Remember Maine! The Whitest State, Where Americans Are Still Doing Jobs That “Americans Won’t Do”

Everyone has heard the saying that immigrants—legal and otherwise—are simply “doing jobs Americans won’t do.” Jobs such as farm workers, janitors, landscaping, and housekeeping are labeled as “undesirable” work for Americans, and therefore, amnesty/increased immigration is needed in order to harvest crops, clean houses, and maintain lawn integrity. Yet one blue state seems to be doing just fine—trimmed lawns and all—with Americans doing jobs that “Americans won’t do.” That state is Maine—the whitest state in the Union.

In Maine, about four percent of farm laborers are non-citizens. In California, approximately 73% of farm laborers are non-citizens. California has approximately 2.2 million illegal immigrants residing within her borders. The number in Maine is so small it was not quantifiable in the 2000 Census.

Somehow, even without massive amounts of immigrant labor, Maine produces 25% of all of the lowbrush blueberries in North America in addition to one of the largest potato crops in the nation.

So while the Soviet-style agitprop line is that immigrants are “doing the jobs Americans won’t do,” this does not seem to be the case in the Pine Tree State. Maine’s population is around 1.4 million people, and of those, only a paltry 43,000 are foreign-born—a number which is likely inflated by the number of births across the Canadian border simply because the hospital there was closer.

Maine has experienced a 350% increase in the number of African immigrants since 2000. However, even with this invasion, the state is still 94.9% white, the whitest in the nation. A majority of its immigrant population comes from Canada and Europe—not exactly the stereotypical Hispanic housekeeper or farm laborer. Over half of Maine’s foreign-born residents are now U.S citizens.

Unlike in California, native-born Mainers have somehow retained the ability to pick crops and clean houses. In Aroostook County, the largest county east of the Mississippi and home to the majority of the potato production in the state, potatoes are picked not by immigrants—be they “guest workers” or the illegal variety—but by armies of high school aged children.

Most high schools in Aroostook County start two weeks earlier than elementary and middle schools, to account for a three-week long “harvest break” in late September to pick potatoes. The availability of the (nearly entirely white and native Mainer) schoolchildren is so crucial for the success of the harvest that farmers in several school districts were able to lobby schools to delay the start of the break by one week in 2012 in order to give the crop more time to grow. [Potato harvest break adjusted in parts of Aroostook County to meet farmers’ needs, By Julia Bayly, Bangor Daily News, September 14, 2012]It’s hard to imagine something similar happening in say, California’s central valley.

Even the liberals who make a living off of writing vacuous tracts about the horrors of welfare reform admit that the white, non-immigrant population of Maine is perfectly capable of and willing to do doing jobs that Americans supposedly won’t do.

Barbara Ehrenreich, honorary co-chair of Democratic Socialists of America and author of Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America,  admitted in chapter two (“Scrubbing in Maine”) that she “chose Maine [to work in] for its whiteness”—meaning that nobody would be suspicious that a white housekeeper or maid might secretly be undercover writing a book.

Ehrenreich was also rather stunned at the fact that her (white) coworkers at Merry Maids were not falling over themselves in excitement when she revealed that she was only working there for what was essentially blue-collar pageantry. For her coworkers, working for Merry Maids was not a research activity: it was their best possible source of income.

The immigrants that actually move to Maine are generally not moving to come work on a farm. A popular destination point for a large percentage of non-European and Canadian immigrants is the city of Lewiston, which is located in Androscoggin County. The black population of Androscoggin County has been growing rapidly since 2001, when families of Somalis and Bantus began migrating to Lewiston, a predominantly working-class French-Canadian mill town. They were attracted to Maine by the low crime rates, good schools, and generous welfare benefits Maine had to offer.

According to the 2010 Census, the population of Androscoggin County is about 107,702. Of that number, 3.7% are black or African American, which breaks down to about 4,000 people. While that may seem small, that number is actually a more than 500% increase since the 2000 census, where the county was 0.66% black—for a total of 685 people.

The Somali population in the Lewiston area now is estimated to be around “6,000” total, but census data indicates that that guess is a little high. [Lewiston Somalis Call on Mayor to Apologize or Resign, By  Susan Sharon, MPBN, October 4, 2012]  Anyhow, instead of doing jobs Americans won’t do, data aggregated by the New York Times in 2009 shows that “>90%” (a polite way of saying “just about everyone”) of the black population in Androscoggin County was receiving food stamps. [Food Stamp Usage Across the Country, November 28, 2009]

In comparison, in 2009, 17% of the white population of Androscoggin County was receiving food stamps, far closer to the national average at the time.

For what it’s worth, downtown Lewiston has seen a number of Somali-owned shops open in recent years—and it’s a well-known fact that no American is willing to open a store, right?

Maine is proof that American citizens are willing and able to do so-called “undesirable” jobs. Mainers, unlike Californians, are actually given the opportunity to work as maids, landscapers, farmers, etc, and houses get cleaned, lawns get mowed, and blueberries get picked each year without major issue. Maine has no supply of cheap illegal immigrant labor, so it must rely on its best natural resource: the people of Maine.

SOURCE

Non-Americans and recent victims of an American education may be unaware that the title of the article above contains an allusion to a once popular slogan: "Remember the Maine, to Hell with Spain!".  The slogan refers to the sinking of the American battleship, "Maine", in Havana harbour in 1898





Australian Leftist leader plays down new route used by illegals to come to Australia

It sounds like there is reason for concern, however

IT'S time for the federal coalition and their Queensland counterparts to stop fearmongering on asylum seekers, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says.

