Australia: Conservative commentator slams PM over major problem with immigration after country reached worrying milestone

 Sky News commentator Peta Credlin has taken aim at Anthony Albanese after a record number of immigrants were welcomed into Australia in just one month.

More than 100,000 immigrants came to Australia in February, after 765,900 arrived throughout last year, another all-time record.

The massive influx has raised fears it will strain the crippled housing and rental markets with new housing proposals being accepted at the lowest rate in 11 years.

This is despite the Albanese Government promising to bring immigration down to 300,000-per-year and build 250,000 homes.

Credlin said the inaction was also abetting social disharmony.

Ms Credlin, in her weekly column, said successive governments have 'increasingly sent signals to migrants that the culture of the country they’re coming to is built on a history of shame, illegitimacy, and racism'.

'Is it any wonder that some migrant communities become reluctant to integrate or insistent that Australia must change to accommodate their preferences, when weak officialdom will only fly our national flag apologetically, in company with two other flags representing people with a particular racial heritage?' she wrote.

'Or when our civic culture now seems to revolve around indigenous ancestor worship while denigrating the Judaeo-Christian basis of our fundamental institutions like the rule of law.'

She added that it is 'hardly the fault of immigrants' who chose to come to Australia, but that of governments who failed to 'insist on (them) joining Team Australia'.

'It’s way past time for governments at every level to start stressing unity over diversity, to rebuild a patriotic love of Australia, rather than to preside over the diminution of our national symbols, like Australia Day,' she wrote.

Credlin claimed the 100,000 migrants who came to Australia was 'significant'.

She compared the figure to the Howard government era where 110,000 migrants came on average every year during that period.  

'It’s no secret then, why housing is unaffordable, wages are flat, and roads and public transport are clogged because that’s just what happens when you don’t have a population policy and instead, use migration as a way to make the budget bottom line look better than it really is,' she wrote.

Institute of Public Affairs deputy executive director Daniel Wild said high immigration rates with few properties being built is a recipe for a housing crisis.

'The data proves that the federal government’s unplanned mass migration program is unsustainable,' he said.

'It actively undermines Australians who are struggling to find a home as increasing demand and a lack of supply is pricing them out of the market.'

Australia's median capital city house price of $956,782, based on CoreLogic data, is well beyond the reach of an average, full-time worker on $98,218.

That's because banks are only able to lend 5.2 times their salary to someone with a steady job and a 20 per cent mortgage deposit.

The average wage would only be enough to buy a $639,000 home, which in greater Sydney would only buy a unit or a house 100km away from the city centre.

Renters are also suffering with 175,960 international student arriving in February, adding to competition for somewhere to live.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13332121/Anthony-Albanese-immigration-milestone.html

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
    
http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
 
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

UK: Rwanda flights to go ahead as asylum policy finally passes into law in boost for Rishi Sunak

Parliament has finally passed Rishi Sunak’s “emergency” Rwanda bill but the controversial legislation is set to run into legal challenges that could still delay flights.

Mr Sunak has said that the first flight would take off in 10-12 weeks and regular trips will take place over the Summer “until the boats are stopped.”

His plan was finally given the green light on Monday evening after peers in the House of Lords gave up their fight with MPs over amending the legislation.

Lords had been trying to force the government to exempt Afghans who supported British troops overseas from being deported to Rwanda. They had also pushed an amendment that would have made sure the terms of the UK’s treaty with Rwanda were met and that it was assessed to be a safe country before flights took off.

However the government refused to cave to pressure and didn’t include the changes to the bill. Mr Sunak had already paid £240m to Rwanda by the end of 2023, and spending watchdog the National Audit Office says that the total cost of the plan will be at least £370m over five years.

Labour peers didn’t press the Afghan amendment on Monday night after Home Office minister Lord Sharpe said they would not deport members of Afghan special forces units who had been given the right to live and work in the UK by the Ministry of Defence. But they did vote in favour once for the amendment on assessing the safety of Rwanda.

Home Office minister Michael Tomlinson told the Lords that their final amendment was “not necessary”, adding: “These amendments have already been rejected, enough is enough.”

