed to make sure it meets the needs of workers."

Unionized ICE Agents, however, respectfully say, "No President Trumka, there are still differences within the AFL-CIO, and you don't speak for us."

Munoz, the radical former senior vice president of La Raza, is leading Obama's efforts to streamline 11 million illegal immigrants to full legal citizenship. She was put in charge of domestic policy a year ago. As a reminder, this is the kind of behavior La Raza supports, particularly when it comes to "immigration reform."

The radicals are in charge and the guys enforcing the border are being shunned. Fantastic.

SOURCE






Diplomatic row breaks out over British plan to 'warn off migrants' as Bulgarian minister claims 'they'd rather go to Germany'
 
Bulgarian and Romanian workers will go to other European countries when an immigration ban is relaxed at the beginning of next year, leading politicians from the two countries said today.

Bulgarian foreign minister Nikolay Mladenov said many of his compatriots would much rather travel to Germany, Spain and Italy, as his country has stronger business links with those countries.

He said there was a danger that fears about thousands of immigrants descending on the UK could 'dampen' relations with Bulgaria.

Romanian ambassador to the UK, Dr Ion Jinga, said many immigrants had already by-passed the restrictions by declaring themselves self-employed and finding jobs in sectors such as construction.

The two men were interviewed by Dermot Murnaghan on Sky News amid fears that when the ban preventing immigrants from the two countries working in the UK comes to an end at the beginning of next year, thousands will arrive and look for jobs.

Bulgaria and Romania joined the European Union in 2007 but under 'transitional arrangements' workers from the two countries were prevented from travelling to the UK.

Mr Mladenov said the relaxing of the restrictions would not lead to a flood of immigrants coming here.

He said: 'I do not expect the UK to be overwhelmed by a wave of our nationals coming over seeking employment for a number of reasons.

'When we look at the experience of other countries over the last seven years, this has not happened and there is no reason to believe that this would happen in the UK in the January of next year.

Bulgarian foreign minister Nikolay Mladenov said many of his compatriots would much rather travel to Germany, Spain and Italy

'We have not seen since Bulgaria's accession to the European Union mass waves of Bulgarians moving across Europe and seeking illegal rights or illegal immigration to other countries.

'We had some issues in the first days after accession but in a number of cases we acted very swiftly and they were addressed, and so there were no lasting concerns.

'The UK would not be the primary country of choice for many people to go and work. Our economy is mostly connected to the German economy.

'We have a large number of companies working in places like Spain and Italy, where we have long-standing traditions and where the labour market had opened to Bulgarians quite some time ago.

'I really don't believe that there is a need to have these fearful debates that are happening.

'On the contrary, I think people in the United Kingdom, given your history, must understand that immigration has always been beneficial to your economy, just as Britain's membership of the European Union has been beneficial to not only jobs creation but prosperity in your country.'

He added: 'Those Romanians who have wanted to come to Britain, they have already done it.  'There are some restrictions for some areas of activities but no visa requirements, so those who have wanted to come, they have done it.

'It is always a possibility to find a job, even if it is under restrictions, and that solution is to declare yourself self-employed, and many Romanians have done so.

'For instance in the construction sector, there are many Romanians here and that is why your Olympic village was built up last year.'

New data shows the proportion of people across who say English is not their main language  ranging from 0.7 per cent in Redcar and Cleveland to 41.4 per cent in Newham in London.

SOURCE

Recent posts at CIS  below

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

Media

1. Video: Steven Camarota explains the cost of amnesty on FOX News

2. Radio: Mark Krikorian discusses amnesty on the Diane Rehm Show

3. Op-ed: Mark Krikorian corrects a flawed report in the Washington Post

4. Video: Steven Camarota discusses Senate amnesty proposal on ABC News

5. Video: CIS Panel Discussion on Amnesties: Past, Present, Future

6. Radio: Steven Camarota discusses amnesty on public radio

Publication

7. Upholding the Value of Our Citizenship: National Security Threats Should Be Denaturalized

Blogs

8. Really Getting Immigration Right

9. Schumer: Border Security Not a Prerequisite for Amnesty

10. ICE Agents Have Standing to Sue DHS Over DACA

11. 40 Million Illegal Aliens in 2038?