Four asylum seekers have been intercepted crossing the Torres Strait in recent days, prompting warnings from Queensland and federal Liberals that the state could become the new destination for boat people.

"I think it's time that Mr Abbott and his team, particularly those up here in far north Queensland, stopped the fearmongering," Mr Rudd told reporters in Townsville on Tuesday.

Premier Campbell Newman has warned that asylum seekers would use the "porous" border between Papua New Guinea and Queensland to enter the country after being resettled under the Rudd government's PNG solution.

Mr Rudd said it didn't matter where asylum seekers came from, if they arrived on a boat without a visa they would not be settled in Australia.

"Whether it's through Christmas Island or whether it's across the Torres Strait or whether it's from Antarctica, they'll be handled the same under this policy," the prime minister said.

Mr Rudd's comments came as another 39 single adult men were transferred to PNG's Manus Island under Labor's hardline resettlement policy.

Since Mr Rudd announced his PNG arrangement on July 19, 33 boats with 2185 passengers have arrived in Australian waters.

Of those people, 236 have been sent to Manus Island.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said the movement of asylum seekers into the Torres Strait showed that the PNG deal on its own was not effective.

"All it does is open up a new front for the people smugglers," he told reporters at a campaign event on Sydney's outskirts.

SOURCE

Questions for Lawmakers on Immigration

Twenty questions on amnesty that politicians haven't answered

The Center for Immigration Studies has released a new report highlighting questions on immigration legislation that voters might ask their representatives when trying to determine their actual stance on the issue. Too many politicians have discussed immigration legislation proposals with clich‚d talking points that fail to describe the true impact of increasing legal immigration and amnestying 11 million illegal immigrants. The questions in this report are intended to help move the discussion beyond the evasions and platitudes usually offered by politicians.

The report contains twenty questions for lawmakers on a variety of topics, ranging from the impact an amnesty would have on unemployed Americans to the number of immigrants the proposed legislation would welcome into the United States. The questions also focus on provisions contained in the Senate bill (S.744) like E-Verify, the flawed "back taxes" and English language requirements, and the problem of conducting background checks on millions of illegal immigrants.

Additionally, the questions prompt legislators to respond to findings from the Congressional Budget Office that immigration legislation would lower the wages of many Americans, and that the Senate bill would allow up to two-thirds of illegal immigration to continue. The questions also encourage a response to immigration law enforcement officials who have come out against current proposals.

The report is available online at: www.cis.org/questions-for-lawmakers-on-immigration

"These are the type of questions that constituents and journalists should be asking of politicians promoting amnesty legislation," said Jon Feere, Legal Policy Analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies. "Thus far, too many politicians have shown a complete lack of understanding of the impact their legislation would have. These questions should foster a deeper conversation between the public and congressional leadership."

View a new CIS series analyzing the House of Representatives bill, H.R. 2278, at: http://cis.org/SAFE-Act

View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony and commentary at: http://cis.org/Border-Security-Economic-Opportunity-Immigration-Modernization-Act

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. Contact: Jon Feere
202-466-8185, jdf@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






Why Employers Hire Foreign Workers

It's Not Because of a Labor Shortage

The Center for Immigration Studies has published a new backgrounder, "Motivation for Hiring Alien Workers? Hint: It's Not a Labor Shortage", analyzing the reasons behind the employer push for a massive increase in temporary foreign worker admissions.

The new analysis finds that temporary alien workers are attractive to employers not only because of below-market wages but also because they are indentured by their terms of admission to the United States. Further, these workers are recruited from relatively docile, authority-fearing Third World populations and are thus can be easier to manage than Americans. Finally these programs allow the employer to avoid the nation's age discrimination laws and to hire a disproportionately young work force from overseas.

The backgrounder's author and a Fellow at the Center, David North, comments, "Politicians and advocates for mass immigration were successful in having an enormous increase in foreign worker programs like the H1-B inserted in the Senate bill (S. 744) by citing a labor shortage and the need for the 'best and the brightest.' However, a shortage only exists because employers are not willing to increase wages. It is clearly in their best interest, as opposed to the best interest of the American worker or the economy, to instead get Congress to adjust and expand the work force."

View the paper at: http://cis.org/labor-shortage-not-reason-employers-want-alien-workers.

North also discusses a rarely mentioned policy problem, ethnocentric hiring practices. An H1-B visa employer is not required to adhere to equal employment opportunity laws when hiring overseas, allowing him, if he so chooses, to hire from only one ethnic group or country. But the problem is bigger than just a few small operations; there are entire industries engaging in such practices. The backgrounder cites two specific examples, the outsourcing firms in the computer and IT-related fields, generally, and one set of tax-supported and charter schools, specifically.

Before laying out the motivation for employers to seek increased foreign workers, Mr. North debunks the idea that the United States has a labor shortage or lacks access to the necessary best and the brightest workers. According to the backgrounder, rather than targeting the programs to the limited number of unique situations, "these systems impose both serious displacement and wage-depression impacts on the U.S. labor market."

View a new CIS series analyzing the House of Representatives bill, H.R. 2278, at: http://cis.org/SAFE-Act

View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony and commentary at: http://cis.org/Border-Security-Economic-Opportunity-Immigration-Modernization-Act

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. Contact: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@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

British Labour Party 'made mistakes' by opening borders to influx of EU workers, Chris Bryant admits

The Labour Party 'made mistakes' on immigration by going it alone and opening Britain's borders to a huge influx of migrant workers, Chris Bryant admitted today.