Labour’s shadow immigration minister Stephen Kinncok said it was “staggering” that the government refused to concede on the clause ensuring the safety of Rwanda. He added: “This is a post-truth bill. You cannot possibly legislate for something which is in the lap of the gods”.

SNP MP Alison Thewliss criticised Labour peers for not pushing the flights exemption for Afghans who supported British troops. She told MPs: “If they think this is some kind of concession I’ve got some magic beans to sell them.”

Despite the bill finally passing through parliament, it will likely face additional legal hurdles before flights actually take off.

Charities and unions will now see whether they can bring any legal challenges to the bill itself. One union, the FDA, is considering a challenge over the whether civil servants would have to ignore their professional code to follow minister’s instructions to ignore directions from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

Refugee charities will support asylum seekers who are chosen to go on the first flights to challenge their deportation. Although the courts will not be able to consider whether Rwanda is safe, they may be able to consider how a Rwanda deportation would affect each asylum seeker personally - for example if the asylum seeker is a victim of trafficking, or is LGBTQ+.

If they are unable to find a hearing in the UK courts, cases could go all the way to the ECHR - with Strasbourg judges ruling whether deportation is lawful. Mr Sunak has already said he will ignore a ruling from the ECHR and press ahead anyway.

The prime minister said in a press conference on Monday that the government had already booked commercial charter planes for specific slots to remove asylum seekers to Rwanda. He said some 500 escorts had already been trained for the job of removing people, and there were 2,200 spaces in detention ready.

Mr Sunak, who has made stopping the boats one of his five key pledges, was left scrambling to save his flagship plan after the Supreme Court ruled it unlawful late last year.

In a damning judgement, the highest court in the land found that there was a real risk asylum seekers sent to Rwanda could be returned to their home countries to face “persecution or other inhumane treatment”.

In response, Mr Sunak pledged new “emergency” legislation to get flights in the air.

But a public call for parliament not to thwart his plans backfired as the government was defeated again and again in the House of Lords, leading to months of bitter wrangling.

Labour’s Mr Kinnock called the bill “deeply damaging” to the UK and said it was “unconscionable” that Britain might now send brave Afghans who fought alongside UK armed forces to Rwanda.

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said the Rwanda scheme was “an extortionate gimmick”. She added: “The prime minister knows this scheme won’t work, that’s why he tried to cancel it when he was Chancellor, and why even now he won’t say how many people will be on the token flights.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rwanda-bill-vote-lords-flights-sunak-scheme-b2530395.html

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
    
http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
 
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Latest ICE Detainee Death Exploited by Anti-Detention Crowd Raises Questions for ICE and Activists

The anti-ICE crowd has found its latest detainee death to dramatize and use as an excuse for ending detention, and this time it’s a mentally ill, convicted murderer who overstayed a tourist visa nearly 24 years ago. Though the anti-detention activists are vocal, they fail to offer any serious recommendations about how ICE could or should have handled the situation differently. As usual, media have parroted activist talking points without asking questions that might offer better insight into exactly what transpired. Some of those questions are presented here.

The full ICE detainee death report is available online, but a summary and additional questions are as follows. Detainee Charles Leo Daniel, citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, entered the United States in Miami in 2000 and overstayed a tourist visa. The first questions: Why wasn’t he prevented from entry as a potential visa overstayer in the first place? Why wasn’t he immediately deported after overstaying, and what resources are needed to make quick removals of visa overstayers a reality? Undoubtedly this would require better screening upfront, including by the State Department's consular officers, and increased resources for ICE in order to remove visa overstayers, who make up a large portion of the nation’s illegal-alien population. But the anti-ICE crowd complaining about the death of Daniel is not asking for any of this, despite the fact that it might have prevented the death of Daniel’s victim and, in the logic of the anti-ICE activists, Daniel’s own death in an ICE detention facility.