12. Will Rubio Pull Out of the Gang of Eight Now?

13. Can Amnesty Push Survive an Increase in Illegal Entries?

14. The Fine Print: The "Must Pay Their Taxes" Provision in the Obama Amnesty

15. As Mexico Improves, Central America Struggles

16. Another Look at the Forces Behind Birth Tourism

17. When Trespassing Apparently Isn't, and When "Sovereign Citizens" Apparently Aren't

18. Awards for Commentary on Reform Proposal

19. Does McCain Really Mean that 75 Percent of Illegal Aliens Will Be Denied Legal Status?

20. What Was the Point of Obama’s Immigration Speech?

21. Aliens Who Thumb Their Noses at the United States Get Green Cards Anyway

22. Lies, Damn Lies, and Enforcement Promises

23. We've Seen This Senate Amnesty Movie Before

24. Won’t Get Fooled Again

25. Dreamy Enforcement Provisions vs. Genuine Steps Forward: A Checklist

26. Jeb's Tyranny of Immigration Cliches

27. Rubio Refining Immigration Message

28. Irish Overstayer Accused of Murdering Child

29. Categories of Misconduct at CBP

30. Establishment Republicans Support Amnesty - Is Gun Control Next?

31. Harper's Magazine Gives the Free Market a Pass on Immigration

32. Enroll'em First, Verify'em Later

33. The Multiple Negatives in Immigration Speak






Australia knows how to stop the refugee boats

Amanda Vanstone

As the September 14 election approaches, we will no doubt hear more from both major parties on the issue of border control. At least we have agreement on some aspects of this policy area. Both parties understand that there are many, many more refugees in the world than we can afford to accept. They agree that the government decides how many we can afford to take and they agree that those who come by boat, because they can afford to pay a people smuggler, should not have an advantage over poor refugees waiting in camps. Offshore processing is an essential and agreed part of achieving that aim.

If Labor really wants to stop the boats, it should toughen up and agree to reinstate temporary protection visas (by any new-fangled name they may choose to make it look a bit different) and to cut off family reunions. We will have to wait and see if that reality dawns. Labor has come kicking and screaming to adopt so much of the Howard policy agenda. This extra little bit shouldn't be too hard. It would certainly blunt the Coalition attack on the ALP in coming months.

As immigration minister in the Howard government, I am pleased that Labor has at least accepted some of our border protection policies. But I am also irritated. Why? Because Labor constantly sought to portray my party as a bunch of old racists.

The coward's way, which was frequently chosen, was to call John Howard a dog whistler. This sort of rubbish can easily be peddled through interest groups and those commentators keen to use the opportunity to define themselves as being opposed to racism. Now that Labor has similar policies to Howard's, I do not hear them whistling any dog tunes. Funny about that. Perhaps Labor sought to portray the Liberals as racists to assuage some guilt about the ALP's past, or at the very least to divert voters' attention from Labor's record.

If you know any servicemen who served in Timor during World War II, you might ask them about the extraordinary role played by the Timorese criados in helping our troops. While you're there, ask them about the anguish of knowing that we refused to open our hearts and evacuate these people who risked their lives to save Australian lives. We left them behind to face an unsafe and unhappy future.

Then there's former Labor leader Arthur Calwell. He should rightly be acknowledged as the father of our modern immigration system - although you will not hear a Labor person admitting that Robert Menzies, as the then opposition leader, played a critical role in getting it accepted and laid the first brick in Australia's bipartisan approach to immigration by urging the government to be adventurous rather than cautious.

But there was a darker side to the policy; there was a rule (which proved ineffective but demonstrated intent) that there should be 10 Britons for every non-white alien. And returned servicemen with Japanese war brides found Calwell not only unmoved by their desire to bring their wives home but bitterly opposed. He said that while "Any relatives remain of Australian soldiers dead in the Pacific battlefields", it would be "the grossest act of indecency to permit any Japanese of either sex to pollute Australian shores".

Calwell fought vigorously after the war to have Chinese, Malay and Indonesian wartime refugees deported. He had a special bill drafted to deal with one, Mrs Annie O'Keefe, an Ambonese woman with eight children who had fled to Australia with them. Her husband had died fighting the Japanese and she had remarried an Australian. Only the good offices of the departmental secretary saved her.