Labour's shadow immigration minister said the governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were too slow to introduce a points-based system aimed at curbing the number of low-skilled people flocking to the UK.

But the opposition's current policy on immigration was mired in confusion today as Mr Bryant embarrassingly  Bryant backtracked on criticism of two of Britain's biggest retailers.

He had planned to use a major speech today to attack Tesco and Next for using cheap migrant labour to undercut local people.

But after the retail giants hit back, the former Labour foreign minister went into reverse, declaring: 'I fully accept that Next and Tesco indeed often go the extra mile to try and recruit more local workers.'

However, in his speech Mr Bryant did finally lay bare the last government's failure to get a grip on immigration, leading to thousands more people moving to the UK than other EU countries.

He admitted: 'Labour made mistakes on immigration. When we came to power in 1997 we had to tackle the complete chaos in the asylum system, when just fifty members of staff were dealing with 71,000 asylum applications every year.

'Labour created the position of Immigration Minister to bring real focus to these issues right across government. 'But although we were right to introduce the points based system in 2008, we should have done that far earlier.  'And when the new A8 countries joined the EU we were so focused on economic growth that when Germany, France and Italy all put in transitional controls on new EU workers, we went it alone.  'The result? A far higher number of people came to work here.'

It has placed Labour at the centre of a new ‘British jobs for British workers row’ over claims big firms deliberately target immigrant workers at the expense of British staff.

In his speech Mr Bryant planned to attack ‘unscrupulous employers’ who seem to ‘deliberately exclude British people’, instead taking on cheaper staff from Eastern Europe.

But in a BBC interview dealing with the political storm triggered by pre-released extracts of the speech, he insisted he was not planning to name any ‘unscrupulous employers’ at all.

He planned to accuse Next of printing job adverts only in Polish to attract cheap labour, and say Tesco moved a distribution centre from Harlow in Essex to ‘Kent’, where a ‘large percentage’ of the staff are from the eastern bloc.

But his attempt to grab the initiative on immigration backfired spectacularly after both the clothes retailer and the supermarket chain denied the claims made in previewed sections of his speech.

Notably, Tesco does not even have a depot in Kent - and Mr Bryant claimed he did not know how the error had found its way into his speech.

And Next said the only reason it employs workers from Poland is because local people refuse to apply for seasonal work.  A spokesman for Next said: 'Mr Bryant wrongly claims that Polish workers are used to save money.

'This is simply not true. We are deeply disappointed Mr Bryant did not bother to check his facts with the company before releasing his speech.'

The policy mess is particularity embarrassing for Labour coming at a time when leader Ed Miliband is under fire from his own MPs for failing to make clear to voters where he stands on the big issues of the day.

The spat will also revive memories of Gordon Brown’s first speech as Prime Minister, in which he reacted to uncontrolled migration from Eastern Europe by promising ‘British jobs for British workers’ – a pledge he could not keep.

But Tory Immigration Minister Mark Harper said: 'Labour still won’t say sorry for the uncontrolled immigration they allowed, they still won’t say that immigration is too high and they still won’t say that numbers need to come down.

'This badly confused speech shows that Labour haven’t changed. They still have no idea how they would bring numbers down and they have no credibility on immigration.'

SOURCE






Recent posts at CIS  below

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

Media

1. Commentary: Let There Be Amnesty! The Plan B of the open-borders crowd would dispense with the Constitution

Publications

2. Questions for Lawmakers on Immigration

3. The Employment Situation of Immigrants and Natives in the Second Quarter of 2013

4. Motivation For Hiring Alien Workers? Hint: It’s Not a Labor Shortage

Blogs

5. The Speechifying of Charlie Rose and Concerns of an Immigrant's Grandson

6. Soros-Backed Sojourners Pontificates for Amnesty

7. Alleged Murderer Is an Illegal Alien, but Washington Post Won't Say So

8. The GOP's Immigration Leverage; No, Really!

9. Assorted Examples of Overseas Immigration Practices

10. GOP Congressman Calls Illegal Aliens "Undocumented Citizens", Trusts Obama Administration

11. Why President Obama Will Sign Any Reasonable Immigration Bill that Reaches His Desk

12. Investor Visa Program Gets Another Black Eye, This Time from the FBI

13. Aiming for Greatness: President Obama's Accomplishment Gap

14. Prosecutor: Seattle Law Would Shield Illegal Alien Burglars, Arsonists, Bombers

15. President Obama's Immigration Dilemma: Saving a Flailing Presidency

16. Mayorkas Hearing Testimony Subject of Detailed Analysis by Grassley

17. Removing Criminal Aliens and Protecting Public SAFEty

18. Future Headlines if Comprehensive Immigration Reform Is Enacted

19. Warning: Backing Amnesty Is Bad for Your Political Health

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. Contact: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@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

An Enormous Supply of Potential Workers 

2nd Quarter Analysis Shows 57 Million Native-Born Not Working

The 2013 second quarter employment statistics for immigrants and natives show 57.5 million working-age (16-65) native-born Americans unemployed or out of the labor market. The Center for Immigration Studies' analysis of new Census Bureau numbers shows that 17 million more native-born Americans are not working today than in the second quarter of 2000.

Dr. Steven Camarota, the Center's Director of Research, said, "With the huge potential labor supply presently in the United States, legislation recently passed in the Senate doubling future legal immigration and amnestying 11 million is hard to justify. There is certainly no evidence of a labor shortage in the United States. In fact, of the immigrants who arrived in the last five years, only 48 percent had a job in 2013."

