Rubio outlines immigration proposal

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., outlined his proposals for immigration reform in an interview with the Wall Street Journal in a plan that is sure to upset some within his own party. But Rubio argues that immigration is an important issue to Hispanic voters, a voting bloc that the Republicans lost ground with in 2012.

"[T]he immigration issue is a gateway issue for Hispanics, no doubt about it. No matter what your stance is on a number of other issues, if people somehow come to believe that you don't like them or want them here, it's difficult to get them to listen to anything else," Rubio said.

The Republican Party's struggle with Hispanics in the 2012 elections was most glaring at the top of the ticket as Mitt Romney only received 27 percent of the Hispanic vote. Party leaders now admit that they have to do more to reach out to the growing demographic.

Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, said he would like to propose a "comprehensive package of bills", which would include increased access for high-skilled workers, such as engieneers and doctors, a guest worker program for low-skilled workers, including farm workers. He supports workplace enforcement and stronger border security.

But the real challenge revolves around what to do with the up to 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S.

He says his plan for that group "is not blanket amnesty or a special pathway to citizenship." Instead, they would have to get in line to apply for legal status and adhere to challenging requirements, but no immigrant would have to leave return to their home country to start the process.

The waiting time for a green card "would have to be long enough to ensure that it's not easier to do it this way than it would be the legal way," he told the Wall Street Journal. "But it can't be indefinite either. I mean it can't be unrealistic, because then you're not really accomplishing anything. It's not good for our country to have people trapped in this status forever. It's been a disaster for Europe."

Potentially signaling a shift within the party, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who was Romney's running mate last year and, like Rubio, is considered a possible 2016 presidential candidate, came out in support of Rubio's general proposal. On his Facebook page, Ryan wrote, "Senator Rubio is exactly right on the need to fix our broken immigration system. I support the principles he's outlined: modernization of our immigration laws; stronger security to curb illegal immigration; and respect for the rule of law in addressing the complex challenge of the undocumented population. Our future depends on an immigration system that works."

SOURCE






Labour party leader needs bolder answers over the European Union and immigration

While, in normal circumstances, the EU may be as inflammatory as mashed potato, immigration is anything but. Soundings this week by the think tank British Future ranked it as the greatest cause of social division in Britain, in a verdict consistent with what voters have told pollsters and politicians for years. With the imminent arrival of Bulgarian and Romanian incomers entitled to work here, the debates over Europe and immigration are about to collide, and the fallout will be toxic.

Fears of mass immigration, when travel restrictions on the two newest EU member states are lifted next January, have been heightened by warnings of housing problems from Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary. The PM’s reluctance to speculate on the numbers expected has been exploited by Ukip, which supplied its own estimate of 350,000 to 400,000.

Wild exaggeration as that may be, Ukip has seized on a potential vote-winner. Private polling suggests that any party successfully linking EU withdrawal and immigration could potentially appeal to 80 per cent of the electorate, leaving Mr Cameron in double trouble. Take Europe first. The Netherlands speech, which may boast the longest gestation period in oratorical history, signifies his reluctance to be the PM who takes Britain out of Europe. The paradox is that by playing a long game, Mr Cameron will make exit more likely.

Sources close to Angela Merkel’s administration are adamant that the four EU pillars of freedom – goods, capital, services and movement – are “sacrosanct”. Should we prove obdurate on any one, then Germany will, with regret but no demur, let Britain go.

One senior figure says that the Merkel government is increasingly alarmed by Mr Cameron’s tactics. “We are worried that things will get out of hand,” this source tells me. “We agree with Miliband; we’re fearful Cameron could sleepwalk out.” Leading Labour strategists calculate that, even if the Tories win in 2015, he is “a seven-year PM” likely to bequeath the referendum to a more Eurosceptic successor (the choice is ample), who would lead Britain out of the EU.

Nor are Mr Cameron’s delaying tactics likely to repel the Ukip advance, pacify his hardliners or satisfy Fresh Start, a Tory faction which sounds like a January detox and which, in the way of crash diets, will be doomed in its bid to rid Britain of the excess weight of EU treaties. As Douglas Alexander wrote recently, the Europe speech “reveals more about the PM’s weakness at home than his agenda abroad”.

On migration, the Tories are also ensnared. The aim of bringing net migration to below 100,000 is misconceived and – irrespective of how few Bulgarians turn up – scare stories are already rife. Yet in the face of Tory disarray, Labour seems oddly silent, even allowing for some powerful interventions from Mr Alexander and Labour’s big beasts, such as Lords Kinnock and Mandelson. Mr Miliband, for example, contrived to get through his speech to the Fabians on Saturday without a single mention of the EU.

Asked by a delegate from Brussels to explain this omission, he offered a stout defence of Britain in Europe, echoing his speech last year to the CBI. None the less, One Nationism, Mr Miliband’s Fabian topic and defining creed, is susceptible to tipping into an insular doctrine in which Britons appear to have some privileged monopoly on universal values such as decency and kindness.

While Mr Miliband, the son of refugees, would never intend his new brand to be so construed, Labour’s sudden reverence for tradition demands the constant caveat that what was good for Disraeli’s Britain has little relevance in a globalised world and a Europe where, as one senior Labour figure says, reform is “perfectly possible without using the politics of blackmail”. That is the settled view within a party that, contrary to rumour, is not full of Eurosceptics. Though many Labour figures want a referendum, the issue is consent, not exit.

Mr Miliband should profit from that relative consensus to drum home, from now to the election, that any exit from Europe would be outweighed by a catastrophic slump in influence and a fall in trade with a market that accounts for half our exports. Those cities dependent on the motor industry would become as desolate as Detroit, as carmakers disappeared, and the City would be recast as a mausoleum to a lost financial services industry.