By 2003, Daniel was in Seattle and murdered reggae musician Ras Bongo, stabbing him to death with a 14-inch kitchen knife. Media then called Daniel a "transient" instead of an "illegal alien", perhaps because media never thought to inquire about who this transient was, or perhaps because DHS wasn’t being proactive in defending the importance of immigration enforcement. Daniel had lived for a bit in Arizona and California before making his way to Seattle, according to media reports. Daniel’s victim was described as “a Rastafarian and a loving soul who was a ubiquitous presence in Seattle's small Jamaican-music scene”. The anti-detention activists embracing next to their memorial for Daniel don’t seem to have shed any tears for the murdered musician.

In March 2020, amid the outbreak of the pandemic, Daniel was transferred to ICE custody at the Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma, after having served most of his prison sentence. Removal to his home country was likely complicated by the pandemic, but ICE was undoubtedly arranging for travel documents. Media and activists troubled by Daniel’s long detention that lasted from his book-in to his recent death should be asking the following question: What efforts was ICE making for removal, and was Trinidad and Tobago being cooperative? For many reasons, it’s ideal for detention to be as short-term as possible, and illegal aliens should be quickly returned home.

U.S. taxpayers spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year on detainee health care, and Daniel was a beneficiary, though he refused much of recommended treatment. Upon entry to the detention facility, Daniel received a full medical screening and was diagnosed with stage two hypertension. He was on an antidepressant, had elevated blood pressure, and leg swelling, but refused any medications or blood tests.

Between April 2020 and October 2023, medical staff monitored Daniel’s blood pressure when he consented, ordered medications to treat his hypertension, ordered laboratory testing, scheduled chronic care follow-up appointments, and educated him on a healthy lifestyle and the risks of untreated hypertension. However, Daniel repeatedly refused medical services and medication in over 60 medical consent refusal forms. Medical staff ordered Daniel compression stockings for edema in both legs, but he refused to wear them. Here’s a question for the anti-ICE, anti-detention crowd: What would they have ICE do when a criminal alien refuses medical treatment? Should it be forced upon him? This is a serious question that media reporting on detainee deaths like this should ask of the anti-ICE activists they quote.

Daniel reported hearing voices with visual hallucinations, and had delusions of “being electronically harassed, and people putting spirits on him” according to ICE’s detainee death report. He also had a history of marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol use. A psychiatrist evaluated Daniel, documented a history of delusional disorder, and treated him with risperidone (an antipsychotic medicine) for a short period of time, which Daniel quickly refused. A psychiatrist evaluated Daniel monthly and in September 2021, a psychiatrist canceled future appointments due to his repeated medication refusals. Another question for the anti-detention crowd: What would they prefer happens in this situation? Are they demanding that a mentally ill, convicted murderer, illegal alien be released back into the community?

A central complaint being made by activists is that Daniel was in segregation housing for most of his time in ICE detention. It turns out that Daniel was the one who requested it, and medical and behavioral health staff continued to closely monitor him there. Another question for the anti-detention crowd that the media didn’t ask: Do they believe that ICE should refuse a detainee’s request for segregation housing? Do they believe a mentally unsound individual should not be separated from other detainees? What about the safety of other detainees? It may be that Daniel was rational enough to understand that he was a threat to other detainees and considered this to be a way to protect others.

An advanced practice provider gave Daniel an exam and ordered an ultrasound of the neck (result: presumptive thyroglossal duct cyst) and left leg (negative for blood clots), a computed tomography scan of the neck (result: large neck cystic lesion), chronic care labs (all normal except elevated kidney enzymes and prostate antigen), ear drops, and compression stockings, and noted Daniel’s refusal for hypertension treatment. He was also given a referral to an ENT, but refused consultation.

A behavioral health provider completed daily evaluations for Daniel in lieu of previous weekly evaluations because of his significant mental illness classification and segregated housing.

On the day of his death, March 7, 2024, “he presented as smiling, pleasant and non-distressed, [and] denied any suicidal ideations” as of 10:05 a.m. At 10:34 a.m. he was discovered laying on the ground, without a pulse or breathing, and staff immediately began chest compressions and called 911 for emergency medical services (EMS). The EMS was unable to resuscitate Daniel.