View the entire Backgrounder at: http://cis.org/u6-unemployment-q2-2013

The Backgrounder provides the percent employed of U.S.-born blacks, Hispanics, and of the overall U.S.-born population, broken down by education level for the past 13 years. The charts illustrate the large drop in employment for U.S.-born minorities with less than a college education.

Among the findings:

The more than 57 million native-born Americans of working-age (16 to 65) not working is 10 million larger than in the second quarter of 2007 and 17 million larger than in the same quarter of 2000.

Even excluding younger teens, aged 16 and 17, the total number of adult natives (18 to 65) not working in the second quarter of this year was 50.6 million.

The number of adult natives not working is spread throughout the labor market, including 25 million with no more than a high school education, 16 million with some education beyond high school, and nine million with at least a bachelor's degree.

The U-6 unemployment rate, which is a broader measure, stood at 13.7 percent for natives in the second quarter of 2013 compared to 8 percent in the second quarter of 2007 and 6.8 percent in the second quarter of 2000.

The number of native-born Americans who are U-6 unemployed in the second quarter of this year was 18.2 million. Adding U-6 unemployed immigrants raises the total to nearly 22 million.

Immigrants arrive at all ages and many do not work. Therefore it is not surprising that immigration adds to both the working population and those who are not working. Of the more than five million immigrants who arrived in the country in the last five years only 48 percent had a job in 2013. For recent immigrants who are working age (16 to 65), 59 percent held a job, compared 67 percent for the native-born in the same age group.

View a new CIS series analyzing the House of Representatives bill, H.R. 2278, at: http://cis.org/SAFE-Act

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. Contact: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@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






New route for illegals wanting to get to Australia

ASYLUM seekers have found their own PNG Solution with two Somalis the latest to sail from Australia's nearest neighbour across the Torres Strait to far north Queensland.

The state's Premier Campbell Newman warned the new front across the border would open up after the Federal Government vowed to send all boat arrivals to PNG or Nauru.

Customs and immigration officers found the two Somalis on remote Boigu Island, 6km south of PNG, on Saturday morning.

They were taken to Thursday Island for health checks with the government vowing to send them to Manus Island or Nauru for resettlement.

Hundreds of Somalis have arrived on asylum boats off Christmas Island this year.

Another boat was intercepted at Saibai Island, 4km south of PNG, carrying two West Papuans on Friday.

A Syrian asylum seeker, who was believed to have flown to Indonesia and onto PNG before travelling by boat, was recently treated in a Queensland health centre.

"Kevin Rudd has very much turned an Australian problem into a Queensland problem. The Premier raised concerns about this policy in July, and was accused by Immigration Minister Tony Burke of peddling hysteria.," Mr Newman's spokesman said yesterday.

"The Federal Government has yet to address the many serious issues that we've raised.

"This latest incident demonstrates the ease of passage from PNG into Queensland, which is what we've been saying since the start."

Since the Government announced the PNG solution just over three weeks ago, 2270 people have arrived with the latest a vessel carrying 52 intercepted near Christmas Island on Saturday night.

Queensland officials have raised concerns that it is possible for asylum seekers to fly, without a passport, from Horn Island to Cairns and onto capital cities.

When Mr Newman warned of an impending influx three weeks ago, Immigration Minister Tony Burke said: "it's hard to imagine anything more hysterical than this one."

On Sunday his office referred questions to Home Affairs Minister Jason Clare.

Mr Clare's spokesman said "Customs and Border Protection continues to maintain a strong presence in the Torres Strait."

There are 13 Customs staff with a flying squad of six available in Cairns to respond if more resources are needed with staff in the Torres Strait having access to two helicopters and multiple vessels.

The spokesman said ten people had arrived so far this year, the same number as in all of 2012 with just one in 2011.

"Clearly if the government is going to continue down this path, then clearly there are going to be calls on the Federal Government to increase the border protection position on the Torres Strait," Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said.

Meanwhile, the Department of Immigration chief Martin Bowles was ordered by Immigration Minister Tony Burke and Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus to continue the domestic component of its $30 million PNG Solution advertising rollout during the election campaign.

Mr Bowles replied he would obey the Ministers but it is understood senior department officials were uneasy at the direction made during caretaker government.

The Opposition had opposed the continued local promotion of the resettlement solution but head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet said in a letter to Opposition Leader Tony Abbott that the conventions were "not legally binding" and "the department does not have the power to enforce the observance of the conventions."

Mr Burke said: "Nothing that he (Scott Morrison) has said changes the irrefutable fact that there are people in Australia in contact with people in the pipeline and if we are going to advertise to every relevant part of the smuggling pipeline then Australia has to be part of that."

SOURCE

Five Reasons to Resist the U.S. Bishops on Immigration Reform

Most U.S. Catholic bishops stand "in solidarity with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and its many statements of the past decade in support of comprehensive immigration reform." 

Perhaps the bishops hope that whatever influence they have among Catholics, they can use it to further another law that runs more than 1,200 pages.  Evidently, the bishops did not have enough betrayal with health care reform.

Here are five reasons why the U.S. bishops ought to change their mind about support for immigration reform.