Stridency is vital to Labour, not least because the EU debate risks being further poisoned by the migration question. The Opposition still bears the scars of its decision to open our borders to Polish workers because Tony Blair insisted that a seven-year transition period was unfair – a move that helped ordain Labour’s defeat in 2010. Mr Miliband has conceded that his party got it wrong and promised measures ranging from curbs on agencies recruiting cheap foreign labour to an emphasis on English teaching.

He knows that tackling the housing shortage, low pay and integration is a better answer to resentment over immigration than a numbers game – not least because Labour’s polling reflects public dissatisfaction with Tory immigration policies. A much-needed report to be published tomorrow by the Institute for Public Policy Research on the principles that should underpin a fair and democratic immigration policy is likely to be welcomed by many across the political spectrum.

It will not, however, stop those Labour figures who counsel increased toughness. Mr Miliband, who has not yet ruled out a migration cap, may believe he can sit back while the Tories indulge in internecine war. An electorate spooked by Europe and enraged by immigration is unlikely to accord him the luxury of time.

SOURCE

Recent posts at CIS  below

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

Publication

1. Backgrounder: Before Considering Another Amnesty, Look at IRCA’s Lessons

Media

2. Op-ed: Should there be a path to citizenship?

3. Op-ed: A Bogus Immigration-Enforcement Factoid: A respected think tank makes a phony claim.

Blogs

4. Pravda and the Rise of a Toothless Tiger

5. Doubling Down on an Immigration Factoid

6. Immigration Vox Populi on C-SPAN, Part Two

7. Brilliant at Everything but Managing the Immigration Rules

8. Welshing on the Deal Before It's Even Reached

9. Immigration Vox Populi on C-SPAN, Part One

10. ICE Press Operation Concentrates on Everything but Immigration

11. Happy National Migration Week!






Napolitano Stays at DHS, Immigration Reform Advocates Cheer

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano will remain at her post during President Obama's second term, a development that could have implications for the debate over immigration reform.

Officials from the White House and the Department of Homeland Security confirmed to ABC/Univision on Monday that Napolitano will stay in her current job.

As Homeland Security chief, Napolitano oversees the bulk of the nation's immigration enforcement agencies, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

The federal government has beefed up resources dedicated to immigration enforcement during Napolitano's tenure. The government spent $18 billion in fiscal year 2012 to fund agencies like ICE and Border Patrol, more than what was spent all other federal law enforcement agencies combined, according to a report released last week by the Migration Policy Institute.

Under Napolitano, the former Democratic governor of Arizona, the Obama administration has overseen a record pace of deportations of undocumented immigrants. Through Obama's first four years in office, 1.59 million people have been deported, including nearly 410,000 in fiscal year 2012, according to ICE statistics. By comparison, the George W. Bush administration deported roughly 2 million during his eight years in office. On average, Obama has deported roughly 12,000 more people per month than Bush.

Immigration reform advocates believe that Napolitano's record on enforcement could help prove to skeptics that enacting comprehensive reform won't pose a danger to national security.

"I think with Secretary Napolitano as the head of the Department of Homeland Security, it certainly is very hard to argue that the Obama administration isn't serious about enforcement. She has been very aggressive in enforcing the law," said Benjamin Johnson, the executive director of the American Immigration Council in Washington, D.C. "She's bringing a lot of credibility and a lot of experience in making the case that we've done enforcement, and it's time to start thinking about other areas of immigration policy that have to be changed."

Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, said that Napolitano's relationships on Capitol Hill forged during her interactions with lawmakers over the past four years could pay off when the White House presses Congress to pass a bill.

"This will move quickly," he said. "So, the less of a learning curve someone has, the better."

But Napolitano has also faced myriad complaints from those on both sides of the debate. The administration's enforcement policies have drawn the ire of Latino and immigrant-rights groups, who staged protests against Obama several times during last year's presidential campaign.

In part to assuage those concerns, Napolitano announced in August 2011 that immigration enforcement agencies would conduct a case-by-case review of deportation cases in an effort to reduce the deportation of undocumented immigrants who otherwise have no criminal record. DHS claims removals of people not considered "priority" cases (i.e. no criminal record, no past immigration violations, and not caught at the border) fell to 4 percent of all deportations in 2012, down from 25 percent in 2008.

More HERE

Welcome Illegal Aliens - You're Safe Here

by ALAN CARUBA

The Obama administration loves to pass unpopular legislation-Obamacare-and release news of unpopular policies on Christmas Eve. The assumption is that people are too distracted to pay attention and, anyway, there's nothing they can do about it.

Illegal aliens received a Christmas gift when the chief of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), John Morton, released new guidelines for local police who might think it was their job to cooperate with ICE by detaining illegal aliens stopped for probably cause. Previously ICE had a "287 (g) program" that facilitated the process, but no more.

As ICE explained this change, the administration's goal is to limit the role of local cops with regard to the detention of illegal aliens arrested for misdemeanors (offices punishable by jail sentences of between 30-days and one year) or violations (offenses punishable by jail sentences of 30-days or less). Apparently there are just so many of these arrests that ICE doesn't want to bother with them anymore. And, after all, it only involves someone here ILLEGALLY.

According to ICE, the policy change will "further enhance our ability to focus enforcement efforts on serious offenders" by "changing who ICE will issue detainers against."

Need it be said that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) pushed hard to get this policy change, along with a variety of immigrant and refugee advocacy groups, including the Arab-American Institute.

I was reading a new book by Brett Braaten, "Homeland Insecurity: Failed Politics, Policies, and a Nation at Risk", when the new ICE policy was announced. The author is a former special agent whose career spans 29 years with both the U.S. Customs Service and, after the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). He saw how these agencies operated from the inside.