Some questions for ICE that media should be asking: Though removal was likely difficult during the first year of the pandemic, why did the Biden administration continue to detain Daniel for years? Was Daniel actively fighting his removal? Were immigration attorneys encouraging him to remain in detention instead of returning home? If so, who are the attorneys and do they have some responsibility here? It seems the media should seek a quote from them if immigration attorneys are involved. Did Daniel actually know that he had the opportunity to be deported home, or was he under the impression that he had to remain in detention? Does ICE need to do a better job informing detainees of their right to return to their country of origin?

Was Trinidad and Tobago cooperating with removal efforts or not? If not, has the Biden administration made sufficient efforts in obtaining travel documents from recalcitrant countries? ICE made a lot of progress in using 243(d) visa sanctions against uncooperative countries, but there doesn’t seem to be any discussion of this effort under the Biden administration. Is a lack of focus on recalcitrant countries by the Biden administration partially to blame for Daniel’s long-term detention?

These are some of the basic questions that the Seattle Times and other news outlets should be asking instead of trying to discredit ICE detention professionals and medical staff, who clearly provided a significant amount of medical care to a dangerous and ill individual who had no right to be in the United States.

https://cis.org/Feere/Latest-ICE-Detainee-Death-Exploited-AntiDetention-Crowd-Raises-Questions-ICE-and-Activists

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
    
http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
 
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

New York Times/Siena Poll Reveals Partisan Split Over Immigration

 On April 13, the New York Times and Siena college released the results of their latest poll, which was conducted between April 7 and 11 and surveyed 1,059 registered voters. It reveals a huge split between Democrats on the one hand and Republicans and Independents on the other with respect to President Biden’s border policies — and over Donald Trump’s for what that’s worth.

At the outset, I’ll note that this was a Democrat-heavy poll: 315 of the respondents self-identified with the Party of Jackson compared to 274 others who claimed to be Republicans and 365 Independents. By comparison, in Gallup’s most recent survey of party affiliation (conducted in March), 30 percent of respondents identified as Republicans, 28 percent as Democrats, and 41 percent as Independents.

“What One Thing Do You Remember Most About Donald Trump’s Presidency?” Respondents in the NYT/Siena poll were asked: “Thinking back to when Donald Trump was president, what one thing do you remember most about Donald Trump’s presidency?”

You likely won’t be shocked to learn that a plurality, 39 percent, of likely voters said it was either the 45th president’s “behavior”, “leadership”, or “personal characteristics”, including 55 percent of Democrats and 24 percent of Republicans.

In second place were Trump’s “economic policies” and “stimulus”, at 23 percent. Just 6 percent of Democrats put that at the top of their lists, compared to 35 percent of Republicans (it was the most common GOP response) and 28 percent of Independents. As you can tell, this response triggered a pretty strong partisan skew.

The third most common response was “immigration”, the choice of 10 percent of likely voters, including 7 percent of Democrats, 17 percent of Republicans, and 8 percent of Independents.

Interestingly, voters in the Northeast were most likely to identify immigration in response to this question (12 percent) than those in the South (10 percent), West (9 percent), or Midwest (also 9 percent). White and Hispanic voters, at 11 percent, were equally likely to say that they remembered immigration under Trump — but as you’ll see, their impressions were not quite the same.

Approve or Disapprove of Trump’s Handling of Immigration. To understand the divide between the two parties on immigration, consider the results of the next, related question: “Tell me whether you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump handled” immigration as president.

In response, half (50 percent) of respondents either “strongly” approved (36 percent) or “somewhat” approved (14 percent) of Trump’s handling of immigration. That said, 47 percent either strongly disapproved (35 percent) or somewhat disapproved (12 percent) of how Trump handled the issue.

Which brings me to the internals. Just 13 percent of Democratic voters either strongly (5 percent) or somewhat (8 percent) approved of Trump’s handling of immigration, whereas 90 percent of Republicans approved, either strongly (69 percent) or somewhat (21 percent).

On this question, Independents fell somewhere in between, with again half (50 percent) approving and 47 percent disapproving.