ONE: The bishops have misled Catholics scripturally about immigration. There are many passages in the Bible that encourage us to welcome the stranger (Deuteronomy 10: 19, or Hebrews 13:1, among others).  None of these passages encourage us to welcome an invading army of poor people intent on bankrupting our health care system, debasing our schools, stealing our legal identities and our territory, diminishing our sovereignty, refusing to speak our language, using their children as human shields to stay in the United States, and destroying our neighborhoods.

Illegal immigration from Mexico, encouraged by the corrupt Mexican government, does all the above.  To hide these sinful activities by using quotations from the Bible about not welcoming strangers is misleading.  The illegal aliens coming to the United States are not strangers to be welcomed; they are an invading foreign army that has to be turned back.

There is much evidence that those who are in the United States illegally from Mexico and other countries are not assimilating or interested in becoming U.S. citizens.  The position of the U.S. bishops on immigration will end by dividing the United States into a Spanish-speaking and an English-speaking nation, creating more social unrest.

The late Professor Huntington of Yale University claims, "Mexican immigration poses challenges to our policies and to our identity in a way nothing else has in the past."  There is a world of difference between welcoming a stranger and welcoming an invading army of foreigners.

TWO: The U.S. bishops have misled Catholics morally in regard to illegal immigration.  The Catholic moral principle of subsidiarity requires us to recognize that solutions to the problems caused by illegal immigration are not always to be found on the national level, but rather on the level of the local community.

To solve Mexico's social problems, illegal immigrants must accept their moral responsibility of working to change conditions in their own countries (and not just Mexico).  U.S. Catholics, and especially the bishops, have the moral responsibility to encourage that return, and to administer charitable programs in Mexico that change conditions there.  To do otherwise is to encourage greed both in U.S. employers and in illegal aliens.  To do otherwise is to have the Church encourage sin.

Amnesty is not mercy.  Amnesty is to illegal immigration what enablers are to alcoholics.  Amnesty only gets more of the sin of illegal immigration.  Undocumented immigrants are citizenship thieves.  When someone steals your car, you do not dismiss his theft by calling it undocumented ownership.

Unfortunately, many bishops believe in "social justice" and what can be called the Babylonian Heresy*.  They have lost the traditional teachings of the Church in favor of contemporary meanings.  The consequence of their actions will be the creation of social upheaval instead of peace among nations.

THREE: Immigration in 2013 is not like immigration in 1895.  The U.S. immigration experience we read about in books like Upton Sinclair's The Jungle or Willa Cather's My Ántonia no longer apply.

The twenty-first century must not repeat the mistakes of the nineteenth century when it comes to immigration.  Mexico cannot solve its twenty-first-century social problems by exporting poverty to Chicago or Los Angeles.

FOUR: There are cultural differences between the United States and Mexico that are not dissolved by moving people across borders the way money is moved between banks.  In this regard, the Catholic Church has effected an incomplete cultural and religious conversion in Mexico.  The Church cannot resolve that incomplete conversion by preaching immigration reform to parishioners in the United States.

Because of cultural differences, many Mexican Catholics involved in the immigrant rights movement are Mexican Marxists.  They are not peace-loving and pious.

Look at the Mexican Revolution of 1910 or the drug cartels today as example of the incomplete conversion of Mexico to the teachings of Christ.  Do the U.S. bishops want to bring these bloody problems to U.S. cities?

The Catholic Church would do better if it had policies that completed the conversion of Mexico, and then went on to evangelize in the urban ghettos of Detroit or Chicago, among the most segregated cities in the United States.

FIVE: What is preventing U.S. bishops from realizing Catholic policies and social teaching when it comes to welfare and immigration?  The real answers to immigration and welfare have been in scripture and Catholic morality for centuries.

The fact of the matter is that U.S. bishops are in the thralls of the Democratic Party.  This enthrallment is the obstacle to true Catholic charity.  If  the U.S. bishops want Catholic immigration reform, then they must first have Catholic political reform.

The U.S. bishops must come to see that the Democratic Party stands for many things that Catholics know as sinful and damnable.  The bishops must be made to see how the traditional Catholics Democrats of their youth have become the same-sex-marriage Marxists of their old age.

Is this conversion away from the Democratic Party possible?  The political reality is that many Catholics bishops are liberals and progressives first, then Catholics second.

Many U.S. bishops have given their belief in immigration reform first to the Democratic Party and Babylonian Heresy, the heresy of our age, equal to the Arian Heresy of ages past.  They have become blind shepherds, who may lead their flock into the jaws of the wolf and not even know it.

*Those who hold to the Babylonian Heresy mistakenly teach that Christianity ends with the abolition of nations and the imposition of a New World Order.  This view is both theologically and scripturally wrong.  St. Thomas argues correctly that the nation is part of the natural social order and is necessary for a fully human life.  The Bible teaches us that nations will be with us until the end of time

SOURCE






Gesture politics won’t solve Britain's immigration troubles

While the scale of Britain's immigration problem remains untackled, ministers' tinkering around the edges is doing damage to innocent people

Those Home Office vans telling illegal immigrants to “go home” are only a tiny part of the story. The root cause of our immigration crisis is, as we know, quite simple. The chief reason why, in 2010 alone, as was calculated by Migration Watch, more migrants came to Britain than in all the years between 1066 and 1950 put together – and why it is officially projected that, within 14 years, our population will have risen to 70 million – is that we have lost almost all control of our borders. Not only must we open our doors to any of the 500 million citizens of the EU (even many from outside the EU who have first got into another EU country), but also our immigration rules are subject to a mass of other international obligations to bodies ranging from the UN to the European Court of Human Rights.