In his book, he warns that "The tangled web of guidelines, each one more convoluted than the last, stifles every innovative though that might otherwise see the light of day. The political correctness and cultural sensitivities that abound in the federal system, shackle law enforcement officers who are simply trying to do right by the American taxpayer and get everyone home safe at the end of the day."

What he learned along the way is the pecking order of the FBI, the IRS, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and ATF (the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.) "There had never been, nor would there ever be, a selfless spirit of cooperation among these agencies." After 9/11 the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002 was supposed to create greater cooperation among its components, but old rivalries die hard. At the bottom of the pecking order was and remains now the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

"Customs personnel quickly found that dealing with illegal alien processing and deportation was unwieldy and mind numbing. Layers of bureaucratic fine print, immigration laws saturated with loopholes, and exceptions to exceptions, slow the process to a near halt." During its first term, it became obvious to anyone paying attention that deporting illegal aliens had a very low priority.

If you are here illegally, unless you engage in serious crimes, you are not likely to be returned to your homeland. Indeed, the U.S. has become your homeland and one that where you can get a job and have access to multiple social programs which should be reserved for U.S. citizens.

Under the aegis of the Homeland Security Department, immigration enforcement has become a bad joke. The Center for Immigration Studies recently criticized DHS saying that "the agency responsible for overseeing educational institutions hosting foreign students rarely exercises its enforcement authority." There are nearly 1.2 million foreign students and their dependents in the U.S., attending close to 7,000 educational institutions. We are likely to learn that some of them are here for purposes of terrorism, but by then it will be too late.

Braaten warns that "There is no way that law enforcement can be efficient in the execution of its mission when it is little more than an expression of the political policies designed to serve the best interests of the current administration, regardless of affiliation." The nation's problem with illegal aliens has a long history. Occasional amnesties have only served as an inducement to enter illegally.

To those Americans who think border control is not a priority or that the presence of illegal aliens pose no real problem, Braaten says, Whether (they) like it or not, illegal aliens bring the ills of their respective societies with them. Lacking any reasonable societal pressure from (native born and naturalized Americans), there is no impetus to assimilate into American culture. There's no pressure to learn English in a society that falls all over itself to accommodate a vast population that lacks the interest or ability to learn it."

Large portions of California and the Southwest have literally been reclaimed by their illegal populations. "The southwest border," says Braaten, "has devolved to a state of near chaos. Communities, overrun with a crippling demand for social services from a foreign populace, find themselves falling deeper and deeper into deficient spending with no relief in sight."

The Obama administration has managed to cover up the "Fast and Furious" scandal in which the ATF allowed nearly 2,000 guns to get into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels. It cost the life of a border patrol officer and is currently protected against further Congressional investigation by an executive order. In the course of the investigations, however, Eric Holder became the first Attorney General to be held in contempt of Congress.

While Braaten focused on revelations about customs and immigration enforcement, he also took note of Department of Homeland Security failures that we know about, the uselessness of the Transportation Safety Administration that makes air travel a nightmare, and, in effect, the widespread belief that the U.S. is adequately and actually being protected by the alphabet soup of DHS agencies, and others charged with protecting the nation.

SOURCE





Obama Will Seek Citizenship Path in One Fast Push

President Obama plans to push Congress to move quickly in the coming months on an ambitious overhaul of the immigration system that would include a path to citizenship for most of the 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, senior administration officials and lawmakers said last week.

Mr. Obama and Senate Democrats will propose the changes in one comprehensive bill, the officials said, resisting efforts by some Republicans to break the overhaul into smaller pieces — separately addressing young illegal immigrants, migrant farmworkers or highly skilled foreigners — which might be easier for reluctant members of their party to accept.

The president and Democrats will also oppose measures that do not allow immigrants who gain legal status to become American citizens one day, the officials said.

Even while Mr. Obama has been focused on fiscal negotiations and gun control, overhauling immigration remains a priority for him this year, White House officials said. Top officials there have been quietly working on a broad proposal. Mr. Obama and lawmakers from both parties believe that the early months of his second term offer the best prospects for passing substantial legislation on the issue.

Mr. Obama is expected to lay out his plan in the coming weeks, perhaps in his State of the Union address early next month, administration officials said. The White House will argue that its solution for illegal immigrants is not an amnesty, as many critics insist, because it would include fines, the payment of back taxes and other hurdles for illegal immigrants who would obtain legal status, the officials said.

The president’s plan would also impose nationwide verification of legal status for all newly hired workers; add visas to relieve backlogs and allow highly skilled immigrants to stay; and create some form of guest-worker program to bring in low-wage immigrants in the future.

A bipartisan group of senators has also been meeting to write a comprehensive bill, with the goal of introducing legislation as early as March and holding a vote in the Senate before August. As a sign of the keen interest in starting action on immigration, White House officials and Democratic leaders in the Senate have been negotiating over which of them will first introduce a bill, Senate aides said.

“This is so important now to both parties that neither the fiscal cliff nor guns will get in the way,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, a Democrat who is a leader of the bipartisan discussions.

A similar attempt at bipartisan legislation early in Mr. Obama’s first term collapsed amid political divisions fueled by surging public wrath over illegal immigration in many states. But both supporters and opponents say conditions are significantly different now.

Memories of the results of the November election are still fresh here. Latinos, the nation’s fastest-growing electorate, turned out in record numbers and cast 71 percent of their ballots for Mr. Obama. Many Latinos said they were put off by Republicans’ harsh language and policies against illegal immigrants.