When it comes to regions, those in the Midwest had the fondest memories of Trump’s handling of immigration (44 percent of them strongly approved), while those in the West had the worst (46 percent strongly disapproved) followed closely by voters in the Northeast (45 percent strongly disapproved).

All of that said, the highest levels of disapproval of Trump’s handling of immigration were expressed by Hispanics and college-educated non-whites: 59 percent of each stated that they strongly disapproved of Trump’s performance on this issue.

Biden Approval and Disapproval on Immigration. The pollsters also asked respondents their impressions of President Biden’s handling of immigration, and the results were about what you would expect.

Less than a third, 32 percent, of likely voters either strongly approved (9 percent) or somewhat approved (23 percent) of the manner in which Biden is addressing immigration. By contrast, 64 percent of those expected to show up for the general election in November either strongly (49 percent) or somewhat (15 percent) disapproved of Biden’s performance on this issue.

The partisan skew on this was remarkable. First, 62 percent of Democrats either strongly (20 percent) or somewhat (42 percent) approved of Biden’s handling of immigration.

By contrast, fewer than 1 percent of GOP voters and just 7 percent of Independents strongly approved of Biden’s handling of immigration, and a mere 9 percent of Republicans and 21 percent of Independents somewhat approved.

Biden’s net approval on immigration: 62 percent of Democrats, 10 percent of Republicans, and 28 percent of Independents. Biden’s net disapproval: 33 percent of Democrats, 95 percent of Republicans, and 68 percent of Independents.

And there’s no region that Biden can go to looking for support for his immigration policies: Northeast, 59 percent disapprove and 35 percent approve (24 percent net disapproval); West, 61 percent disapprove and 38 percent approve (23 percent net disapproval); South, 65 percent disapprove and 29 percent approve (36 percent net disapproval); Midwest, 69 percent disapprove and 30 percent approve (39 percent net disapproval).

And while Hispanic voters didn’t like Trump’s policies, they aren’t fans of Biden’s either. Some 60 percent of this cohort disapproved of Biden’s handling of immigration compared to 40 percent who approved.

Biden v. Trump Match-Up. While it does not directly involve immigration, one other question in that poll bears comment: “If the 2024 presidential election were held today, who would you vote for if the candidates were Joe Biden the Democrat or Donald Trump the Republican?”

Trump holds a razor-thin one percentage-point advantage in that poll over Biden among likely voters, 47 percent to 46 percent, with 91 percent of GOP voters choosing their party’s candidate and 90 percent of Democrats opting for the incumbent. In case you are curious, Independents split 47 percent to 44 percent for Trump.

Biden is 12 points down among white voters, 41 percent to 53 percent, but he holds a commanding 60-point lead (76 percent to 16 percent) among Blacks.

And then, there are Hispanic voters, a traditional Democratic base, but one in which Biden holds just a 13-point advantage over Trump, with a split of 52 percent for the incumbent to 39 percent for the challenger.

The high-water mark for a GOP presidential candidate among Hispanic voters was the 40 percent support then-President George W. Bush received in his 2004 reelection campaign. By comparison, and although 2020 numbers are hard to come by, Michigan State University estimates that Trump received about 27 percent of Hispanics’ votes in the last general election while 70 percent voted for Biden.

That was an increase for the Democratic candidate compared to 2016, when 66 percent of Hispanic voters chose Hillary Clinton, and a slight decline for Trump, who received the support of 28 percent of this cohort during his first foray.

If these latest numbers hold, Trump likely has the parlous state of the economy to thank for the boost, not immigration.

According to the NYT/Siena poll, 78 percent of Hispanic voters either strongly (45 percent) or somewhat (33 percent) approved of Trump’s handling of the economy. Meanwhile, 76 percent of the voters in this demographic in that poll disapprove of Biden’s handling of the economy, with 53 percent strongly and 23 percent somewhat disapproving.