Then there's Calwell's infamous line about two wongs not making a white. Some argue it was taken out of context, but not that it wasn't said. Calwell was a zealous supporter of the White Australia Policy. In contrast, only a few years later, under the Liberals, Paul Hasluck, as administrator of the territories, was able to secure agreement that Chinese and mixed-race people in Papua New Guinea were able to settle in Australia and become Australian citizens.

Getting closer to the issue of border protection, one might find former Singapore leader Lee Kuan Yew's biography illuminating. He was particularly affronted by the Whitlam government's proposal that Singapore should allow some 8000 Vietnamese refugees to disembark there, whereupon Australia would choose less than 200 to accept here. Singapore could worry about the others.

Whitlam was not a racist. As former Labor minister Clyde Cameron tells the story, Whitlam's opposition was more political. Cameron and Whitlam's deputy, Lance Barnard, had organised a flight in April 1975 to bring Vietnamese orphans and babies to Australia. Cameron says Whitlam justified cancelling the flight by saying he wasn't having "Vietnamese Balts coming to Australia".

If you believe Labor, you might believe it was only because of Whitlam that the White Australia policy was undone. You might be surprised to know that the father of Australian multiculturalism, Professor Jerzy Zubrzycki, concluded that the policy "had its demise at the hands of mainly Liberal ministers and finally of the Whitlam Labor government".

The Australia prime minister Lee Kuan Yew most admired was Menzies. The postwar Menzies government was a strong supporter of the Colombo Plan, a key element in our early relations with Asia. People with long memories understand the forward and outward-looking policies Menzies implemented. Lee said Menzies understood "that sentiments and ties of kinship could not displace the realities of geopolitics and geoeconomics in the post-imperial world". That understanding from an Australian can be phrased another way: The Asian Century is around the corner. And yet Julia Gillard seems to think she discovered it!

SOURCE

Lou Barletta: Immigration Reform Risks Flood Of The Undocumented

Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Pa.) said Sunday that he cannot support providing a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants because he doesn't think President Barack Obama has any desire to enforce existing immigration laws. Barletta dismissed the record number of deportations already taking place.

"You wouldn't replace your carpet at home if you still had a hole in the roof," he said on ABC's "This Week." "We're talking about any time you start waving a carrot such as American citizenship without securing the borders, that number [of undocumented immigrants] that we have today I believe will double or triple."

Barletta has been an outspoken opponent of any immigration reform that involves citizenship. Last week, he insisted Republicans will not win over Latino voters by passing immigration reform because undocumented immigrants are, according to him, uneducated and therefore unlikely to support the GOP.

"I hope politics is not at the root of why we're rushing to pass a bill. Anyone who believes that they're going to win over the Latino vote is grossly mistaken," Barletta said, according to Lehigh Valley's Morning Call. "The majority that are here illegally are low-skilled or may not even have a high school diploma. The Republican Party is not going to compete over who can give more social programs out. They will become Democrats because of the social programs they'll depend on."

He did not make the same argument on Sunday, instead focusing on the idea that a pathway to citizenship would swell the undocumented population. "This is 1986 all over again," Barletta said, referring to a law signed by President Ronald Reagan that allowed some undocumented immigrants to become citizens but did not successfully curtail future unauthorized immigration.

Since then, deportations have also increased greatly, including under Obama. His administration deported more than 400,000 people in the 2012 fiscal year and is on track to deport many more in 2013.

However, the Obama administration also sued to block Arizona's controversial SB 1070 immigration law and has put in place policies that allow some undocumented immigrants to stay, which Barletta said Sunday discounts its deportation numbers.

"We can argue about that all day long," he said of Obama's immigration enforcement. "I don't know how anyone can argue that this administration is serious about enforcing our laws when they're suing the state of Arizona -- because the federal government has caused the problem and Arizona wants to defend itself."

A number of other Republicans have likewise accused the president of being weak on immigration enforcement as an argument against comprehensive immigration reform. A reform framework put out last week by a bipartisan "gang of eight" in the Senate attempted to address those concerns by tying green cards to stronger border security, granting undocumented immigrants only provisional status until certain border metrics are met.

But some Republicans were still skeptical. On Wednesday, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) called Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a member of the gang of eight, "amazingly naïve" to support such a framework.