After the election, a host of Republicans, starting with Speaker John A. Boehner, said it was time for the party to find a more positive, practical approach to immigration. Many party leaders say electoral demographics are compelling them to move beyond policies based only on tough enforcement.

Supporters of comprehensive changes say that the elections were nothing less than a mandate in their favor, and that they are still optimistic that Mr. Obama is prepared to lead the fight.

“Republicans must demonstrate a reasoned approach to start to rebuild their relationship with Latino voters,” said Clarissa Martinez de Castro, the director of immigration policy at the National Council of La Raza, a Latino organization. “Democrats must demonstrate they can deliver on a promise.”

Since the election, Mr. Obama has repeatedly pledged to act on immigration this year. In his weekly radio address on Saturday, he again referred to the urgency of fixing the immigration system, saying it was one of the “difficult missions” the country must take on.

More HERE

Interceptions of immigrants stubbornly low

U.S. Border security efforts have a long way to go

Despite massive increases in manpower, the U.S. Border Patrol is still intercepting only about 61 percent of would-be illegal immigrants along the U.S.-Mexico border, according to an audit that the investigative arm of Congress released Wednesday.

The findings, which for the first time show a broad estimate of how many illegal immigrants the Border Patrol fails to catch each year, emerge as pressure builds on Congress to move past border security and begin to grant legal status to the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.

The Government Accountability Office report found that an estimated 208,813 illegal immigrants escaped capture along the nearly 2,000-mile border. Slightly more than half of them turned back to Mexico, and the others proceeded deeper into the U.S., the report said.

The report also said that the Obama administration has gone more than two years without having an effective yardstick for measuring border security, meaning there is no good way to evaluate the job the Border Patrol is doing.

“The bottom line is we are far from having operational control of our borders, particularly the southwest border, and as the GAO reports, there still are no metrics to quantify progress,” said House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, Texas Republican. “Meanwhile, the threat from groups ranging from Islamist extremists to drug cartels continues to grow.”

Border security has been a chief focus of immigration efforts since 2007, when the last major immigration reform bill failed in Congress. After that failure, Republicans said voters wanted the border secured before any legalization took place, and President Bush poured resources into the Border Patrol.

According to the GAO, the number of illegal border crossings has dropped, as has the number of illegal immigrants the Border Patrol apprehends. It’s unclear how much of that is a result of stricter enforcement and how much is because of the slumping U.S. economy and changes in Mexico.

But the GAO report painted a picture of an agency struggling to come up with ways to measure its effectiveness.

Two years ago, the Obama administration ditched the “operational control” yardstick that the Bush administration developed. The yardstick showed that just a fraction of the border was effectively sealed.

The Homeland Security Department, which oversees the Border Patrol, said in its official response to the GAO that it is trying to come up with a new yardstick by the end of November — which would mean it will have gone three years without a measure of border enforcement effectiveness.

“[The Department of Homeland Security] fully appreciates the importance and need of having measurable goals to assess progress in the area of border security,” Jim H. Crumpacker, Homeland Security’s liaison to GAO, said in the department’s response.

He said the Border Patrol has added some tools to try to track repeat illegal crossers, and uses internal measures to track progress.

The Border Patrol always has been able to say how many illegal immigrants it captured, but until recently it had little idea of how many crossed without being apprehended.

Now, with the boost in radar, sensors and other tools, the Border Patrol can estimate that number — and that gets it closer to coming up with a good yardstick of effectiveness, said Doris Meissner, a former commissioner of the defunct Immigration and Naturalization Service who just completed a review of immigration enforcement for the Migration Policy Institute.

She said that its particularly true in the Tucson, Ariz., sector, where the infrastructure has been built and where the Border Patrol is trying to figure out a measure of “baseline flows.”

“What Tucson is trying to determine, and what some other parts of the border think that they’re at, is what’s their baseline flow — in other words, what do they have to recognize, all other things being equal, is the normal course of illegal crossing activity,” Ms. Meissner said.

She said It’s a difficult balance, since not all crossings are the same.

Some likely represent the same person trying to cross multiple times, while others are high-risk crossers from countries that pose a risk of terrorism. The Border Patrol is trying to grapple with all of those factors in coming up with a new measure of security.

In 2011, the GAO said, the Border Patrol apprehended 327,118 illegal border crossers, while it estimates another 208,813 got away. Of those, 85,827 escaped into the U.S. and the rest turned back.

Auditors cautioned that the numbers are not exact because they often depend on judgment calls about whether someone was deemed to have turned back based on tracks or other signs.

The Border Patrol is still working on numbers for 2012.

But the numbers do show progress from 2006, when the Border Patrol apprehended 1.1 million, while more than 900,000 got away.

President Obama has said he will write immigration legislation this year and submit it to Congress. The legislation is expected to contain a legalization program for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.

But Steven A. Camarota, research director at the Center for Immigration Studies, said the numbers should be a warning to lawmakers who say the border is secure enough to tackle legalization.

“This doesn’t count the northern border, the coastline, perhaps an equal number of people who overstay temporary visas in the United States,” he said. “The question is, ‘Is that control?’ Most people would say if several hundred thousand people successfully sneak across one of your borders, you’ve still got a serious problem.”

Among other findings, GAO investigators said the rate of repeat offenders has dropped from about 42 percent in 2008 to 36 percent in 2011.

Auditors also said that drug seizures were up 83 percent in 2011 compared with 2006. More than a quarter of that drug activity happened in the Tucson sector.

SOURCE







White Britons are now a minority in Leicester, Luton and Slough and Birmingham is set to follow by end of decade

Three towns and cities have joined London in having a minority white British population.

Researchers say more than 50 per cent of people living in Leicester, Luton and Slough are either foreign or from an ethnic minority.

