The primary version of this blog is HERE. The Blogroll. My Home Page. Email John Ray here. Other mirror sites: Greenie Watch, Political Correctness Watch, Education Watch, Dissecting Leftism, Food & Health Skeptic, Gun Watch, Socialized Medicine, Eye on Britain, Recipes, Tongue Tied and Australian Politics. For a list of backups viewable in China, see here. (Click "Refresh" on your browser if background colour is missing) See here or here for the archives of this site

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



9 February, 2010

Dreams of the US as Haitian exodus pushes on

The unfinished wooden boat rocks gently in the backwater of Cap-Haitien Bay, lulling 17-year-old Douna Marcellus and two dozen others to sleep as tight balls of mosquitoes hover overhead. Cicadas serenade them from the reeds on one bank and, on the other, black pigs root through rubbish.

Like the others in the boat, Douna is a refugee from Port-au-Prince and the unspeakable horrors of the earthquake and its aftermath. Her parents and sister were crushed in their home, just seconds after Douna walked out the front door to run an errand for her mother. The government offered free bus tickets out of town and Douna took one.

But this city on Haiti's northern coast is just a waystation. When builders finish the boat in a few days, it will set sail with the teenager and at least 40 others for the US. If they survive the 965-kilometre crossing, and aren't intercepted by the US Coast Guard, they'll soon be walking the streets of opportunity. "America is a place where everybody can become someone," Douna says. "It's where everyone lives like human beings."

The earthquake, and reports of a US administration newly sympathetic to undocumented Haitians, has meant opportunity for the shady world of Cap-Haitien boat builders who promise to make the dream of life in the US come true.

After the earthquake, the Obama administration announced it was granting "temporary protected status" to the more than 100,000 undocumented Haitians estimated to be living in the US, and suspending deportation proceedings. Some politicians expressed concern that it might trigger renewed efforts by Haitians to attempt to enter the US by sea.

Dorcilien Louis, a taciturn man of 40, is the captain of Douna's 13-metre boat. During his 15 years as a captain, Mr Louis has made a dozen journeys to the Turks and Caicos Islands with passengers hoping to find a way to the US. Mr Louis changed his itinerary after the quake, when thousands of people began arriving from Port-au-Prince looking for a way to get to the US. He said 40 passengers had signed up for the trip and he was expecting another 20 from the capital. The boat is built for 40 people, "but can hold 60," he said.

Among Mr Louis's passengers is Fanise Jean, 24, who has twice attempted the journey. "It's a lot of suffering," she said. "People throwing up on you, you can't take a shower, there's little food, and the boat is always shaking back and forth.' One of her journeys lasted 14 days because the captain got lost, and three people died. Leaving her family makes her sad, "but I'm not all that sad, because I'm going to look for a better life."

SOURCE



Australia Tightens Immigration Rules

Foreign doctors, nurses and school teachers who speak good English and have jobs already organised will be Australia's top priority migrants under new policy

Australian Immigration Minister Chris Evans announced Monday several reforms to his country's immigration policy, including several policy changes aimed at attracting more highly-skilled immigrants to the country.

Criticizing the ongoing trend for new immigrants to enroll for vocational courses for gaining residency, Evans said that Australia would change the current list of 106 skills in demand and review a points test based on qualifications, skills and proficiency in English currently used to assess migrants. He said that the present list will now be replaced by a "more targeted" Skilled Occupations List.

"We had tens of thousands of students studying cookery and accounting and hairdressing because that was on the list and that got them through to permanent residency," Evans told Australian radio, adding that such courses will no longer be an assured path to permanent residence.

"The current points test puts an overseas student with a short-term vocational qualification gained in Australia ahead of a Harvard-educated environmental scientist," Evans said.

"We want to make sure we're getting the high-end applicants," Evans said, stressing that the changes brought about by the new immigration policies would try to attract more health workers, including more doctors and nurses, as well more qualified professionals in the fields of engineering and mining.

"The new arrangements will give first priority to skilled migrants who have a job to go to with an Australian employer. For those who don't have an Australian employer willing to sponsor them, the bar is being raised," Evans said.

"If hospitals are crying out for and willing to sponsor nurses, then of course they should have priority over the 12,000 un-sponsored cooks who have applied and who, if they were all granted visas, would flood the domestic market," he added.

Evans also pointed out that some 170,000 people applied for living and working permanently in Australia last year alone, when there were just 108,000 vacancies available. He added that all lower-skilled applications lodged before 1st September 2007 would be withdrawn and application fees worth A$14 million ($12.15 million) refunded.

The reforms in Australia's immigration policy comes in wake of reports that thousands of students from overseas, mainly from Asia, were manipulating the existing system by providing fraud documents to enroll for vocational courses at private Australian colleges, purely to gain residency permits.

SOURCE





8 February, 2010

British government has taken too long to address student visa abuse

Comment from Scotland below. The Scots welcome anybody, as long as they are not Catholic. But even they don't like the blatantly fraudulent entry of "students" that the British government makes only token efforts to tackle

The Home Secretary was trying to talk tough yesterday as the government finally moved to tackle “the Achilles heel” of Britain’s immigration system. But in addressing the abuse of student visas, was Alan Johnson doing more than trying to score points in what promises to be a key fighting ground in the General Election?