Key Takeaway. Why does President Biden maintain immigration policies that seem unpopular with voters? Because those policies play well to his Democratic base. Conversely, if Trump wants his base to show up at the polls, he should highlight the distinctions between his border performance and the incumbent’s — with due consideration to how his policies play in the increasingly key Hispanic voting bloc.

https://cis.org/Arthur/New-York-TimesSiena-Poll-Reveals-Partisan-Split-Over-Immigration

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
    
http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
 
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

DC Mayor Silent on Motorbikes on City Streets Without License Plates

The mayor’s office in Washington, D.C., has remained silent on widespread license-plate violations in the city following a Daily Signal investigation of the phenomenon of unlicensed drivers.

Men and women alike—many of them in the country illegally—are driving motorized bikes around the District of Columbia without license plates. Some of the riders of the motorcycles and other motor-driven cycles are using the bikes for food delivery in the city.  

The Daily Signal sought comment from the Metropolitan Police Department during an initial investigation into the illegal operation of the bikes in the city, and police said those riding motor-driven cycles without a license plate are “testing their luck.”

The Daily Signal then reached out to D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser by email and phone to find out whether the mayor was aware of the situation and working with local law enforcement to enforce the city’s license-plate laws, but did not receive a response.  

Because the Biden administration is not enforcing immigration laws at the border and is instead allowing illegal aliens to remain in the U.S., that “passes the buck to the states and cities, who have to deal with the federal government’s failure,” Simon Hankinson, a senior research fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center, told The Daily Signal. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)

“Nonetheless, public safety is job No. 1 for any elected official,” Hankinson added. “Letting unscrupulous motorcycle vendors and their unlicensed, uninsured, illegally present riders off the hook will only encourage more lawbreaking.”

The Daily Signal became aware of an increased number of motor-driven cycles without license plates operating in the District. If operating a motorized bike in the District at speeds above 20 mph, not only does that vehicle require registration, the driver is required to “have on his or her possession a valid [driver’s] license” and insurance, per the city’s Department of Motor Vehicles.    

D.C. law requires that a motorcycle or a motor-driven cycle—a motor vehicle that has a gas, electric, or hybrid motor no larger than 50 cubic centimeters (cc) and cannot go above 30 mph—be registered with the District’s DMV within 30 days of purchase and display a license plate on the back of the two- or three-wheeled vehicle.  

The Daily Signal launched an investigation to determine whether the drivers of these motor bikes have the legal requirements to operate them, and whether D.C. police are striving to eliminate the operation of vehicles that are not registered in the city.  

After speaking to about 10 drivers, a retailer at a motor-driven cycles shop, and the Metropolitan Police Department, The Daily Signal determined that illegal aliens are acquiring motorized bikes through a number of sources and that D.C. police do not appear to be enforcing registration laws.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/04/16/dc-mayor-bowser-silent-illegal-activity-nations-capital/

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
    
http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
 
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Australia has reached a new immigration milestone with more than 100,000 foreigners arriving in just one month for the first time ever

The landmark total is eight times the number of new homes approved and is set to further fuel the worsening housing crisis.

February's net intake of permanent and long-term arrivals was 105,460 - almost double January's 55,330 level, new Australian Bureau of Statistics data showed.

This occurred as a large number of international students moved to Australia for the first semester of the university year.

Australia's capital cities also have rental vacancy rates under one per cent as construction activity fails to keep pace with booming population growth.

The 12,520 houses, apartments and government units approved in February was only one-eighth the monthly net immigration arrival figure, with capital city rents surging by double-digit percentage figures during the past year.

Institute of Public Affairs deputy executive director Daniel Wild said this was a recipe for a housing crisis.   'Australia's migration intake remains out of control, with promises to "normalise" arrivals in tatters,' he said.  'Combined with plummeting housing construction approvals, Australia is being set up for a disaster.'

Treasury's Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook forecast Australia's annual net overseas migration figure would moderate to 375,000 in the 2023-24 financial year.

But that is hardly happening, with 498,270 net arrivals in the year to February, covering permanent skilled migrants and long-term arrivals like international students.

A record 548,800 migrants arrived in the year to September, with the foreign influx making up 83.2 per cent of Australia's population increase.