One consequence of this is that, as frustration over immigration mounts, our politicians thrash about trying to find peripheral gestures to show that they are trying to keep the numbers down – using the powers of the UK Border Agency (UKBA), a body so laughably incompetent that in March it was reported that the Home Secretary, Theresa May, was threatening to scrap it. The result of this tinkering around the edges is yet another example of how regulation so often these days takes “a sledgehammer to miss the nut”. The real problem remains unaffected, while absurd damage is done to people who are not part of the problem at all.

A little instance of this comes from a reader, Eugene Connolly, a retired lecturer at Edinburgh University, who six years ago met and befriended a Russian interpreter, Anastasia Pugacheva. Year after year, sponsored by Mr Connolly, she has been given visas to visit him in Britain —11 times in all — each time complying with all requirements before returning to her home and job in Moscow.

Last year, however, when she applied for a visa to visit Britain for 72 hours to attend a family wedding, the UKBA officials in Moscow refused it, saying she had not shown that she had “sufficient funds for her stay”. Mr Connolly was so startled by this that he approached his MP, who was merely told by the UKBA that her application was “against immigration rules”.

This year, having completed a law degree and bought a flat, she applied again for a visa, before starting a new job with a Moscow law firm. Again she was refused, this time because she had “failed to address the grounds for refusal of her previous application”. When I asked UKBA to clarify this, I was asked for her full personal details. The response was that they were unable to discuss individual cases, but that “all applications are considered on their individual merits” and that individuals must “provide the necessary information to support their application”. It seemed no one had bothered to look at the evidence she supplied as to why she would be financially supported in the UK and would return home when stated. Denying her entry was merely a jobsworth response to help Mrs May show how splendidly she is keeping immigration under control.

There are more general instances of how playing gesture politics with our immigration policy is not just harming individuals, but also actively damaging our national interest. One of the most glaring is the storm that has blown up in India, from which our universities were, until recently, drawing nearly 40,000 students a year, paying hefty fees and providing them and the UK economy with hundreds of millions of pounds a year. Many of these students are very bright, looking to use their qualifications from top British universities to get good jobs when they return to India, and not a few at postgraduate level take part in cutting-edge research in fields such as computer sciences and biotechnology.

So valued has their contribution been that David Cameron again visited India this year to recruit even more of them — just when, thanks to changes in our immigration rules, their numbers had already fallen by 25 per cent, with this year’s recruits down by nearly a third. First the old rule was abolished that allowed Indian students to work in the UK for two more years to defray their university expenses; they can now only stay on if they land a job paying £20,000 or more a year. They are also now told that they will have to hand over £3,000 before arriving, repayable only when they leave Britain.

This and other restrictions have inspired a wave of hostile publicity in India, with many students who wanted to come to Britain now applying to universities in other countries (applications to US universities have risen by 50 per cent). As one leading Indian newspaper angrily made clear, this puts an end to any idea that India and Britain still enjoy “a special relationship”.

There seems no doubt that Britain is here shooting itself badly in the foot, not just financially and in terms of its reputation, but also in losing a pool of talent that is already heading elsewhere. Mrs May may in general be able to boast that she has reduced net immigration from 240,000 a year to 163,000. But in other respects, she recalls Mrs Partington, that legendary Devon housewife who, when a freak storm was flooding her home with seawater, attempted to push it back out of her door with a broom.

SOURCE

Plan B on immigration reform for amnesty supporters: Have Obama issue an order granting temporary amnesty

He did it once before for the DREAMers in a cynical but effective bid to drum up Latino turnout before the election. Why wouldn’t he do it again ahead of the midterms, with Democrats desperate to rally their base to hold back a Republican tide? Remember, this is a guy willing to ignore key provisions of his own landmark health-care law, with not even a pretense of having the legal authority to do so, if it’ll help Democrats politically. According to O’s, he’s constitutionally empowered to Do Good For The People whenever he thinks Congress is dragging its feet too much. If that means imposing a mass moratorium on deportations, hey.

So, plan B in case immigration reform collapses in the House: De facto amnesty for illegals for the rest of Obama’s term. This is the amnesty crowd’s shot across the bow of House Republicans to warn them that if they don’t step up and pass something, Democrats via Obama will get all the credit for what happens next instead of just the vast, vast majority of it:

    "The idea behind the “other track” is to freeze the current undocumented population in place through an administrative order, give them work permits, and hope for a better deal under the next president, with the hope that he or she is a Democrat. It’s a significant gamble, but some advocates—particularly those outside of the Washington legislative bartering system—argue that it’s better than what they stand to see under the legislation being discussed now…

    The Obama administration … has already flexed its muscle and shown that it is willing to exert authority to stop the deportation of hundreds of thousands of undocumented youth through its deferred-action program announced last year. The immigrant community argues that there is no reason that this administrative authority cannot expand further to include other “low priority” candidates for deportation—i.e., parents of “Dreamers” or parents of children who are citizens because they were born here, people who are employed, people who are caregivers, and so on…

    The same legal reasoning for not seeking deportation for unauthorized immigrants—there is no safety-related reason to do so—applies to other noncriminal aliens, immigration analysts argue. Politically, all President Obama needs is proof that Congress can’t get the job done. That could happen in a matter of months with the Republican-led House still unsure of how it will deal with the undocumented population. (To date, no legislation has surfaced in the House, although there is talk of a limited legalization program for undocumented children.)"