"Look, I love and respect Marco," Vitter said on Laura Ingraham's radio show. "I just think he’s amazingly naïve on this issue. This is the same old formula we've dealt with before, including when it passed in 1986, and that is the promise of enforcement and immediate amnesty. And of course, the promises of enforcement never materialize. The amnesty happens immediately, the millisecond the bill is signed into law. And the same is true here."

Despite GOP opposition, Jorge Ramos, a Univision anchor and supporter of comprehensive immigration reform, said on "This Week" that he is more optimistic than ever before that reform can pass.

"I don't remember ever seeing the president and both parties rushing to beat the other to present an immigration proposal," Ramos said. "I haven't seen that. It's the most important immigration news in the last 30 years."

SOURCE





Fix immigration with enforcement first

Immigration reform is coming. Let's get it right. What counts as getting it wrong? The 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli Act, signed by President Reagan. It granted amnesty to the then 3 million illegal immigrants and promised border enforcement.

Amnesty came. Enforcement never did. Reagan was swindled.

Americans are a generous people. They don't want 11 million souls living in fear among them. They would willingly, indeed overwhelmingly, support amnesty — as long as it is the last. They don't want another Simpson-Mazzoli, another bait-and-switch that lets in another 11 million illegal immigrants — and brings us back where we began.

There is an obvious solution: enforcement first. Hence the attraction of the bipartisan Senate deal reached by the Gang of Eight, led by Democrat Chuck Schumer and Republicans John McCain and Marco Rubio. It is said to feature border enforcement first, then legalization.

Not quite.

It is true that only after some commission deems the border under control do illegal immigrants become eligible for green cards and, ultimately, citizenship. But this is misleading because on the day the president signs the reform — long before enforcement even begins — the 11 million are immediately subject to instant legalization.

It is cleverly called “probationary” legal status. But the adjective is meaningless. It grants the right to live and work here openly. Once granted, it will never be revoked. Consider:

Imagine that the border-control commission reports at some point that the border is not yet secure. Do you think for a moment that the 11 million will have their “probationary” legalization revoked? These are people who, in good faith, would have come out of the shadows, registered with the feds and disclosed their domicile and place of work. Do you think the authorities will have them fired, arrested and deported?

Inconceivable. “Probationary” in this context means, in reality, “forever.” (Unless, of course, you commit some crime.) It means they can stay and work here freely for the rest of their lives.

True, they must await the “enforcement trigger” before they can apply for green cards. But they already have the functional equivalent of a green card. They got that on Day One. That matters more than anything to those living here illegally: the right to continue living here without fear. Forever. That's the very essence of amnesty.

And all this happens before the first scintilla of extra enforcement takes place. Which brings us to the second problem. What does this extra enforcement consist of?

When I heard McCain talk about (among other measures) new high-tech border control with advanced radar and drones, my heart sank. We've been here. In 2006, Congress threw a ton of money at a high-tech fence. Five years, $1 billion and a pathetic 53 (out of 2,000) miles later, Janet Napolitano canceled the program as a complete failure.

That was predictable. And some of us predicting it were pleading for something infinitely cheaper and simpler: a prosaic, low-tech fence. Of the kind built near San Diego (triple-layered) that resulted in an astounding 92 percent drop in apprehensions. Like the Israeli fence built along the West Bank that has reduced terrorist infiltration to practically zero.

There's a reason people have been building fences for, oh, 5,000 years. They work.

The current Senate proposal must be improved, either in the Senate or by the House. It's not complicated. Build the damn fence. And give “probationary legal status” to the 11 million -- not on the day the bill is signed but on the day the fence is completed. Have the president drive in the golden fence post at Promontory Point II and sign the amnesty right there. Great photo op.

With the sequencing — and thus the incentives — so properly aligned, I assure you the fence will go up with amazing alacrity. As it should. The point is not to punish anyone or to make things harder, but to ensure we don't have to do this again — agonizing over the next 11 million cruelly living here in the shadows.

I know many Republicans are coming over to immigration reform because of the 2012 election results. Fine. I've been advocating this for seven years (“First a wall -- then amnesty,” April 7, 2006). Welcome aboard.

But remember: Enforcement followed by legalization is not just the political thing to do. It is the right thing to do — an act both of national generosity and national interest. It has long been the best answer to the immigration conundrum. It remains so.

