Thirty Reasons You Should Support Illegal Immigration and Amnesty for Illegal Aliens
1. America's emergency rooms and health care system are not crowded enough.
2. The U.S. needs more organized, violent gangs. Currently the U.S. has Salvadoran gangs; Vietnamese gangs, Filipino gangs, Armenian gangs, Russian gangs, Chinese gangs; Cambodian gangs; Bulgarian gangs, Dominican gangs, Mexican gangs, Haitian gangs. Continuing unrestricted immigration will increase this "diversity."
3. The U.S. carbon footprint is not large enough. Millions more immigrants will swell the population to enlarge the country's carbon footprint.
4. U.S. highways are not crowded enough. More traffic is needed.
5. The percentage of U.S. land that is not yet paved over and developed is far too small.
6. Prior to the days of unrestricted immigration the U.S. lacked a sufficient "diversity" of serious diseases. Unrestricted and illegal immigration has remedied that situation by reintroducing diseases formerly wiped out in the US and introducing new ones never before seen here: Leprosy, dengue fever, West Nile virus, treatment resistant TB, polio,
7. The U.S. needs more 9/11 style attacks. The 9/11 mass murderers were able to hide in plain sight among millions of other illegal aliens. In order to help future terrorists we must maintain a massive population of illegals.
8. Immigration lawyers need more business.
9. There is insufficient racial, ethnic, religious strife in the U.S. Immigration will provide a welcome increase.
10. Continuing high levels of immigration from the Mideast and Mexico guarantees that the number of voters who want to abandon Israel to destruction by its Moslem neighbors.
11. The U.S. does not have enough front groups for Hamas, Hezbollah and other Islamic terrorist organizations. Continued unrestricted immigration will enlarge the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and groups like it to rectify this lack.
12. The demonstrated propensity of Latin-American illegal aliens to drive while drunk will provide the needed increase in DUI's and additional deaths of innocent people
13. The ACLU favors illegal immigration.
14. Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the church to which he belongs (United Church of Christ) favor illegal immigration.
15. The Communist Party and other extreme left wing groups support illegal immigration.
16. Americans who have lived all their lives in the US currently have far too much medical care available to them and their quality of life must be reduced. That reduction can most easily be achieved by legalizing 20 to 30 million illegal aliens so they are eligible for the "free" benefits" of Obama's scheme. See reason 17
17. Obama's appointment of Donald Berwick, supporter of rationing of health care and central planning, will mean that even more of America's health care assets will be diverted from Americans who have paid taxes for decades to newly arrived lawbreakers.
18. America's schools are not crowded enough.
19. Only fifty-five languages are spoken the Los Angeles public school system. The cost and confusion created by this diversity has lowered quality a great deal, but it is possible to do worse.
20. With millions more poor illegals there will be a greater need for social workers, welfare workers, public school teachers and aides, more school lunch programs, more prisons, more police, more government workers of every kind. This will enlarge the number of voters reliant on the government for paychecks and will swell the membership rolls of the National Education Association, AFSCME, SEIU and other Democrat organizations.
21. The Democrat Party needs more voters.
22. The U.S. needs more socialism/Marxism. Adding tens of millions of poor immigrants demanding taxpayer-paid services guarantees the continued descent into loss of individual liberty.
23. The U.S. already produces too much petroleum. A larger population will make us even more dependent on foreign oil.
24. There is not enough urban sprawl in the U.S.
25. The Catholic Church's membership is increased by unrestricted immigration.
26. Not enough of Arizona's citizens have been murdered.
27. The Police Chiefs of Los Angeles, Salt Lake City, Phoenix and other political hacks don't want to pick and choose which laws to enforce. More illegals will give them greater leeway to not enforce laws that adversely affect illegal aliens.
28. Tyson Foods needs more illegal alien employees
29. George Soros, a Nazi collaborator in World War 2 needs more lawbreakers in the U.S. who are beholden to his many open borders front groups.
30. Illegal alien gangs have not yet murdered enough African-Americans in Southern California. This process of ethnic cleansing is best accomplished by unrestricted immigration.
31. The Ford Foundation's thirty year campaign of de-stabilizing the American society has not realized its potential...yet.
SOURCE
No welcome in Canada for U.S. military deserters
Jason Kenney’s most memorable assault on U.S. war deserters seeking refuge in Canada occurred soon after he became immigration minister in October 2008.
Mr. Kenney dismissed them as “bogus refugee claimants,” a phrase that set off loud alarm bells among the deserters’ supporters because it was more loaded than anything said before by his Tory predecessors in the job.
In a memorandum to Mr. Kenney in February, Richard Fadden, his then-deputy minister, provided a thorough review of the issue that, among other things, laid out why all Iraqi war deserters’ claims for refugee status had failed so far with the Immigration and Refugee Board, the Federal Court of Canada and the Court of Appeal.
Mr. Fadden wrote that, whereas the UN High Commission for Refugees Handbook suggests a relevant factor to consider in a refugee claim is whether a deserter was drafted or joined the army voluntarily, deserters now coming to Canada from the U.S. had volunteered for military service.
Mr. Fadden -- recently named the new head of Canadian Security Intelligence Service -- also said the deserters have failed to make the case that the punishment they face back home for desertion could be regarded as persecution.
Other notes say refugee hearing officers have been advised to be “particularly vigilant” about refugee claims from such western democracies as the United States.
Mr. Kenney is the third Tory immigration minister to reject calls to establish a special program to facilitate permanent resident status to those who deserted the U.S. military to escape a war they say they cannot support on moral or religious grounds.
Supporters of the deserters admit they are discouraged, but they vow to keep pressing the government to show some compassion before more get eviction notices.
Two deserters have been forced to leave already and are serving jail sentences on desertion charges.
A handful of others could follow soon as they exhaust their legal options. Among them are Jeremy Hinzman, the first deserter to file for refugee status in Canada in 2004; Kimberly Rivera, the mother of three young children, one of whom was born in Canada; and Phil McDowell, an Iraqi war veteran who fled to Canada in 2006 rather than accept a call to report back to base as a reservist for a 15-month deployment to Iraq.
Michelle Robidoux, a spokeswoman for the War Resisters Support Campaign, says about 50 deserters have applied for refugee status and there are dozens more living below the radar, waiting to see how the legal and political battles play out.
Mr. Kenney accuses his critics of politicizing the process by asking for a political solution rather than trusting Canada’s “fair, internationally recognized” system for providing refuge to those fleeing persecution in their home country.
In an e-mail sent after she talked to Mr. Kenney, Ms. Molloy said she told the minister she applauds the government for finally recognizing Canada’s historical failure to protect Jewish refugees from crimes against humanity but that she can’t understand why it is “failing to protect refugees who refuse to commit crimes against humanity in Iraq.”