Birmingham is expected to have a similar make-up by 2020.
Changing face of Britain: Three places outside London have a minority of white Britons. This graph shows the growth of other nationalities in Britain

Changing face of Britain: Three places outside London have a minority of white Britons. This graph shows the growth of other non-white groups in the UK since 1991 in thousands

The findings are based on the 2011 national census, in which residents were asked which ethnic group they were in.

The census also broke the white population down into those who see themselves as white British and those who consider they are ‘white other’ – a group that will include immigrants from Europe as well as Australasia and America.

London has already been shown to have a white British population of only 45 per cent.

Yesterday’s breakdown showed that those who call themselves white British amount to 45 per cent of the population of Leicester, 45 per cent of the population of Luton and only just over a third, 35 per cent, of the people of Slough.

The white populations in all three are swollen by the presence of white migrants, including high numbers of Eastern Europeans who have arrived since their countries joined the EU and they were given the right to live in Britain in 2004.

The analysis, by academics at the University of Manchester, said the comparative decline of white British numbers does not mean that ethnically mixed towns and cities have become less British.

The children of immigrants who were born in this country tend to regard themselves as British, it said. ‘Eighty-one per cent of Luton’s residents have a British national identity while 45 per cent are of the white British ethnic group,’ added the report.

 ‘We already know from other sources that British identity is felt at least as strongly by those of minority ethnicity as those of white British ethnicity.’

‘This is the case for people of similar age and background born in the UK: younger, more highly educated people, and those born overseas all express less strong British identity.’

It also said segregation is decreasing and residential mixing of different groups became more common between 2001 and 2011.

According to the research, two thirds of Leicester’s 330,000 population were born in the UK. The city, it found, has 17 ethnic groups more than 1,000 strong.

In Luton, only 91,000 of the 203,000 population say they are white British, but 165,000 people regard themselves as British.

In Slough, of 140,000 people, 48,000 say they are white British but 108,000 say their identity is British.

Results for Newham in East London, where fewer than one in six are white British, show two thirds of people say they are British.

Ludi Simpson, professor of population studies at Manchester University, said: ‘We need to understand changing ethnic composition to understand our citizens’ changing needs.

‘Housing, school meals, care of older people, cultural and entertainment facilities, funeral services and many other aspects of local services are intrinsically affected.’

SOURCE

New Report Offers Deceptive Assessment of Immigration Enforcement

 A new report being promoted by the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), a research institute dedicated to promoting migration, paints a deliberately misleading picture of the state of immigration law enforcement. The report, titled Immigration Enforcement in the United States: The Rise of a Formidable Machinery, is presented as an objective assessment of immigration programs, and has been widely covered in the news media -- but is riddled with false statements, cherry-picked statistics and inappropriate comparisons. This compilation of bogus findings aims to convince opinion leaders and the public that the government has succeeded in creating an effective "bulwark" of immigration enforcement that cannot be improved upon much, and suggests that spending cuts might be in order. MPI seems to have issued this report in an attempt to help sell the President's immigration agenda, which includes amnesty for illegal immigrants, further restrictions on immigration enforcement, and expanded legal immigration.

Researchers at the Center for Immigration Studies have found numerous problems in the MPI report. Below are some of the false and/or deceptive statements found in the report’s executive summary, followed by our critique:

"U.S. Spends More on Immigration Enforcement than on FBI, DEA, Secret Service & All Other Federal Criminal Law Enforcement Agencies Combined; Nearly $187 Billion Spent on Federal Immigration Enforcement over Past 26 Years." This is the headline on the MPI press release, and the most egregious falsehood in the report. First, MPI grossly inflates the immigration enforcement spending totals by tallying all spending by three Department of Homeland Security agencies -- Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and US-VISIT. But a large share of these agencies’ activities are not immigration enforcement, including customs screening and enforcement, drug and weapons interdiction, cargo inspection, returning stolen antiquities, and intellectual property violations. Some of these agencies’ activities, such as inspecting incoming travelers at ports of entry and maintaining databases, are not enforcement at all, but routine administrative work. It is impossible to determine how much the federal government has spent on immigration enforcement in any year, much less the last 26 years, because the Department of Homeland Security and its predecessor, INS, have never tracked these activities; but one thing is obvious – that amount is certainly far less than $187 billion. It is probably at least 25-30% less, judging by historical budgets for Customs enforcement.

Second, MPI’s comparison of immigration enforcement spending to other federal law enforcement spending is similarly deceptive. MPI fails to include several big-ticket agencies in its tally of other principal federal law enforcement expenditures, such as the federal prison system and the U.S. Attorneys. This is important, because MPI counted similar program expenses in ICE and CBP’s budget (immigration detention, Border Patrol, and ICE trial attorneys).1

Further, MPI excludes expenses of more than a dozen other federal law enforcement agencies that are part of "other federal law enforcement." Some of these law enforcement agencies, such as the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), have budgets larger than ICE, DEA, or ATF.2

A few simple adjustments turn MPI's dubious calculations upside-down. Subtract a conservative estimate for customs enforcement ($4.4 billion) from the immigration agencies, and add the Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Attorneys, and TSA to the "All Others" total spending, then immigration enforcement costs closer to half of "All Others," not more, as MPI claims (See Table 1). Add in the other missing federal law enforcement agencies and the whole point about a huge immigration enforcement complex disappears.

Some of what MPI calls immigration enforcement overlaps and possibly even surpasses the efforts of other federal criminal law enforcement agencies. It would be interesting to compare, for example, the number of CBP drug and weapons seizures with DEA and ATF statistics, and the number of ICE gang arrests and prosecutions with FBI activities. That is beyond the scope of this fact sheet, but such an analysis would give some context to MPI’s facile spending comparisons.