SOURCE

Rubio’s amnesty: A path to oblivion for the GOP

Ann Coulter

Apart from finding out that Barack Obama did far worse in his re-election than nearly any other incumbent who won re-election, the only thing that perked me up after Nov. 6 was coming across a Time magazine published after the 2004 election, when George W. Bush won a second term.

In the mirror image of all the 2012 post-election analyses, the Democrats were said to be finished, out of ideas, hopelessly unpopular. It’s like watching MSNBC, with the word “Democrats” replaced with “Republicans.”

Democrats had thrown everything they had into beating Bush, crushing the Howard Dean wing of their party and running a moderate — a Vietnam veteran, no less! They had George Soros, Michael Moore and Code Pink working like fiends to topple Bush.

Still, they lost to an incumbent. As Time noted, the Democrats had “lost five of the past seven presidential elections.”

But the pendulum swings. The Democrats came roaring back in 2006 and again in 2008. There’s no reason Republicans can’t do the same, unburdened by having to run against an incumbent in 2016.

Unless Marco Rubio has his way.

The Democrats never change their ideas; they change the voters. For decades, Democrats have been working feverishly to create more Democrats by encouraging divorce (another Democratic voter!), illegitimacy (another Democratic voter!) and Third World immigration (another Democratic voter!).

Strangely, some Republicans seem determined to create more Democratic voters, too. That will be the primary result of Sen. Marco Rubio’s amnesty plan.

IT’S NOT AMNESTY! Rubio’s proponents cry. They seem to think they can bully Republicans the way the Democrats do, by controlling the language.

Rubio’s bill is nothing but amnesty. It isn’t even “amnesty thinly disguised as border enforcement.” This is a wolf in wolf’s clothing.

Despite all the blather about how Rubio demands “Enforcement First!” the very first thing his proposal does is make illegal aliens legal. (Don’t call them “illegal aliens”!)

The ability to live and work legally in America is the most valuable commodity in the world; it’s the Hope Diamond of the universe. I know young, well-educated Canadians who waited a decade for that privilege.

Step One of Marco Rubio’s plan is: Grant illegal aliens the right to live and work in America legally. (Rubio’s first move in poker: Fold.)

People who have broken our laws will thus leap ahead of millions of foreigners dying to immigrate here, but — unwilling to enter illegally — waiting patiently in their own countries.

The only thing the newly legalized illegal immigrants won’t get immediately is citizenship. Rubio claims that under his plan, they won’t be able to vote or go on welfare. But in practice, they’ll have to wait only until the ACLU finds a judge to say otherwise.

Even under Rubio’s scheme, all the children born to the 11 million newly legalized illegals will be instant citizens, able to collect welfare for their whole families and vote as soon as they are old enough.

Which won’t be long: The vast majority of illegal aliens are Hispanic, and Hispanics have a higher teen birthrate than any other ethnic group. In California, a majority of all Hispanic births are illegitimate. That’s a lot of Democratic voters coming.

And look how great that’s turned out! With Hispanics on track to become the largest ethnic group in California this year, the state that gave us Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan is incapable of electing any Republican statewide anymore. Taxes keep going up, and there’s no one left to pay the bill.

That will be our entire country if Republicans fall for Rubio’s phony “Enforcement First!” plan. Perplexingly, some Republicans seem determined to turn the whole nation into California, in the foolish hope of winning one last election.

No border can be secure when the pot of gold on the other side is an American green card. (Again playing games with language, Rubio doesn’t call the right to legally live and work here a “green card,” but in practical effect, that’s what it is.)

So when exactly does the enforcement part of Rubio’s “Enforcement First!” plan kick in? Answer: Never.

Or rather, enforcement becomes both impossible — because nothing will stop them if legalization is the lure — and irrelevant — because there’s no penalty for leaving the border wide open.

Even if enforcement “fails,” are the 11 million illegals already legalized by Rubio going to be asked to leave? Of course not.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is a Republican who — as a Princeton and Harvard Law graduate — does not yearn for “strange new respect” from the elites. This week, he said of Rubio’s amnesty plan: “To allow those who came here illegally to be placed on such a path is both inconsistent with rule of law and profoundly unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who waited years, if not decades, to come to America legally.”

If only other Republicans didn’t ride the tea party to victory before realizing they really just want to be John McCain.