Alykhan Velshi, a spokesman for Mr. Kenney, objected to linking the Iraqi deserter issue to the Holocaust. “There is no similarity between the Mackenzie King government’s refusal to accept Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust with our unwillingness to create a special program for American war deserters trying to flee the Obama administration,” he said in an e-mail from Oslo.
More HERE
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Saturday, October 16, 2010
"Community release" -- Australia's new euphemism for allowing illegal immigration
HUNDREDS of asylum seekers will be released from high security detention and allowed to live in the community under a plan being drafted by the Gillard government.
Immigration Minister Chris Bowen is believed to be preparing to announce the community release to relieve overflowing detention centres on the mainland and on Christmas Island.
Asylum seekers who are not considered a security risk would be eligible for community detention, including family groups, children and unaccompanied minors. The government has been in discussion with charities, church groups and refugee welfare organisations to find accommodation. This would include hostels and houses owned by the groups.
Welfare groups contacted by The Age yesterday said discussions with the government about community detention for asylum seekers predated the August 21 election.
It is understood priority would be given to families with school-age children and that release from detention centres would be staggered as housing becomes available.
According to the Immigration officials, 742 children are detained by authorities, as well as 382 unaccompanied minors. Of the children, 281 are on Christmas Island and 461 are in mainland centres.
All up, 5056 asylum seekers are now in detention, of whom 2769 are on Christmas Island. A record 106 asylum-seeker boats have arrived this year, already 20 more than the previous record of 86 in 1999.
SOURCE
Canada's Immigration Minister praises Chinese community's contribution to the country
The Chinese are a very positive influence in Australia too. Australia is now about 5% Han Chinese and they figure prominently in the professions and in the hospitality industry. Africans, by contrast, figure prominently in crime and welfare dependency. Some migrant groups tend to be more desirable than others and that should be recognized
Jason Kenney, Canada's Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Minister, Thursday praised the contribution of Canada's Chinese community in helping to build the country over the past 150 years.
Speaking to media Thursday in Vancouver following a roundtable with Chinese community leaders to discuss his recent trip to China, Jason Kenney described Chinese community's contribution as "enormous."
"It's an enormous contribution. The Chinese community is the largest immigrant community in Canada, over 1.2 million strong, but it's not a new community. There's been an important Chinese presence in Canada going back well over a century," he said.
"The most important thing the Chinese community has brought to Canada is a very serious work ethic and a sense of entrepreneurship and personal and family responsibility, because these are the virtues that build and maintain a strong country," he said.
SOURCE
HUNDREDS of asylum seekers will be released from high security detention and allowed to live in the community under a plan being drafted by the Gillard government.
Immigration Minister Chris Bowen is believed to be preparing to announce the community release to relieve overflowing detention centres on the mainland and on Christmas Island.
Asylum seekers who are not considered a security risk would be eligible for community detention, including family groups, children and unaccompanied minors. The government has been in discussion with charities, church groups and refugee welfare organisations to find accommodation. This would include hostels and houses owned by the groups.
Welfare groups contacted by The Age yesterday said discussions with the government about community detention for asylum seekers predated the August 21 election.
It is understood priority would be given to families with school-age children and that release from detention centres would be staggered as housing becomes available.
According to the Immigration officials, 742 children are detained by authorities, as well as 382 unaccompanied minors. Of the children, 281 are on Christmas Island and 461 are in mainland centres.
All up, 5056 asylum seekers are now in detention, of whom 2769 are on Christmas Island. A record 106 asylum-seeker boats have arrived this year, already 20 more than the previous record of 86 in 1999.
SOURCE
Canada's Immigration Minister praises Chinese community's contribution to the country
The Chinese are a very positive influence in Australia too. Australia is now about 5% Han Chinese and they figure prominently in the professions and in the hospitality industry. Africans, by contrast, figure prominently in crime and welfare dependency. Some migrant groups tend to be more desirable than others and that should be recognized
Jason Kenney, Canada's Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Minister, Thursday praised the contribution of Canada's Chinese community in helping to build the country over the past 150 years.
Speaking to media Thursday in Vancouver following a roundtable with Chinese community leaders to discuss his recent trip to China, Jason Kenney described Chinese community's contribution as "enormous."
"It's an enormous contribution. The Chinese community is the largest immigrant community in Canada, over 1.2 million strong, but it's not a new community. There's been an important Chinese presence in Canada going back well over a century," he said.
"The most important thing the Chinese community has brought to Canada is a very serious work ethic and a sense of entrepreneurship and personal and family responsibility, because these are the virtues that build and maintain a strong country," he said.
SOURCE
Friday, October 15, 2010
Decade-long immigration boom means Britain needs 550,000 extra school places by 2016
Britain will need 550,000 more school places by 2016 to educate the children of immigrants, a study claimed last night. And over the next decade this will rise to one million extra places – at a total cost of about £100billion.
The Migrationwatch report blames the aftermath of Labour’s ‘open door’ immigration policy. Last year, providing schooling to the children of people born overseas cost £4.5billion – the equivalent of almost £13million every day – according to the pressure group. Its analysis is based on figures from the Office for National Statistics, and includes children who have arrived in the UK from overseas, and those born in Britain to migrant parents.
It comes at a time when primary school places are in huge demand, and the Government is attempting to slash between £7 billion and £14 billion from the education budget.
Migrationwatch said that between 1998 and 2009 – the years in which critics say Labour’s open door immigration policy operated – the number of school places required by the children of immigrants was almost 630,000.
By analysing ONS population projections, Migrationwatch also concluded that over the next ten years one million more school places will be needed because of immigration. This is primarily due to children being born to immigrants.
Between now and 2016, 550,000 more places will be required. Based on the cost of providing each school place, the total cost will be £40billion. Educating children of immigrants in state schools would cost around £195billion over a 25-year period, the report adds.
Migrationwatch said the quadrupling in net migration – the difference between the number of people arriving in the UK, and those leaving – was responsible. Many of those coming here were young people, who decided to have children, contributing to a ‘baby boom’. Between 1998 and 2009, total births increased by 11 per cent, Migrationwatch says.
Sir Andrew Green, Migrationwatch chairman, said: ‘Almost every family in England is being affected by the growing crisis over school places but no one will talk about its causes. ‘These are some of the consequences of one of the most reckless and unpopular policies of any government in generations and they are now coming home to roost.’
Last month, the Mail revealed how hundreds of children had been left with no primary school place at the start of term. Thousands of other children are having to be taught in makeshift classrooms.
The problems were blamed on the surge in the number of young children and recession-fuelled departures from private schools.
The Coalition has acknowledged that the shortage of primary places is ‘critical’. Last night a Government spokesman said: ‘Ministers are clear that dealing with the demand for school places is an immediate priority – that is why we are transforming the school building programme to meet demand where it is most needed. ‘We are fully committed to reducing net migration back down to the tens of thousands [a year] rather than the hundreds of thousands.’