"Border Patrol staffing, technology and infrastructure have reached historic highs, while levels of apprehensions have fallen to historic lows." Border Patrol funding is higher than ever, but illegal immigration has been higher in the last decade than 20 or 40 years ago. Apprehensions are down overall, but that is an incomplete measure of progress, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which has concluded that DHS had achieved operational control of only a small share of the southwest border. According to the latest GAO report, the border patrol is intercepting only an estimated 61% of illegal crossers.3

"CBP and ICE together refer more cases for prosecution than all Department of Justice (DOJ) law enforcement agencies combined." This MPI factoid is based on data they retrieved with a do-it-yourself on-line analytical tool, and is therefore difficult to replicate.4 In any case, immigration prosecutions are the fast food of the federal criminal justice system; there are lots of offenders, the cases are relatively simple, and the sentences (if any) are relatively short because removal is usually the outcome. Another more accessible and perhaps more reliable source, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, reports that immigration cases represent a much smaller share of the federal criminal justice docket than MPI suggests. Their 2011 annual report says that immigration offenders were 35% of all those sentenced in federal court that year, meaning there were twice as many sentenced offenders from non-immigration agency prosecutions than from CBP and ICE.5 However, this same report notes that 10% of murderers, 31% of drug traffickers, 34% of money launderers, 64% of kidnappers, and 28% of food and drug offenders sentenced that year were non-citizens, so it’s easy to see why immigration enforcement should be such a high priority in federal law enforcement. Obviously these two sets of data are measuring different things – referrals for prosecution and sentenced offenders -- but they are equally valid measures of the immigration agencies’ footprint in the federal criminal justice system. MPI obviously preferred the more melodramatic of the two.

"Since 1990, more than 4 million non-citizens, primarily unauthorized immigrants, have been deported from the United States. Removals have increased dramatically in recent years . . ." As the President has said, these numbers are "actually a little deceptive."6 The "dramatic" increases in deportations, removals and returns occurred between 2005 and 2009; since then, the numbers have flattened out.7 By discussing the increases over the time span 1990 to 2011, MPI is able to avoid drawing attention to the recent stagnation in enforcement. It has been established that recent deportation statistics are heavily padded with cases that were not previously counted as such.8 In addition, ICE arrests have been trending downward since 2008, after a sharp rise that year; it’s hard to see how deportations can be rising when apprehensions are falling.9

"Fewer than half of the noncitizens who are removed from the United States are removed following hearings and pursuant to formal removal orders from immigration judges." MPI tries to give the impression that noncitizens are being denied due process. As discussed in a recent CIS publication,10 there are many reasons why DHS is able to remove noncitizens without a hearing. The main reason is because most of the aliens selected for removal by ICE are not entitled to a hearing, either because they are convicted criminals or because they have been ordered removed before. Considering how backlogged the immigration court system is, which MPI notes with great concern, the fact that DHS is using more expedited processing in many cases should be viewed with approval, not alarm.

"The average daily population of noncitizens detained by ICE increased nearly five-fold between FY 1995-11 . . . . a significantly larger number of individuals are detained each year in the immigration detention system than are serving sentences in federal Bureau of Prisons facilities for all other federal crimes." This is another silly apples-to-anchovies comparison. MPI compares the static number of federal prisoners (about 218,000) with a year’s worth of immigration detainees (429,000). It would have been more appropriate (but still pointless) to compare the average daily immigration detention population (33,000) with the BOP number. MPI probably also noticed on the Bureau of Prisons web site that immigration offenders represent only 12% of the federal inmate population, a statistic that does not fit in with their portrayal of a massive immigration enforcement dragnet that dominates the federal corrections system. But as MPI notes, the immigration detention system is not at all like the federal prison system in purpose or nature. Immigration detention is more comparable to the local jail system, which has an average daily population of about 750,000 inmates.11

The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820,  Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076.  Email: center@cis.org. The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States.  The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization






Chamber Of Commerce: Immigration Overhaul A Top Priority

The president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said Thursday that the "door to the American dream must always remain open" as he announced a broad coalition of business, labor, faith organizations, law enforcement and ethnic groups intent on overhauling the nation's immigration system.

Tom Donohue outlined his priorities for immigration legislation and expressed optimism that after years of ill-fated efforts, there is momentum in the White House and Congress to tackle the politically charged issue. The backing of the Chamber, which represents the interests of more than 3 million businesses, is certain to provide a critical boost to the push for reform against stiff opposition.

Donohue said any legislation should include increased border security, provisional visas for lesser-skilled workers and expansion of green cards for foreign nationals who receive advanced degrees from U.S. colleges and universities. He also favors a national employee verification system, which has been a contentious issue in the debate.

Donohue stressed that there should be a way to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

"We need to provide a path out of the shadows for the 11 million undocumented immigrants who live in the United States today – provided that they meet strict conditions," he said in a speech on the state of American business.

Donohue questioned the wisdom of training individuals "to have PhDs in organic chemistry" and then sending them back to their native country. He noted that there are a number of seasonal jobs in entertainment and agriculture.

The Chamber president is working with AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, whom he praised as the "best guy in town" at building coalitions. Donohue also said he has met with Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who had been involved in previous efforts on immigration legislation.

"It's a work in progress as no legislation had yet been introduced, but we have been informally cooperating because all of us have a shared interest in America actually having a working immigration system that includes a roadmap to citizenship for the undocumented, together with other reforms to make our immigration laws meet the needs of the country," said Ana Avendano, assistant to the president for Immigration and Community Action at the AFL-CIO.