SOURCE





A Pointless Amnesty:  Hispanics won't vote GOP anyway

Illegal immigration is a curious subject: It is one of the few domains in which the authorities entrusted with enforcing the law feel obliged to negotiate the most concessionary terms and conditions with those who are breaking it, as though law enforcement were an embarrassing inconvenience. But the rule of law, national security, and economic dynamism are not mere pro forma matters — they are in fact fundamental, a reality lost on our would-be “comprehensive” immigration reformers.

There are several new immigration proposals in the political pipeline: one from President Obama, one from a bipartisan group in the Senate, and one from a bipartisan group in the House. Each of the proposals contains an amnesty for the dozen million or so illegals already in the country, and none of them contains adequate security provisions. Panicked Republicans are looking for a grand bargain, but they are wrong on both the politics and the policy. Piecemeal reform emphasizing empirical security benchmarks is a far better option.

The terms of the amnesty vary in the different proposals, but is far from obvious that there should be a “path to citizenship” on any terms for illegals at this time. Whether it is desirable to regularize the status of those illegals already here, and on what terms such a regularization might be offered, are questions that can be answered only when the immigration system is under control. That is a matter of political prudence — the experience of the 1980s amnesty suggests that it is easier to offer an amnesty than to secure the border — but also of context: Reviewing and processing the millions of illegals already here would be a vast administrative task, and we will not know how to go about managing it intelligently until we see what the environment looks like after illegal immigration is under control.

Why an amnesty now? Maybe it is only the polls. John McCain, a principal instigator of the Senate group, has made his motives clear: “Elections, elections — the Republican party is losing the support of Hispanic citizens.” His plan apparently is to develop a bipartisan approach to helping Republicans win elections; perhaps Chuck Schumer imagines other outcomes. Senator McCain has not said why he believes that the interests of Hispanic citizens are to be identified with those of non-citizens, why those interests should trump the interests of citizens (including Hispanic citizens) harmed by the lawlessness of our borders, or why a senator with an established record for supporting amnesty could not muster one in three votes from those Hispanic citizens.

Republican immigration reformers with an eye to political reality should begin by appreciating that Latinos are a Democratic constituency. They did not vote for Mitt Romney. They did not vote for John McCain. They did not vote for George W. Bush, and in the election before that they did not vote for George W. Bush again. In 1998, George W. Bush was reelected to the governorship of Texas with 27 percent of the African-American vote — an astonishing number for an unabashed conservative. Bush won 68 percent of the overall vote in that election, carrying 240 out of Texas’s 254 counties. Hispanics voted overwhelmingly for Democrat Gary Mauro.

And, if we are to take Hispanics at their word, conservative attitudes toward illegal immigration are a minor reason for their voting preferences. While many are in business for themselves, they express hostile attitudes toward free enterprise in polls. They are disproportionately low-income and disproportionately likely to receive some form of government support. More than half of Hispanic births are out of wedlock. Take away the Spanish surname and Latino voters look a great deal like many other Democratic constituencies. Low-income households headed by single mothers and dependent upon some form of welfare are not looking for an excuse to join forces with Paul Ryan and Pat Toomey. Given the growing size of the Hispanic vote, it would help Republicans significantly to lose it by smaller margins than they have recently. But the idea that an amnesty is going to put Latinos squarely in the GOP tent is a fantasy.

More HERE

Why Immigration Reform Won't Help the GOP Win Over Hispanic Voters

Republican skepticism of government overall, not the party's stance on borders, alienates the growing demographic.

Leading Republicans are jumping on the immigration reform bandwagon, hoping that taking the issue off the table will give them a second chance to make inroads with Hispanic voters. But even with a bipartisan deal looking within reach, the Republican party may not benefit as much as strategists expect.

Indeed, there's evidence that Hispanic resistance to the Republican Party is as rooted in the GOP's skeptical view of government, as it is their disagreement with GOP hardliners on immigration. The Republican Party calls for smaller government, but many Latinos look to government assistance as a necessity. Forty-two percent of Hispanic voters say that a government job offers the best chance of gaining career success, compared to only one-third of white voters, according to a June Allstate/National Journal/Heartland Monitor poll.