SOURCE
UK resumes Zimbabwe deportations
BRITAIN announced Thursday that it is resuming deportations to Zimbabwe after ministers decided that “the political situation is relatively stable and the humanitarian situation has greatly improved” since President Robert Mugabe agreed to share power with his opposition rivals in February last year.
Immigration lawyers said the announcement came as a surprise given that a tribunal is sitting later this month to set a new country guidance case for Zimbabwe.
The move also came just under a month after a minister told parliament Britain was “not starting enforced returns yet by any means” to Zimbabwe.
“It’s difficult to understand the logic of the ministers in putting the cart before the horse by amending the policy now and putting unnecessary political pressure on the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal judges,” immigration solicitor Yvonne Gwashawanhu said in London.
She added: “The Upper Tier Tribunal has listed before it the Zimbabwean country guidance case for hearing shortly and it is difficult to see how the judges can be expected to ignore this latest development. “Needless to say, there will now be a flurry of activity within the Zimbabwean community in the UK.”
Matthew Coats, the UK Border Agency’s head of immigration said enforced removals would resume after the country guidance case judgement is handed down, which lawyers expect to happen before Christmas.
Coats said: “When we do recommence enforced removals, they will be taken forward in a carefully planned and phased way. “We take our international responsibilities seriously and we will continue to grant protection to those Zimbabweans that need it. However, it is essential that we maintain the principle that each application for protection is considered on its individual merits and that returns are taken forward on a similar basis. “The courts have found that not all Zimbabweans are in need of international protection.”
The UK Border Agency sent a research team to Zimbabwe in August to track down asylum seekers who returned voluntarily and also conduct interviews with human rights groups about potential safety risks for returnees.
The fact finding team released its report two weeks ago, and lawyer Gwashawanhu described its findings as “one-sided” and accused the team of “asking leading questions calculated to produce a desired response.” Human rights groups say an election planned for next year could see a new flare-up of political violence.
Britain suspended forced removals to Zimbabwe in 2005 due to a political crisis engulfing the country at the time.
In 2008, Home Office figures showed there were 7,500 failed asylum seekers living in Britain.
SOURCE
Britain will need 550,000 more school places by 2016 to educate the children of immigrants, a study claimed last night. And over the next decade this will rise to one million extra places – at a total cost of about £100billion.
The Migrationwatch report blames the aftermath of Labour’s ‘open door’ immigration policy. Last year, providing schooling to the children of people born overseas cost £4.5billion – the equivalent of almost £13million every day – according to the pressure group. Its analysis is based on figures from the Office for National Statistics, and includes children who have arrived in the UK from overseas, and those born in Britain to migrant parents.
It comes at a time when primary school places are in huge demand, and the Government is attempting to slash between £7 billion and £14 billion from the education budget.
Migrationwatch said that between 1998 and 2009 – the years in which critics say Labour’s open door immigration policy operated – the number of school places required by the children of immigrants was almost 630,000.
By analysing ONS population projections, Migrationwatch also concluded that over the next ten years one million more school places will be needed because of immigration. This is primarily due to children being born to immigrants.
Between now and 2016, 550,000 more places will be required. Based on the cost of providing each school place, the total cost will be £40billion. Educating children of immigrants in state schools would cost around £195billion over a 25-year period, the report adds.
Migrationwatch said the quadrupling in net migration – the difference between the number of people arriving in the UK, and those leaving – was responsible. Many of those coming here were young people, who decided to have children, contributing to a ‘baby boom’. Between 1998 and 2009, total births increased by 11 per cent, Migrationwatch says.
Sir Andrew Green, Migrationwatch chairman, said: ‘Almost every family in England is being affected by the growing crisis over school places but no one will talk about its causes. ‘These are some of the consequences of one of the most reckless and unpopular policies of any government in generations and they are now coming home to roost.’
Last month, the Mail revealed how hundreds of children had been left with no primary school place at the start of term. Thousands of other children are having to be taught in makeshift classrooms.
The problems were blamed on the surge in the number of young children and recession-fuelled departures from private schools.
The Coalition has acknowledged that the shortage of primary places is ‘critical’. Last night a Government spokesman said: ‘Ministers are clear that dealing with the demand for school places is an immediate priority – that is why we are transforming the school building programme to meet demand where it is most needed. ‘We are fully committed to reducing net migration back down to the tens of thousands [a year] rather than the hundreds of thousands.’
SOURCE
UK resumes Zimbabwe deportations
BRITAIN announced Thursday that it is resuming deportations to Zimbabwe after ministers decided that “the political situation is relatively stable and the humanitarian situation has greatly improved” since President Robert Mugabe agreed to share power with his opposition rivals in February last year.
Immigration lawyers said the announcement came as a surprise given that a tribunal is sitting later this month to set a new country guidance case for Zimbabwe.
The move also came just under a month after a minister told parliament Britain was “not starting enforced returns yet by any means” to Zimbabwe.
“It’s difficult to understand the logic of the ministers in putting the cart before the horse by amending the policy now and putting unnecessary political pressure on the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal judges,” immigration solicitor Yvonne Gwashawanhu said in London.
She added: “The Upper Tier Tribunal has listed before it the Zimbabwean country guidance case for hearing shortly and it is difficult to see how the judges can be expected to ignore this latest development. “Needless to say, there will now be a flurry of activity within the Zimbabwean community in the UK.”
Matthew Coats, the UK Border Agency’s head of immigration said enforced removals would resume after the country guidance case judgement is handed down, which lawyers expect to happen before Christmas.
Coats said: “When we do recommence enforced removals, they will be taken forward in a carefully planned and phased way. “We take our international responsibilities seriously and we will continue to grant protection to those Zimbabweans that need it. However, it is essential that we maintain the principle that each application for protection is considered on its individual merits and that returns are taken forward on a similar basis. “The courts have found that not all Zimbabweans are in need of international protection.”
The UK Border Agency sent a research team to Zimbabwe in August to track down asylum seekers who returned voluntarily and also conduct interviews with human rights groups about potential safety risks for returnees.
The fact finding team released its report two weeks ago, and lawyer Gwashawanhu described its findings as “one-sided” and accused the team of “asking leading questions calculated to produce a desired response.” Human rights groups say an election planned for next year could see a new flare-up of political violence.
Britain suspended forced removals to Zimbabwe in 2005 due to a political crisis engulfing the country at the time.
In 2008, Home Office figures showed there were 7,500 failed asylum seekers living in Britain.
SOURCE
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Britain has crazy immigration priorities too
Why would ANY country try to keep out highly skilled workers while consciously letting untold numbers of illegals live there?