Most Democrats have favored legislation to give millions of illegal immigrants a chance at citizenship, but some Republicans have rejected that step. The issue has exposed divisions within the Republican ranks, and the split was particularly pronounced during the GOP presidential primaries.

Republican nominee Mitt Romney adopted a hard line on the issue, suggesting that illegal immigrants "self-deport." The results of the general election forced many in the GOP to reconsider their position, especially after Obama captured an estimated 71 percent of the Hispanic vote in winning re-election.

Looking ahead to the next election, Republicans recognize the political drawbacks of a tough line on immigration, especially with growing Hispanic populations in Florida, California and Texas. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., the son of Cuban immigrants, worked on a bill last year that would have permitted young illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. with their parents to apply for non-immigrant visas.

It was a policy that Obama adopted.

Donohue acknowledged the difficulty in getting all parties to agree to legislation. "You can demagogue this issue very easily," he said at a news conference following his speech.

Donohue's comments came as he detailed the chamber's priorities this year on federal spending, regulation and energy.

SOURCE

House Gears Up For Immigration Battle

With immigration expected to be a top issue in the new Congress, lawmakers in both parties continue to call for a bipartisan approach — while also preparing for battle.

The messaging from many House Democrats and Republicans about the chances of passing an immigration overhaul remains optimistic. And some of them, such as Republican Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida and Democrat Zoe Lofgren of California, have begun to meet privately.

But other moves indicate that lawmakers are hedging their bets and girding for a fight.

Meanwhile, both sides are waiting to gauge President Obama's involvement after he campaigned last year on a pledge to deliver immigration reform. His administration recently announced another change to its immigration policy that will allow some illegal immigrants married to U.S. citizens to stay longer before returning to their countries to apply for permanent American visas.

The Republican leadership has installed a pair of immigration hawks to chair the House Judiciary Committee and its subcommittee that would be charged with drafting any immigration bills. In an apparent countermove, a veteran Democrat has given up his seniority on the coveted Financial Services Committee to join the judiciary panel and help push through possible reforms.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., the new House Judiciary Committee chairman, is a former immigration attorney who has taken a hard line against Democratic proposals, many of which he has regarded as amnesty. He opposes the Obama administration's policy changes, including its deferred deportation program that provides a two-year reprieve to qualified young people brought to the United States illegally as children.

Any hearings would be presided over by conservative Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., the new chairman of the subcommittee on immigration and border security. Gowdy holds many of the same positions as Goodlatte, including opposition to the Obama policies.

Has the Republicans' post-election embrace of an immigration overhaul worn off?

Maybe not. Gowdy, who just began his second term, recently told a South Carolina newspaper that he wants to come up with a bill that reflects "the humanity that I think defines us as a people, and the respect for the rule of law that defines us as a republic."

Gowdy dismissed the notion embraced by some conservatives that the nation should deport the estimated 11 million or more immigrants illegally living in the U.S. But he didn't indicate whether he would support Democratic principles such as offering a path to citizenship.

He said any legislation would have to reinforce the nation's borders and order the deportation of lawbreakers to gain the needed support of conservative lawmakers. Many Democrats, including leading Latino lawmakers, have said they would agree to such requirements.

Goodlatte and Gowdy will have to contend with Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., who took leave from the House Financial Services Committee to be a junior member of the Judiciary Committee and help that panel draft immigration legislation. Immigration overhaul has been the signature issue of Gutierrez's two decades in Congress.

"I felt I must be on the Judiciary Committee during this Congress to help the others on the committee get immigration reform to the finish line," Gutierrez said in a statement. "We can't wait and wait and wait for immigration reform, and I am finding an enthusiasm for action that I have not seen on Capitol Hill for years."

SOURCE





U.S. Immigration Policy Is chasing away valuable high-skilled entrepreneurs

When we teach our introductory entrepreneurship class at MIT, we take it for granted that each of our 75 students will be able to start an American company upon graduating. But many of them lack one thing they need to be able to do so—permission from the United States government to continue working in our country.

In this academic year, three in 10 MIT students, including four in 10 graduate students, are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents. So for them our entrepreneurship class is likely to remain just an academic exercise. Their student visas expire when they graduate, leaving them with two options, to leave the country or find an existing company to sponsor them for a chance at an H-1B visa.

Either way, they can’t start a company in the United States. Their only hope is to secure a visa extension for “optional practical training,” after which they must apply for an H-1B visa for their startup once it grows large enough to be recognized as a legitimate enterprise—among other things, one that employs 25 or more employees. But even if they follow this path, they are not allowed to become a majority shareholder in their own startup.

Much discussion about immigration views it as a zero-sum game, where a set number of jobs at existing companies will be awarded either to Americans or to foreigners. Indeed, the logic underlying the H-1B process is that a visa should be granted only when a qualified American cannot be secured for a position. The present view of immigration policy, where the resulting labor supply is applied only toward jobs at existing companies, misses the essential contribution that would-be immigrant entrepreneurs sitting in our classroom can provide, the creation of new American companies, and with them new American jobs.

Innovation-driven entrepreneurs are the engine of a vibrant economy. Their high levels of education and their pursuit of global markets and rapid expansion create jobs and economic prosperity. And many of them, such as these MIT students, were not born in the United States. There is a global competition to recruit this talent, and countries such as Canada, Singapore, and Australia have introduced policies that are far more welcoming than ours. Although strides have been made in retaining immigrant science, technology, engineering, and mathematics students, these measures are largely designed to let immigrants to fill jobs in existing companies. Would-be immigrant entrepreneurs still face major obstacles and uncertainty.