The big political target for Democrats in doing isn’t the midterms, in fact. It’s 2016, when the end of Obama’s term will mean the potential cancellation of this policy if a Republican is elected. That’ll hand Hillary (or whoever the Democratic nominee is) a heavy bludgeon to use against the GOP on the stump in front of Latino audiences. Would, say, Marco Rubio vow as nominee to cancel the policy and resume deportations when he and the rest of the Republican leadership will be frantic to claw back some Latino votes from Democrats? The best you can hope for from a Republican under these circumstances is a procedural argument that says unilateral amnesty via executive order is wrong but amnesty passed through proper channels in Congress and then signed by the president is and must be a top priority upon taking office.

Realistically, the only thing holding O back from doing it is the possibility that so many undecideds will be angered by it that it’ll backfire against Democrats in the midterms. How likely is that, though, given that the public on balance has been receptive to comprehensive reform? Did Obama suffer for his unilateral DREAM amnesty last year?

You’d better start thinking about this because, although a few House Republicans have started making noise about legalization during the recess, some purple-district Democrats have also started making noise against it. The House might not be able to pass anything, in which case it’s lights, camera, Obama. But what if they do pass something? Over at the Daily Caller, Mickey Kaus makes a provocative accusation: Stalwart border hawk Ted Cruz is making that more likely to happen than not.

    "Into this void stepped Cruz, who made a bold attempt to rouse a “grassroots army” for the cause of … defunding Obamacare. So instead of haranguing their members about unchecked immigration, hard core red-staters would harangue them about the Democrats’ health care plans. Cruz’s strategy had no hope of actually defunding Obamacare,. By attempting to shut down the government over the issue it had a much greater chance of reviving Democratic fortunes. (I thought Republicans had learned from the past two or three times this tactic failed).

    And it might wind up giving us amnesty. Democrats are secretly delighted, of course: with the Tea Partiers distracted, fence-sitting Reps might have enough breathing room in the fall to sneak some kind of mass legalization through–maybe not a full “path to citizenship” for everyone, but Dems could go back and fix that later, once the millions of illegals had been given legal status. As an added pro-amnesty bonus, Cruz was helping to rehabilitate fellow defunder Rubio, giving the latter something to posture about once he became too terrified to even mention his deceptive immigration plan."

Instead of tea partiers rallying at town halls against amnesty, they’ll spend August rallying against funding ObamaCare. (Kaus also knocks Cruz for taking a subdued role in the Senate floor fight over immigration compared to someone like Jeff Sessions, something I’ve noted before too.) Let me play devil’s advocate, though: Since Cruz’s bid to defund ObamaCare looks like it’s going to fail (possibly without even gaining the 41 GOP votes needed for a filibuster) and that’ll end up angering the base, could some House Republicans be forced into a more hardline position on immigration in hopes of placating righties who are disappointed about O-Care? I take Kaus’s point about putting on a grassroots show during the August recess over immigration, but how much more evidence does the average House Republican need to know that voting for amnesty is a risky proposition in a red district? How many “Rubio’s star loses luster” stories have been written over the past two months because of what he did on immigration reform? Arguably, Cruz’s ObamaCare gambit amplifies the base’s immigration objections because it presents an omnibus case that the RINOs in D.C. are selling out conservatives on everything.

SOURCE





Immigration and recession boost UK population by 420,000... the fastest growth in Europe

The population in Britain is rising more steeply than anywhere else in Europe, according to official estimates yesterday.

Numbers rose by almost 420,000 in a year, driven by the highest birth rate since 1972.

The figure, which covers the 12 months to the middle of 2012 is more than the population increases in Germany, Belgium, Holland and Sweden combined.

The Office for National Statistics says around four in ten of the additional people are immigrants. Six out of ten are the result of rising birth rates, which brought a 40-year high in the number of babies born last year – 254,400 more births than deaths.

But a major cause of the baby boom is immigration. More than a quarter of all newborns have mothers who were born abroad.

The total number of people living in the UK at the end of last June was 63,705,000.

The rate of population increase last year held steady despite Coalition attempts to reduce immigration, the ONS said. Its report said the 419,900 increase in population for 2011-12 was ‘about average’ for the past decade.

Annual population growth first hit the 400,000 mark in 2005, following the opening of Britain’s borders and labour market to Poles and other Eastern Europeans in 2004.

If the increasing numbers continue unchecked, the population will hit the landmark 70million point in the early months of 2027.

The figure is a level at which many commentators believe housing, transport, utilities, education and the NHS will be severely stretched.

Yesterday’s estimates mean that by the middle of 2012 Home Secretary Theresa May’s efforts to reduce net immigration – the amount by which migrants push up the population each year – to 1990s levels had yet to have an impact on the total number of people in the country. The figure is currently 165,000.

UKIP leader Nigel Farage said: ‘These figures show the continuing failure of the Government to get a grip on immigration into this country. The results of this increase in population can be felt in communities up and down the country as public services struggle to cope with the increase in demand.’

He added: ‘At the same time we face cuts to frontline services and send billions of pounds abroad in foreign aid. And this is before Romanian and Bulgarian citizens have full access to the UK come January next year.’

The British population increase was almost a third higher than the rise in the next fastest-growing EU country, France. During the same period the French population rose by just over 319,000.

Numbers in Germany went up by 166,000, in Belgium by 91,000, in Sweden by 70,000 and in Holland by 62,000. All have been magnets for immigration in recent years.

But Britain’s population is expected to outstrip those of France and Germany over the  coming decades, becoming the most populous country in Europe by 2050.