The government's interim immigration cap has left one of the UK's major research universities able to recruit or keep only 78 "skilled" overseas academics this year - and the permanent cap could bring further reductions.
The UK Border Agency has given each university a quota on recruitment from non-European Union countries under Tier 2 of the points-based immigration system, which covers "skilled workers". The quotas cover new visas - and renewals for existing staff - between 19 July 2010 and 31 March 2011, when the permanent cap will be imposed.
University College London, which has more than 4,000 staff, said it had been allowed just 78 places under the interim cap.
Universities are trying to bridge the gap by recruiting under Tier 1, which covers "highly skilled workers". In this category, however, the skills threshold is higher and the number of visas allocated is subject to a monthly national cap.
The UKBA's consultation on the permanent cap, which closed last month, has caused concern among universities by suggesting that Tier 2 visas could be closed to them.
The consultation document notes that there is a "strong case" for granting Tier 2 visas only to migrants with skills that are in "national shortage". This could have disastrous implications for universities because academics are not currently on the National Shortage Occupation List.
Universities UK voiced the sector's concerns in the consultation.
Many institutions believe that the UKBA has failed to appreciate that academic careers are inherently international and that the lengthy training period for new entrants means universities cannot rapidly switch to a "British-only" policy.
The universities of Oxford and Cambridge would not comment on their exact allocations.
But a Cambridge spokeswoman said: "The government's current visa-quota proposals threaten our ability to recruit both the academic leaders of today and the exceptional young talent from which will grow the Nobel prizewinners of tomorrow."
Source
How to make immigration work in Britain's interests
Irwin Stelzer talks economic sense below. His recipe would apply to other Western countries too
From France (deport Romas), to Germany (preserve national identity), to Sweden (xenophobes win seats), to the Netherlands (no more burqas), an anti-immigration tide is sweeping across Europe. Britain is no exception; permanent restrictions on immigration are inevitable. But it would be a pity if they deny companies the skilled workers they need to remain competitive in a globalised world.
Britain can do little to reduce the flow of immigrants from the other 26 EU member states. In future it will be able to do even less if Bulgaria goes through with its plan to issue 500,000 passports to citizens of non-member countries; and if the new EU rule that guarantees immigrants the right to all welfare benefits accorded to native populations proves a magnet for immigrants.
Work visas for non-EU immigrants are now subject to a temporary cap that has left affected firms threatening to move where the skilled workers are. Employers are right. Restrictions on the numbers of would-be workers cut into their bottom lines, put pressure on them to train British citizens to do these jobs – often costly – and probably reduces national wealth.
Native workers are also right. In many cases immigrants take "their jobs" or, at minimum, place downward pressure on wages.
And residents of towns in which immigrants cluster are also right. Their culture is threatened as strange sounds and smells dominate once-familiar streets, and the burdens on the social services are increased.
The Government is desperate to satisfy all parties. So it has called in the bureaucrats to decide which immigrants should be admitted. It should instead concentrate on how to get the winners to share some of their increased profits with the losers who bear the costs.
Immigrants possess skills that are in short supply here, and add billions of pounds to national output. But a system that calls on bureaucrats to award points to workers with skills the bureaucrats decide are most needed is bound to get things wrong. There is a more efficient and fairer way.
Employers and immigrants strike wage deals that leave out of the equation the costs to society. Schools are more crowded, demands on the NHS increase, in some cases policing costs rise, incentives to train native workers fall. Economists call these "externalities" – costs created but not borne by the parties to a transaction.
The government can put these costs where they belong – on the firms and workers who benefit – and make sure that each visa adds to national wealth. How so? By requiring employers to bid for the limited number of entry permits, the proceeds to be remitted to the communities on which the immigrant imposes costs, or to HM Treasury. The employer will pay the full cost of the immigration, perhaps making up some of that cost by offering the immigrant a lower wage – which will reduce the demand for entry.
Like other market-based solutions, this is adjustable: if bidding for permits gets outrageously high, the government can increase their number.
Of course, other things need doing. Britain could refuse entry to anyone with a passport from Bulgaria, and fight it out before Europe's courts. After all, the EU has merely wrinkled its nose at France flaunting its treaty obligations. Britain can also really, really defend its borders. The government can put any applicant for entry at Heathrow with no papers back on a plane to wherever he had embarked on his journey. It can immediately deport any illegals it rounds up, and if the country of origin refuses to take them back, send them to a willing country, perhaps for a fee. Such a policy would reduce the number of illegals trying to sneak into Britain.
So, a limit on immigrants, border control, auctioning of permits. All are ingredients of a sensible policy that would add to national wealth. Innocent bystanders in communities now bearing the social and economic costs would be compensated, rather than forced to subsidise the large companies that are the major importers of labour.
Imperfect solution? Sure. But before dismissing it, consider this. Economists Pia Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny, in their new book Beside the Golden Door, suggest an initial minimum price, which would fluctuate according to demand, of $10,000 for a high-skill permit to work in the US. If British companies really need those foreign workers, a price anything like that would net the Treasury £350 million for 50,000 permits. And the nation the workers it most needs.
Source
Why would ANY country try to keep out highly skilled workers while consciously letting untold numbers of illegals live there?
The government's interim immigration cap has left one of the UK's major research universities able to recruit or keep only 78 "skilled" overseas academics this year - and the permanent cap could bring further reductions.
The UK Border Agency has given each university a quota on recruitment from non-European Union countries under Tier 2 of the points-based immigration system, which covers "skilled workers". The quotas cover new visas - and renewals for existing staff - between 19 July 2010 and 31 March 2011, when the permanent cap will be imposed.
University College London, which has more than 4,000 staff, said it had been allowed just 78 places under the interim cap.
Universities are trying to bridge the gap by recruiting under Tier 1, which covers "highly skilled workers". In this category, however, the skills threshold is higher and the number of visas allocated is subject to a monthly national cap.
The UKBA's consultation on the permanent cap, which closed last month, has caused concern among universities by suggesting that Tier 2 visas could be closed to them.
The consultation document notes that there is a "strong case" for granting Tier 2 visas only to migrants with skills that are in "national shortage". This could have disastrous implications for universities because academics are not currently on the National Shortage Occupation List.
Universities UK voiced the sector's concerns in the consultation.
Many institutions believe that the UKBA has failed to appreciate that academic careers are inherently international and that the lengthy training period for new entrants means universities cannot rapidly switch to a "British-only" policy.
The universities of Oxford and Cambridge would not comment on their exact allocations.
But a Cambridge spokeswoman said: "The government's current visa-quota proposals threaten our ability to recruit both the academic leaders of today and the exceptional young talent from which will grow the Nobel prizewinners of tomorrow."