However, a window of opportunity around immigration may be opening. Alejandro Mayorkas, director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, recently addressed a group of MIT students and acknowledged the benefits of keeping talented foreign-born entrepreneurs in our country. He is working to streamline USCIS procedures to aid entrepreneurs as much as possible under existing laws and has just launched a website, www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/eir, to help entrepreneurs understand their options. Meanwhile President Obama and a number of congressional Democrats and Republicans alike have publicly expressed a desire to help foreign-born entrepreneurs stay in the United States.

Certainly we don’t pretend to have all the answers, and we are mindful of moral (and political) hazard. But we see three areas that the U.S. government should revisit in order to address the needs of foreign-born entrepreneurs’ desire to start American companies and create American jobs.

First, immigration policy needs to focus not just on skilled immigrants filling positions in existing companies, but on immigrants’ potential to create new companies, leading to the creation of new jobs. Perhaps a new EB-1 (priority worker) category could be created for entrepreneurs, similar to the existing category for scientists. The United Kingdom has designed a new entrepreneur’s visa for just such a purpose.

Second, we need to appreciate the talent of these entrepreneurs rather than making them feel like aliens. We have heard more than one outstanding foreign-born student reveal feelings of being treated like a suspect at a crime scene rather than a highly valuable asset. Other countries are increasingly becoming more welcoming to them, so our customer service policy has got to become more sensitive.

Third, one of the great advantages of startups is that they typically move fast and run lean and mean. They eschew bureaucracy in favor of action and experimentation, which is what makes them so great. We are in a competitive market and must actively recruit this talent and be more responsive to its needs.

We hope that our talented, foreign-born students at MIT and other higher learning institutes aren’t shown the door at the conclusion of their American education. Let’s instead use immigration as a tool to promote innovation-driven entrepreneurship and the gains in jobs and economic prosperity that result.

Or to put it another way, what if Steve Wozniak had been born not in San Jose but in Saskatchewan?

SOURCE

U.S. Administration Spends More on Immigration Than all Other Federal Law Enforcement Combined

Most law enforcement is by the States

Last year, the Obama administration spent almost $18 billion on immigration enforcement. That's more than what it spent on the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, Secret Service, U.S. Marshals Service, and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, combined, according to a report by the Migration Policy Institute. Twenty-four percent more to be exact.

Considering the amount of money that is spent, "today, immigration enforcement can be seen as the federalgovernment's highes criminal law enforcement priority," a co-author of the report said in a statement

In addition to huge spending, immigration enforcement accounts for over half of federally prosecuted crimes. The nearly 430,000 people detained each year for immigration-related crimes is a significantly larger number than the entire population currently serving sentences for all federal crimes combined. Meanwhile, deportations have increased from 30,000 in 1990 to nearly 400,000 in 2011. From 1990 to 2011more than 4 million people have been deported from the United States, according to the report.

Here's how the MPI explained their findings in the 182-page report that the New York Times describes as "an opening salvo in a contentious debate over immigration that President Obama has pledged to lead this year":

"[The] findings tell a story of aggressive enforcement of immigration laws at the borders and in the nation’s interior, and of immigration agencies that are utilizing wide-ranging statutory and procedural authorities. Moreover, immigration enforce- ment is increasingly going global through international agreements, unprecedented cross-border cooperation with Mexico and Canada, and special initiatives that combat transnational crime. Dramatic growth, advanced technology, and new programs have cohered to constitute a transformed immigration enforcement system that increasingly implicates foreign relations, national security, counterterrorism, trade, labor standards, system that increasingly implicates foreign relations, national security, counterterrorism, trade, labor standards, states’ rights, criminal justice, and civil-rights policy realms."

SOURCE







Enough illegal migrants to fill three cities the size of Newcastle: Home Office reports that 863,000 are living in the UK

Britain is hosting enough illegal immigrants to fill three cities the size of Newcastle, according to border officials.

A Home Office report says an estimated 70 per cent of the 863,000 illegal migrants are living in London.

The study also reveals that 10,000 foreigners who had no legal right to live in Britain have been granted permission to stay under the so-called 14-year rule.

It means they managed to stay in the country for so long without being booted out that the Government has now given up the fight.

Ministers say the situation is a legacy of Labour's shambolic handling of border controls.

The illegal immigrants are a mixture of those who sneaked into Britain in the back of lorries and those who arrived on visas but never went home.

Officials, overwhelmed by the foreign prisoners scandal and a deluge of asylum claims, did not have the resources to track them down.

The 'robust estimate' of how many illegals are living in the UK comes from the London School of Economics, and is included in a study titled Practical Measures for Reducing Irregular Migration. Ministers accept the figure.

The Home Office says the top five countries from which the illegals have arrived are believed to be India, Nigeria, Pakistan, China, and Bangladesh.

This is based on the nationalities of those people the authorities have detected.

Last night Immigration Minister Mark Harper said: 'It's no surprise that after years of uncontrolled immigration, we have a sizeable illegal immigrant population in Britain.

'We are determined to get immigration under control, and in the past year net migration has fallen by a quarter. We also want to get tough on illegal immigration.'

The illegal population – more than three times the 275,000  who live in Newcastle – will add sharply to the number of foreign-born nationals living here legally.

Earlier this month, the official Census showed that 7.5million people who were born abroad were living here in 2011, of whom more than half have arrived since 2001.

The Home Office study sets out for the first time how many beneficiaries there have been of the 14-year rule.

This states that, once a migrant has lived in the UK for this long, he or she will have established a right to a family life and should not normally be kicked out.

Between 2004 and 2011, 9,266 'irregular migrants' were granted permission to stay, including a record figure of 2,062 in 2010.

The total is now understood to have breached the 10,000 barrier.

SOURCE