"Our argument about limited government is always harder to sell than a government program," Florida Senator Marco Rubio told Rush Limbaugh on Tuesday. "It always has been. It's easier to sell cotton candy than it is to sell broccoli to someone, but the broccoli is better for you, and the same thing with a limited government."

That's the argument Republicans are banking on. Texas Senator Ted Cruz made a similar pitch this weekend, saying that Hispanic voters should be a natural constituency for Republicans because 2.3 million of them own small businesses, and polls show that the economy, not immigration, is their top concern.

But attitudes about the government are not the only area where the GOP and Hispanics diverge. Asked whether they trusted President Obama and Democrats or Mitt Romney and Republicans on the economy, 71 percent of Latino voters preferred the president, according to a November Latino Decisions poll. The president polled similarly well on a host of questions, including women's issues and foreign policy.

Even on social issues where there is perceived to be a natural fit among religious Hispanic voters and the GOP, a divide exists. A majority of Hispanic voters now back gay marriage, according to a Pew Research Center Poll, for instance.

"I think Republicans are going to have to come up with a comprehensive plan for appealing to Hispanic voters," said one former GOP leadership aide. "Immigration is not going to solve the issue for them, but it will help."

So far that plan consists of talking about messaging. While Republicans acknowledge there's a communications gap with Hispanic voters, the strategy for repairing it remains murky. Many conservatives say it's time to retire language that could be viewed as nativist or racially insensitive. A document released Tuesday by the Hispanic Leadership Network, a Republican outreach group, offers advice to conservatives in how to talk about immigration without using language that may inadvertently offend Hispanics.

"I think there are some in the movement who portray immigration as a potential threat to the fabric of the culture," said former Democratic representative-turned-Republican Artur Davis in an interview. "A Latino hears that. That doesn't sound the way you want it to sound and it raises all kinds of red flags."

Given the longstanding divide between Hispanics and the GOP on immigration, it's hard to imagine all the damage will be resolved with one bipartisan reform bill. In California, Republicans did irreparable damage to their relationship with the state's sizable Hispanic population after former GOP Gov. Pete Wilson backed Proposition 187 in 1994 that prohibited illegal immigrants from using government services.

"If the only time you talked to your wife was on an issue you disagreed about how good would your relationship be?" asked California Republican party chairman Tom Del Beccaro said. "Republicans need to talk to them about all the issues they care about."

SOURCE





Polish is Britain's second language and nearly one in five people in London only speak English as a second tongue

The second most commonly  spoken language in the country is now Polish, according to official figures yesterday.

A breakdown from the 2011 national census showed that there are 546,174 people in England and Wales who say Polish is their main language and that Welsh – long the second language in the UK – is spoken by 562,000 people.

When Scotland and Northern Ireland publish their census  findings, their newcomers from Poland are bound to push the total for the whole of the UK above the number of Welsh speakers.

Polish was virtually unheard on the streets of Britain a decade ago but its use has soared since the country joined the EU in May 2004.

The Labour government of that period estimated that only 13,000 Poles a year would come to the UK, but between December 2003 and December 2010 the number living in the UK increased from 75,000 to 532,000.

Immigration from Poland was at its highest in 2007 when 96,000 entered the UK. Nearly a quarter of all Polish citizens in Britain live in London.  Some 148,000 now live in the capital, two per cent of its population.

There are also high concentrations of Polish speakers in small towns across Britain, particularly those in Eastern England with agricultural industries.

Boston, the Lincolnshire town at the heart of a row over immigration on BBC1’s Question Time last  week, had 3,006 people who speak Polish as a main language out of 62,243 residents, roughly one person in 20.

The census figures show that other Eastern European languages are  now in the list of the most popular, including Lithuanian, spoken by 85,000 people, and Latvian, first  language of 32,000.

The greatest number of languages is spoken in London, where more than 100 different ones are used in every borough but three.

The census also found that claims made of languages sometimes said to be widely spoken and culturally important were overblown.

Just 557 people said they spoke  Cornish as a first language last year.  Even more rare were Gaelic Scottish, which had 58 speakers, and Manx Gaelic, 33.

Last year a report by the Welsh Language Board said the number of fluent Welsh speakers is falling by around 3,000 people a year.

In all, four million people in England and Wales have a main language that is not English.

Among these, 726,000 said they do not speak English well and 138,000 speak no English at all. [Mostly  Pakis?]

SOURCE