Source
How to make immigration work in Britain's interests
Irwin Stelzer talks economic sense below. His recipe would apply to other Western countries too
From France (deport Romas), to Germany (preserve national identity), to Sweden (xenophobes win seats), to the Netherlands (no more burqas), an anti-immigration tide is sweeping across Europe. Britain is no exception; permanent restrictions on immigration are inevitable. But it would be a pity if they deny companies the skilled workers they need to remain competitive in a globalised world.
Britain can do little to reduce the flow of immigrants from the other 26 EU member states. In future it will be able to do even less if Bulgaria goes through with its plan to issue 500,000 passports to citizens of non-member countries; and if the new EU rule that guarantees immigrants the right to all welfare benefits accorded to native populations proves a magnet for immigrants.
Work visas for non-EU immigrants are now subject to a temporary cap that has left affected firms threatening to move where the skilled workers are. Employers are right. Restrictions on the numbers of would-be workers cut into their bottom lines, put pressure on them to train British citizens to do these jobs – often costly – and probably reduces national wealth.
Native workers are also right. In many cases immigrants take "their jobs" or, at minimum, place downward pressure on wages.
And residents of towns in which immigrants cluster are also right. Their culture is threatened as strange sounds and smells dominate once-familiar streets, and the burdens on the social services are increased.
The Government is desperate to satisfy all parties. So it has called in the bureaucrats to decide which immigrants should be admitted. It should instead concentrate on how to get the winners to share some of their increased profits with the losers who bear the costs.
Immigrants possess skills that are in short supply here, and add billions of pounds to national output. But a system that calls on bureaucrats to award points to workers with skills the bureaucrats decide are most needed is bound to get things wrong. There is a more efficient and fairer way.
Employers and immigrants strike wage deals that leave out of the equation the costs to society. Schools are more crowded, demands on the NHS increase, in some cases policing costs rise, incentives to train native workers fall. Economists call these "externalities" – costs created but not borne by the parties to a transaction.
The government can put these costs where they belong – on the firms and workers who benefit – and make sure that each visa adds to national wealth. How so? By requiring employers to bid for the limited number of entry permits, the proceeds to be remitted to the communities on which the immigrant imposes costs, or to HM Treasury. The employer will pay the full cost of the immigration, perhaps making up some of that cost by offering the immigrant a lower wage – which will reduce the demand for entry.
Like other market-based solutions, this is adjustable: if bidding for permits gets outrageously high, the government can increase their number.
Of course, other things need doing. Britain could refuse entry to anyone with a passport from Bulgaria, and fight it out before Europe's courts. After all, the EU has merely wrinkled its nose at France flaunting its treaty obligations. Britain can also really, really defend its borders. The government can put any applicant for entry at Heathrow with no papers back on a plane to wherever he had embarked on his journey. It can immediately deport any illegals it rounds up, and if the country of origin refuses to take them back, send them to a willing country, perhaps for a fee. Such a policy would reduce the number of illegals trying to sneak into Britain.
So, a limit on immigrants, border control, auctioning of permits. All are ingredients of a sensible policy that would add to national wealth. Innocent bystanders in communities now bearing the social and economic costs would be compensated, rather than forced to subsidise the large companies that are the major importers of labour.
Imperfect solution? Sure. But before dismissing it, consider this. Economists Pia Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny, in their new book Beside the Golden Door, suggest an initial minimum price, which would fluctuate according to demand, of $10,000 for a high-skill permit to work in the US. If British companies really need those foreign workers, a price anything like that would net the Treasury £350 million for 50,000 permits. And the nation the workers it most needs.
Source
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
CIS roundup
For the blog, see here. The CIS main page is here.
1. Denying License Plates to Illegals, Too (Memorandum)
2. Police must share information on criminal immigrants (Op-ed)
3. Why Can't Immigration Statistics Be More Like Baseball Statistics? (Blog)
4. Another Reverse Nixon: Obama's Heath-Care-Benefits-for-Illegal-Immigrants-Maneuver (Blog)
5. The Rest of the Story … JPMorgan Gets $90 Million a Year from USCIS (Blog)
6. The Washington Post Publishes an Astounding Immigration Admission (Blog)
7. They Love Us in Ghana, or the Visa Lottery, Yet Again (Blog)
8. The Social Security/Migration Fraud That, Perhaps, Never Was (Blog)
9. Blood on the Tracks (Blog)
10. Univision Embraces Hispanic Victim Psychology (Blog)
11. Bloggingheads.tv Debate on the DREAM Act (Blog)
12. The Political Context of Enforcement (Blog)
13. What If? Some Unasked Questions about Immigration Reform (Blog)
14. The Naturalization Process and College Reunions: A Metaphor (Blog)
15. Obama's Immigration Dilemma (Blog)
16. Immigration Audits and the Politics of Appearance (Blog)
17. But We Like Our Criminals! Or, It Depends What the Meaning of 'Patchwork' Is (Blog)
18. ICE Denies Data to University Clearinghouse (Blog)
19. Department of Unhelpful Immigration Metaphors (4): 'Pathway to Citizenship' (Blog)
20. Restrictionists Meet with Population and Environmental Activists in D.C. (Blog)
21. Author Cites Migrant Abuse as Symptom of a Failing State (Blog)
For the blog, see here. The CIS main page is here.
1. Denying License Plates to Illegals, Too (Memorandum)
2. Police must share information on criminal immigrants (Op-ed)
3. Why Can't Immigration Statistics Be More Like Baseball Statistics? (Blog)
4. Another Reverse Nixon: Obama's Heath-Care-Benefits-for-Illegal-Immigrants-Maneuver (Blog)
5. The Rest of the Story … JPMorgan Gets $90 Million a Year from USCIS (Blog)
6. The Washington Post Publishes an Astounding Immigration Admission (Blog)
7. They Love Us in Ghana, or the Visa Lottery, Yet Again (Blog)
8. The Social Security/Migration Fraud That, Perhaps, Never Was (Blog)
9. Blood on the Tracks (Blog)
10. Univision Embraces Hispanic Victim Psychology (Blog)
11. Bloggingheads.tv Debate on the DREAM Act (Blog)
12. The Political Context of Enforcement (Blog)
13. What If? Some Unasked Questions about Immigration Reform (Blog)
14. The Naturalization Process and College Reunions: A Metaphor (Blog)
15. Obama's Immigration Dilemma (Blog)
16. Immigration Audits and the Politics of Appearance (Blog)
17. But We Like Our Criminals! Or, It Depends What the Meaning of 'Patchwork' Is (Blog)
18. ICE Denies Data to University Clearinghouse (Blog)
19. Department of Unhelpful Immigration Metaphors (4): 'Pathway to Citizenship' (Blog)
20. Restrictionists Meet with Population and Environmental Activists in D.C. (Blog)
21. Author Cites Migrant Abuse as Symptom of a Failing State (Blog)
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
A Visa for Job Creators
Spurning immigrant entrepreneurs makes no economic sense
The immigration debate has devolved into a shouting match over allegations of "amnesty" and anti-Hispanic bias, but cooler heads need to keep in mind the economic benefits of attracting human capital to America. Consider the barriers we now put on immigrant entrepreneurs.