Numbers here have gone up by more than half a million since the last national census, taken in March 2011. Since 2001 the population increase has been 4.6 million, the ONS said.

London saw the greatest rise in 2011-12, at more than 100,000. The rapid change came despite 51,000 people leaving the capital, mainly for homes in the suburban towns of southern and eastern England.

Paul Vickers of the ONS said: ‘A quarter of the UK population increase happened in London. Together, London, the South East and East of England accounted  for over half the growth.’

One in three migrants arriving in Britain went to London. International net migration – the number of immigrants minus the number of emigrants – was 69,000.

Simon Ross, of pressure group Population Matters, said: ‘Our growing population is the root of many of our most pressing problems, including a lack of housing, pressure on services and development threats to our countryside and green spaces.

‘These, together with consequent infrastructure investments and transport issues are increasing costs for everyone.

‘Measures by the Government to limit net migration are to be welcomed. However, the Government should also promote the benefits  to individuals and society of smaller families.’

SOURCE

Some Democrats Waver on Immigration

In Republican-Controlled House, Certain Democrats Are Skeptical About Immigration Overhaul

Every Democrat voted for the Senate's immigration bill when it passed the chamber in June. That unanimous party support isn't likely to be replicated if the House votes on its own immigration effort this fall.

In the GOP-controlled House, some Democrats, largely from conservative-leaning districts, are set to bolster the ranks of Republican lawmakers skeptical of the Senate's ideas on immigration. As a small faction within the minority party, they won't likely sway key votes, but amid signs that momentum behind the effort might be flagging, their concerns could put the finish line further out of reach.

Like many of their GOP counterparts, hesitant House Democrats worry about how to handle the 11 million illegal immigrants already living in the U.S.

"I'm opposed to granting amnesty," said Rep. Nick Rahall, a Democrat from West Virginia, whose grandparents legally emigrated to the U.S. from Lebanon. Creating a separate way this group can gain citizenship "would siphon scarce resources away from our already-overwhelmed immigration system and would be unfair to those other immigrants, past and present, who have dutifully waited for their turn to legally enter our country," he said.

Some House Democrats fret that any new immigration laws could repeat what they consider the mistakes of a 1986 law that legalized many illegal immigrants and included measures to stop illegal crossings.

"I want to be certain that it's not 1986 all over again," said Rep. Daniel Lipinski, a Democrat from Illinois, who said he's concerned some lawmakers might be willing in future negotiations to roll back the provisions to beef up border security, which were added to the Senate bill in a bid to win GOP support. "I have concerns about if the federal government will be serious about enforcing immigration law in the future," he said.

The exact number of resistant or fence-sitting House Democrats on immigration is hard to determine. Like many Republicans, some centrist Democrats are reluctant to stake out a firm position before the House strategy is set. House leaders have yet to unveil a bill tackling the issue of legalization, though senior GOP lawmakers are expected to introduce legislation this fall that could include granting citizenship to at least a portion of the population.

"I'm going to wait and see what they come up with and then I'll decide,' said Rep. Collin Peterson (D., Minn.), who said Congress needs to come up with a plan to "regularize" immigrants in some fashion. "We're not going to deport them."

The ranks of centrist Democrats in the House have thinned in recent years. The fiscally conservative coalition of Blue Dog Democrats, which played a major role in the health-care debate, has shrunk to just 15 lawmakers, compared with 54 before the 2010 election. Advocates of a broad immigration overhaul, including a new path to citizenship, are targeting the remaining Blue Dogs and the New Democrats, a House coalition of self-described moderate lawmakers.

Earlier this month, 39 of the New Democrats' 53 lawmakers wrote a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio), urging him to introduce an immigration bill before the end of September that includes a pathway to citizenship. But some of the group's members, including Rep. John Barrow, a conservative Democrat from Georgia who didn't sign the letter, may still need convincing.

Any such discussion shouldn't begin until employer-verification programs and border security have been strengthened, Mr. Barrow said. "Like a preacher friend of mine once said, the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing," he said.

Advocates on both sides of the debate predict Democrats in swing districts will have a tough time embracing any immigration bill unless Republicans first come out in support. Some House Democrats have said their constituents are wary of broad immigration overhaul.

Centrist Democratic think tank Third Way recently targeted Democratic waverers in a memo offering suggestions for what to say if they shift on the issue, including emphasizing the economic effects of an immigration overhaul and the Senate bill's strengthening of border security.

Roy Beck, president of Numbers USA, an organization favoring tough immigration curbs, sees a tougher road ahead. "Any Democrat in a district that Romney carried is going to really have a reason to vote against this," he said.

SOURCE






New Australian illegal immigrant message is working, says minister

PEOPLE are getting the message about Labor's tougher stance on boat arrivals, Immigration Minister Tony Burke says

He says he's received reports from Indonesia that there are widespread demands from potential asylum seekers wanting their money back from people smugglers.

Mr Burke says they are realising they would be buying a ticket to Papua New Guinea or Nauru not to Australia.

"When I say the demands for money back are widespread, they are absolutely widespread," Mr Burke told reporters in Sydney.

"They realise that what they have paid for is no longer available to them."

"There is no doubt that the message is getting through."

Mr Burke said the only way to stop people smugglers was to take their product and customers away, and that was starting to happen.

He also said a "very significant number" of people who had been transferred to PNG's Manus Island were now in talks with internationals organisation of migration organising their transfers back home.

He said that could be done fairly quickly if they still had their identity documents with them.

SOURCE