The population growth pace of 2.5 per cent, with births included, was the fastest since 1952.

Mr Wild said high immigration was locking Australians out of the housing market.

'The data proves that the federal government’s unplanned mass migration program is unsustainable,' he said.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/money/article-13317021/Australia-100000-immigration-milestone-housing-cris.html

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
    
http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
 
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Indefinite detention of queer Iranian 'not punitive': Australian government lawyer

He is right to think he would be hanged if he returned to Iran but the "refoulement" regulation says you cannot send him to any other place where he might be persecuted. That rules out the Muslim world and Africa. So where do you send him? Who else would want a queer Iranian?

And you cannot give him permission to live in Australia as both major parties have a policy that illegal arrivals will not be resettled. And any wavering on that policy would restart the flow of parasitical Muslim illegals


An Iranian asylum seeker's indefinite detention is not punitive, Australia's solicitor-general has argued, because he would be freed if he co-operated with attempts to deport him to his home country, despite his fears of the death penalty.

The detained 37-year-old man, known as ASF17, has taken his legal bid for freedom to the High Court in a case that could determine the fates of hundreds of immigrants and government policy.

Authorities have attempted to deport him to Iran every six months since 2018, when his asylum seeker visa was refused.

But as a bisexual man, ASF17 could face the death penalty upon return.

As a result, he has refused to co-operate and Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue KC says this means his detention is not punitive.

"Where a person can be removed with their co-operation, that can't be characterised as punitive, whether or not the reason for non-co-operation was a genuine fear of harm," he told the court on Wednesday.

ASF17 had previously urged the government to remove him to any country other than Iran.

"Take me back to where you picked me up in the high seas, even take me to Gaza," the asylum seeker said during a Federal Court cross-examination, his lawyers recalled on Wednesday.

"I have a better chance there of not being killed than if you take me to Iran."

Dr Donaghue argued refugee applicants can genuinely fear what may happen on return to their home countries, but this may not be "objectively well-founded".

The government had investigated the possibility of deportation to a third country, but this could inflame diplomatic tensions or lead to the risk of refoulement, Dr Donaghue said.

ASF17's barrister Lisa De Ferrari SC said without being offered other deportation options, her client remained indefinitely detained.

"They've straitjacketed themselves and now they're turning the table on my client, saying 'you've been very unreasonable by not helping us get you to Iran'.

"How can it not be punitive (when) there's never any end point?"

His case springs from a November High Court ruling, which found it was unlawful to indefinitely detain people with no prospect of deportation.

About 150 immigration detainees were released as a result.

The appellant wants this expanded to cover people who refuse to co-operate with authorities on their deportation.

The Federal Circuit Court previously ruled the continued immigration detention of a Baha'i man from Iran was unlawful and he was immediately released.

"This is another case that says, whatever has been happening to people who are vulnerable and have come to Australia for protection, they cannot be indefinitely detained," his lawyer Alison Battisson told AAP.

"It creates a precedent that somebody has non-refoulement obligations owed to them."

Baha'is are a persecuted religious minority in Iran and Australia has signed international human rights treaties which include the principle of non-refoulement, meaning refugees cannot be sent back to countries where they face persecution.

ASF17, who is not Baha'i, first arrived on Australian shores by boat in 2013 and has been in detention for a decade.

There are about 200 other people in a similar situation, and Human Rights Law Centre legal director Sanmati Verma said the government was using indefinite detention as a way to "coerce people into returning to danger".

In an attempt to pre-empt ASF17's hearing, the government tried to ram through laws to prevent a release of people from immigration detention.

Under the proposed laws, which could affect more than 4000 people, those who refuse to co-operate with the government over their deportation could spend up to five years in prison.

The legislation would also give the home affairs minister  power to ban visa classes of relatives of asylum seekers who come from blacklisted countries that do not accept deportees.

But it was blocked in parliament and sent to a senate inquiry.

The High Court has adjourned and is yet to decide when it will hand down its decision.

https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/indefinite-detention-not-punitive-solicitor-general-20240417-p5fkmp

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
    
http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
 
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************