Start-ups are responsible for most net new jobs in the U.S., and immigrants are almost 30% more likely than non-immigrants to start a business. None of this is news to economists, writes Stuart Anderson of the National Foundation for America Policy in a new paper, but a focus on start-ups "is largely non-existent in the current policy debate over jobs and the economy, most of which centers on how to encourage existing firms to hire more employees."
The U.S. created an immigrant investor visa category (EB-5) in 1990, but steep minimum capital requirements put it out of reach for most potential recipients. The average start-up company in the U.S. begins with about $31,000. Yet to become eligible for an EB-5 visa, an individual must invest at least $500,000. It's no wonder that fewer than 3,700 people received EB-5 visas last year—including spouses and children—and most of them went to immigrant investors looking to expand existing U.S. ventures, not create new businesses.
Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Richard Lugar of Indiana have introduced legislation that would award a conditional green card to immigrant entrepreneurs who receive at least $250,000 from a U.S. venture capitalist. The immigrant would receive permanent residence status if the enterprise employed at least five workers or reached $1 million in revenue within a year. This would improve the status quo, but the capital requirements would still remain needlessly high. In retail and manufacturing, for example, start-up costs average $98,000 and $175,000, respectively.
Mr. Anderson, a former Immigration and Naturalization Service official, says the U.S. would do better to discard capital requirements and welcome any foreign national who can present a business plan that passes muster with the Small Business Administration. As with the EB-5 visa, the individual would receive a green card only if the business created a certain number of jobs for U.S. workers within a set period of time.
"There's already a pool of individuals inside the country who could stay and start companies but are blocked either because they are international students who cannot get an H-1B visa, or scientists and engineers forced to wait 12 years or more if they want a green card," said Mr. Anderson in an interview. "Isn't it better to have the next generation of products and businesses created in the United States?"
Lowering U.S. barriers for foreign-born entrepreneurs can only help the economy. It would also help President Obama begin to fulfill his campaign pledge to address immigration reform. Republicans who claim to know something about job creation should welcome an opportunity to support a pro-growth immigration fix that doesn't involve "amnesty." A visa for job creators is a political and economic winner all around.
Source
135,000 ILLEGALS in Britain TOLD 'YOU CAN STAY'
THOUSANDS of failed asylum seekers will be allowed to stay in Britain to help clear Labour’s massive backlog. More than 135,000 will be told they can remain, with 100,000 cases still ongoing.
Coalition ministers were horrified when they realised the true scale of the problem.
Officials have dealt with two thirds of the 450,000 cases by granting permanent residency to around 2,000 failed applicants each week. Only 35,000 were sent home after assessment, with critics claiming officials have been granting amnesty through the backdoor.
There are fears many cases are being rubber-stamped without proper checks, despite inspectors originally saying the individuals should have been deported. But the Home Office is worried it could face legal challenges under the human rights acts because so many of the cases date back years.
Once applicants have been given indefinite leave to remain, they are one step away from British citizenship which then allows them to claim benefits.
Migrationwatch chairman Sir Andrew Green, 69, said: “This is an appalling legacy from the previous Government and its impact will be to encourage more bogus asylum seekers.”
A spokesman for UK Border Agency said: “All ‘legacy’ cases are considered on their individual merits and we are confident that we will conclude the backlog by summer 2011. “The majority of asylum applications are now being concluded within six months.”
... AS 'BRIT' GETS THE BOOT
A businessman who was raised, schooled, married and got his first job in the UK has been told he can’t live here as he’s not “British”, writes Bill Martin. US-born Stephen Hewitt, 50, can trace his Brit ancestry back to 1410.
His first wife is English and eldest daughter Pamela was born here. Now he wants full residency – but an immigration tribunal turned him down because his UK ties are “not strong enough”.
He said: “I’m bitter. I’m not asking for any special circumstances. My family has a long history in England.”
The Borders Agency declined to comment.
Source
Spurning immigrant entrepreneurs makes no economic sense
The immigration debate has devolved into a shouting match over allegations of "amnesty" and anti-Hispanic bias, but cooler heads need to keep in mind the economic benefits of attracting human capital to America. Consider the barriers we now put on immigrant entrepreneurs.
Start-ups are responsible for most net new jobs in the U.S., and immigrants are almost 30% more likely than non-immigrants to start a business. None of this is news to economists, writes Stuart Anderson of the National Foundation for America Policy in a new paper, but a focus on start-ups "is largely non-existent in the current policy debate over jobs and the economy, most of which centers on how to encourage existing firms to hire more employees."
The U.S. created an immigrant investor visa category (EB-5) in 1990, but steep minimum capital requirements put it out of reach for most potential recipients. The average start-up company in the U.S. begins with about $31,000. Yet to become eligible for an EB-5 visa, an individual must invest at least $500,000. It's no wonder that fewer than 3,700 people received EB-5 visas last year—including spouses and children—and most of them went to immigrant investors looking to expand existing U.S. ventures, not create new businesses.
Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Richard Lugar of Indiana have introduced legislation that would award a conditional green card to immigrant entrepreneurs who receive at least $250,000 from a U.S. venture capitalist. The immigrant would receive permanent residence status if the enterprise employed at least five workers or reached $1 million in revenue within a year. This would improve the status quo, but the capital requirements would still remain needlessly high. In retail and manufacturing, for example, start-up costs average $98,000 and $175,000, respectively.
Mr. Anderson, a former Immigration and Naturalization Service official, says the U.S. would do better to discard capital requirements and welcome any foreign national who can present a business plan that passes muster with the Small Business Administration. As with the EB-5 visa, the individual would receive a green card only if the business created a certain number of jobs for U.S. workers within a set period of time.
"There's already a pool of individuals inside the country who could stay and start companies but are blocked either because they are international students who cannot get an H-1B visa, or scientists and engineers forced to wait 12 years or more if they want a green card," said Mr. Anderson in an interview. "Isn't it better to have the next generation of products and businesses created in the United States?"
Lowering U.S. barriers for foreign-born entrepreneurs can only help the economy. It would also help President Obama begin to fulfill his campaign pledge to address immigration reform. Republicans who claim to know something about job creation should welcome an opportunity to support a pro-growth immigration fix that doesn't involve "amnesty." A visa for job creators is a political and economic winner all around.
Source
135,000 ILLEGALS in Britain TOLD 'YOU CAN STAY'
THOUSANDS of failed asylum seekers will be allowed to stay in Britain to help clear Labour’s massive backlog. More than 135,000 will be told they can remain, with 100,000 cases still ongoing.
Coalition ministers were horrified when they realised the true scale of the problem.
Officials have dealt with two thirds of the 450,000 cases by granting permanent residency to around 2,000 failed applicants each week. Only 35,000 were sent home after assessment, with critics claiming officials have been granting amnesty through the backdoor.
There are fears many cases are being rubber-stamped without proper checks, despite inspectors originally saying the individuals should have been deported. But the Home Office is worried it could face legal challenges under the human rights acts because so many of the cases date back years.
Once applicants have been given indefinite leave to remain, they are one step away from British citizenship which then allows them to claim benefits.
Migrationwatch chairman Sir Andrew Green, 69, said: “This is an appalling legacy from the previous Government and its impact will be to encourage more bogus asylum seekers.”
A spokesman for UK Border Agency said: “All ‘legacy’ cases are considered on their individual merits and we are confident that we will conclude the backlog by summer 2011. “The majority of asylum applications are now being concluded within six months.”
... AS 'BRIT' GETS THE BOOT
A businessman who was raised, schooled, married and got his first job in the UK has been told he can’t live here as he’s not “British”, writes Bill Martin. US-born Stephen Hewitt, 50, can trace his Brit ancestry back to 1410.
His first wife is English and eldest daughter Pamela was born here. Now he wants full residency – but an immigration tribunal turned him down because his UK ties are “not strong enough”.
He said: “I’m bitter. I’m not asking for any special circumstances. My family has a long history in England.”
The Borders Agency declined to comment.
Source
Monday, October 11, 2010
New York Times goes to bat for criminal illegal aliens
The New York Times recently editorialized that Secure Communities, a federal program instituted under the Bush administration and being pushed by the Obama administration, “snares innocent immigrants.” The program checks names and fingerprints of anyone arrested against immigration records to determine if the arrestee is an illegal alien. The police then turn the person over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for deportation proceedings. So what’s wrong with that? How does it snare innocent immigrants if they are arrested and here illegally?
The New York Times claims that this program is a “source of anxiety and anger for cities, counties and police departments that want to preserve a bright line between local policing and federal immigration enforcement. Their valid concern is that local officers should never be seen by immigrant communities as arms of immigration enforcement.” Then the editor wrote: “Fighting and preventing crime are unrelated to detaining and deporting immigrants and should stay that way” (emphasis added).
How can anyone concerned with “preventing crime” not see that deporting criminal aliens and depriving them of the opportunity to commit other crimes, is directly doing just that? The Times claims that “tens of thousands” of illegal aliens with no criminal record have been deported under the program, and that these people “pose no conceivable danger to their communities.” That’s completely absurd. These people came into the program because they did something to cause their arrest. The police didn’t round them up because they looked like they might be here illegally. They did something criminal to bring themselves to the attention of local law enforcement.
How can a person deserving arrest not pose a conceivable danger to the community? If an illegal alien, without an arrest record, drives drunk and kills someone, is he not a conceivable danger to the community? Of course he is. Because illegal aliens have no ties to this country, they can run amok and then flee back to old Mexico when they feel the heat is on. They often return later when the heat is off to commit another crime. But the Times would like you to believe he’s merely a harmless member of the “immigrant” community.
Secure Communities could be the best crime prevention program ever developed if all cities participate. The only way to improve it is to pass a federal law that mimics Arizona’s SB 1070 illegal immigration law. Police officers who can question the immigration status of individuals they lawfully encounter during normal police business will potentially prevent and reduce future crimes. At a minimum, it will serve aliens with notice that there are consequences to entering this country illegally. The program works so well that the mayor of Juarez, Mexico is complaining that the city’s murder rate is so high because the U.S. is deporting Mexican murderers back to Mexico.
Why are cities such as San Francisco and the District of Columbia attempting to opt out of the Secure Communities program? Mexican and other illegal aliens have formed a powerful political base that has jeopardized the safety and security of these sanctuary cities by blocking any attempts to enforce U.S. immigration laws. This political base wants to continue unsustainable social programs that others pay for. They want the wealth spread to them by the gringos they feel stole their land.
The real reason the New York Times editorial staff hates Secure Communities is because it painlessly and accurately identifies illegal aliens and properly puts them into the immigration system for immediate deportation. It rids American communities of undesirable people, whose mere presence is a crime and an affront to law abiding citizens and worthy permanent resident aliens who had to endure years of paperwork and frustration to get the opportunity to live here. The program maintains the integrity of law, and saves billions of dollars of taxpayer services for undeserving people. There is so much to hate from the newspaper’s perspective.
The program makes perfect sense. Elite liberal New York Times readers who hibernate in Manhattan don’t understand the frustration people across the country have with the illegal alien invasion. I applaud the Obama administration for not caving into newspaper editorial boards and other illegal alien sympathizers who want to remove this effective program and open our borders to anybody with the means to get here.
SOURCE
Four boats in 48 hours!
Arrival of four more "asylum-seeker" boats shows the utter policy failure of Australia's Leftist government. At that rate Australia's sea borders are looking more porous than the U.S./Mexico border. Is Australia ready for 12 million illegals too? At least the Mexicans come to work. The Afghans come only to be supported by the Australian taxpayer
THE arrival of four asylum boats in 48 hours has pushed numbers in the Christmas Island detention centre to an apparent record. The centre has been forced to operate well beyond its carrying capacity.
With Immigration Minister Chris Bowen flying to East Timor today to begin talks on a regional processing centre, his department has revealed 350 asylum-seekers are being housed in tents.
According to the department, there were 2697 detainees on Christmas Island yesterday, with more on the way following the interception of four asylum boats, at least one of which has yet to unload its passengers.
The centre, which was designed to accommodate 400 people, has undergone successive reconfigurations to house the growing number of detainees.
Falling refugee success rates and the Rudd government's freeze on new Sri Lankan and Afghan asylum claims resulted in a blowout in detention numbers. But even at its capacity of about 2500, the centre is over its limit.
A departmental spokeswoman could not say yesterday if Christmas Island was at record capacity.
But in the period leading up to the Rudd government's decision in April to move detainees to the mainland, numbers on Christmas Island were about 2300, suggesting the facility had hit a new high.
Mr Bowen acknowledged yesterday there were "significant strains" on detention centres. "I've announced some short-term measures to deal with that. I'll be announcing some longer-term measures in the not-too-distant future to deal with those pressures," he added.
Mr Bowen will fly to Dili today to discuss the regional proposal with East Timor's President, Jose Ramos-Horta, and senior officials. From there he will fly to Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur for talks aimed at bolstering arrangements for managing the asylum flow.
Despite vocal rejection of the idea by East Timor's opposition parties, Mr Bowen said Canberra had received "encouraging feedback" from Dili about the proposal, announced by Julia Gillard in the lead-up to the federal election. "It's a big issue for East Timor -- it would be a significant development for them, and they obviously have issues they want to work through," Mr Bowen told the Nine Network yesterday. "But, certainly, President Ramos-Horta and Prime Minister (Xanana) Gusmao have indicated they are very interested in talking it through."
Since Friday, authorities have intercepted four boats, two of which were lashed together. Their arrival has edged Australia closer to another record -- the highest number of unauthorised boatpeople in a calendar year. A spokeswoman for Border Protection Command said 4924 passengers and 270 crew had arrived this year, bringing the number of unauthorised arrivals to 5194.
According to the Parliamentary Library, the highest number of illegal boat arrivals on record occurred in 2001, when 43 boats carried 5516 people to Australia, not including the crews.
SOURCE
The New York Times recently editorialized that Secure Communities, a federal program instituted under the Bush administration and being pushed by the Obama administration, “snares innocent immigrants.” The program checks names and fingerprints of anyone arrested against immigration records to determine if the arrestee is an illegal alien. The police then turn the person over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for deportation proceedings. So what’s wrong with that? How does it snare innocent immigrants if they are arrested and here illegally?
The New York Times claims that this program is a “source of anxiety and anger for cities, counties and police departments that want to preserve a bright line between local policing and federal immigration enforcement. Their valid concern is that local officers should never be seen by immigrant communities as arms of immigration enforcement.” Then the editor wrote: “Fighting and preventing crime are unrelated to detaining and deporting immigrants and should stay that way” (emphasis added).
How can anyone concerned with “preventing crime” not see that deporting criminal aliens and depriving them of the opportunity to commit other crimes, is directly doing just that? The Times claims that “tens of thousands” of illegal aliens with no criminal record have been deported under the program, and that these people “pose no conceivable danger to their communities.” That’s completely absurd. These people came into the program because they did something to cause their arrest. The police didn’t round them up because they looked like they might be here illegally. They did something criminal to bring themselves to the attention of local law enforcement.
How can a person deserving arrest not pose a conceivable danger to the community? If an illegal alien, without an arrest record, drives drunk and kills someone, is he not a conceivable danger to the community? Of course he is. Because illegal aliens have no ties to this country, they can run amok and then flee back to old Mexico when they feel the heat is on. They often return later when the heat is off to commit another crime. But the Times would like you to believe he’s merely a harmless member of the “immigrant” community.
Secure Communities could be the best crime prevention program ever developed if all cities participate. The only way to improve it is to pass a federal law that mimics Arizona’s SB 1070 illegal immigration law. Police officers who can question the immigration status of individuals they lawfully encounter during normal police business will potentially prevent and reduce future crimes. At a minimum, it will serve aliens with notice that there are consequences to entering this country illegally. The program works so well that the mayor of Juarez, Mexico is complaining that the city’s murder rate is so high because the U.S. is deporting Mexican murderers back to Mexico.
Why are cities such as San Francisco and the District of Columbia attempting to opt out of the Secure Communities program? Mexican and other illegal aliens have formed a powerful political base that has jeopardized the safety and security of these sanctuary cities by blocking any attempts to enforce U.S. immigration laws. This political base wants to continue unsustainable social programs that others pay for. They want the wealth spread to them by the gringos they feel stole their land.
The real reason the New York Times editorial staff hates Secure Communities is because it painlessly and accurately identifies illegal aliens and properly puts them into the immigration system for immediate deportation. It rids American communities of undesirable people, whose mere presence is a crime and an affront to law abiding citizens and worthy permanent resident aliens who had to endure years of paperwork and frustration to get the opportunity to live here. The program maintains the integrity of law, and saves billions of dollars of taxpayer services for undeserving people. There is so much to hate from the newspaper’s perspective.
The program makes perfect sense. Elite liberal New York Times readers who hibernate in Manhattan don’t understand the frustration people across the country have with the illegal alien invasion. I applaud the Obama administration for not caving into newspaper editorial boards and other illegal alien sympathizers who want to remove this effective program and open our borders to anybody with the means to get here.
SOURCE
Four boats in 48 hours!
Arrival of four more "asylum-seeker" boats shows the utter policy failure of Australia's Leftist government. At that rate Australia's sea borders are looking more porous than the U.S./Mexico border. Is Australia ready for 12 million illegals too? At least the Mexicans come to work. The Afghans come only to be supported by the Australian taxpayer
THE arrival of four asylum boats in 48 hours has pushed numbers in the Christmas Island detention centre to an apparent record. The centre has been forced to operate well beyond its carrying capacity.
With Immigration Minister Chris Bowen flying to East Timor today to begin talks on a regional processing centre, his department has revealed 350 asylum-seekers are being housed in tents.
According to the department, there were 2697 detainees on Christmas Island yesterday, with more on the way following the interception of four asylum boats, at least one of which has yet to unload its passengers.
The centre, which was designed to accommodate 400 people, has undergone successive reconfigurations to house the growing number of detainees.
Falling refugee success rates and the Rudd government's freeze on new Sri Lankan and Afghan asylum claims resulted in a blowout in detention numbers. But even at its capacity of about 2500, the centre is over its limit.
A departmental spokeswoman could not say yesterday if Christmas Island was at record capacity.
But in the period leading up to the Rudd government's decision in April to move detainees to the mainland, numbers on Christmas Island were about 2300, suggesting the facility had hit a new high.
Mr Bowen acknowledged yesterday there were "significant strains" on detention centres. "I've announced some short-term measures to deal with that. I'll be announcing some longer-term measures in the not-too-distant future to deal with those pressures," he added.
Mr Bowen will fly to Dili today to discuss the regional proposal with East Timor's President, Jose Ramos-Horta, and senior officials. From there he will fly to Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur for talks aimed at bolstering arrangements for managing the asylum flow.
Despite vocal rejection of the idea by East Timor's opposition parties, Mr Bowen said Canberra had received "encouraging feedback" from Dili about the proposal, announced by Julia Gillard in the lead-up to the federal election. "It's a big issue for East Timor -- it would be a significant development for them, and they obviously have issues they want to work through," Mr Bowen told the Nine Network yesterday. "But, certainly, President Ramos-Horta and Prime Minister (Xanana) Gusmao have indicated they are very interested in talking it through."
Since Friday, authorities have intercepted four boats, two of which were lashed together. Their arrival has edged Australia closer to another record -- the highest number of unauthorised boatpeople in a calendar year. A spokeswoman for Border Protection Command said 4924 passengers and 270 crew had arrived this year, bringing the number of unauthorised arrivals to 5194.
According to the Parliamentary Library, the highest number of illegal boat arrivals on record occurred in 2001, when 43 boats carried 5516 people to Australia, not including the crews.
SOURCE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