In mid-2007, Andrew Denholm, The Herald’s education correspondent, exposed a number of bogus colleges in Glasgow that were taking large fees from overseas students for questionable or non-existent courses. There were hundreds of others across the UK, some of which were mere brass-plate operations with pretentious websites. Some acted as fronts for illegal immigration. Many of those coming in on poorly policed student visas were in Britain to work illegally, rather than further their studies. The same system can be a conduit for potential terrorists.

Britain is a popular choice for bright foreign students seeking further or higher education qualifications. They add at least £5bn a year to the UK economy and the full fees they pay are especially welcome in Scotland, where top-up fees from home-based students, an extra source of income, rightly have been resisted. But the widespread abuse of the student visa system besmirches the country’s well-founded reputation in this area, especially when the charlatans claim with bona fide institutions.

As Immigration Minister Phil Woolas admitted, bogus colleges are the Achilles heel of the immigration system. The new rules will impose a more exacting English language test and allow students on short courses to work no more than 10 hours per week. Institutions offering non-degree courses will have to feature on a new Highly Trusted Sponsors List. However, if this title is to avoid irony, it must be policed more rigorously than its predecessor. Some of the colleges highlighted by The Herald appeared on the previous Home Office list and one reappeared under a new name after being barred. The UK Border Agency often gives advance warnings of inspections and the problems have been exacerbated by the lack of exit checks at ports and airports.

In addition, the splitting of responsibilities between several government departments, as well as the police and trading standards, aggravates the issue, as does the misleading use of the term “college”.

Abuse of student visas serves to stoke support for those who adopt the “fortress Britain” approach, which is profoundly unhelpful in Scotland, a country that needs a steady supply of enthusiastic, hard-working immigrants and welcomes genuine students. Scotland has special need of a fair, coherent immigration system, not an easily abused student visa scheme, or colleges that exist primarily for the enrichment of their owners or as a backdoor for illegal immigration. It has taken the government far too long to get to grips with this issue.

SOURCE



The self-selected immigrants are flocking in to Australia

Just utter the magic word "asylum" and the door is open. Comments below by Scott Morrison, Australia's Federal opposition spokesman on immigration and citizenship

Christmas Island is overrun with asylum seekers to the point where the detention centre has become a visa factory for people smugglers. Ten days ago I stood on the shore at Flying Fish Cove on Christmas Island watching 30 Afghan asylum seekers transfer from HMAS Larrakia into the custody of immigration officials. Their boat was one of two that had been "intercepted" within 12 hours of each other the previous weekend. It's usually not too hard to find these boats, because they are usually looking for us. Getting intercepted is the point. Christmas Island is no longer a deterrent, it's the destination. The arrival of another boat is not a strange sight. It occurs twice a week these days. They're more predictable than Sydney ferries.

Immigration, Customs officials and police have the transfer process down to a fine art. They should, they've been getting plenty of practice. Since August 2008, 78 boats have illegally arrived in Australian waters, carrying almost 3600 people. Just this year, there have been 10 arrivals at an average rate of 100 passengers per week.

When I left the island I was told they had 1848 beds (including 200 in tents) and there was currently 1556 people in residence. While this represented a ten-fold increase in the detention population over the past year, it was clear, things were only getting worse. Since then another 320 people have been intercepted or transferred to the island, including one large vessel, carrying 181 passengers that motored straight into the harbour. Another was picked up on Thursday morning near the Ashmore Islands. During the same time, only 89 people left the island.

Despite its denials, operations at Christmas Island, under the government's failed border protection policies, are simply not sustainable. It is therefore no surprise that last week I was able to reveal in Parliament that the costs of running operations on Christmas Island had blown out by $132million this year, that's more than a 100per cent increase.

We are a generous nation and this is reflected in the way asylum seekers are being treated. In fact, if we looked after our first Australians in central Australia, where I visited last year, as well as we do those on Christmas Island, then there would be no gap to close. The key difference is that within 100 or so days, the vast majority of those on Christmas Island will be living on the Australian mainland with a permanent visa. Indigenous children have no such guarantee of ever being released from their desperate situation.

One of the more pleasing elements of the visit was to see that the many reforms introduced by the former Coalition government, such as case management, parallel processing, community detention for those at risk, separate facilities for families, women and children and a range of other improvements, are making a real difference.

In fact there is not one practical reform you can point to on Christmas Island that has been introduced as an initiative of the current government. Where they have made changes is to undermine the fundamentals of our border protection regime, by providing permanent visas to those arriving illegally, doing special deals for the Oceanic Viking passengers that traded away national security and being prepared to compromise offshore processing by taking people to the mainland before their asylum claims have been determined.

The government's changes have enhanced the product offered by people smugglers. They are now doing a roaring trade, but you can only come if you have the money. It is not uncommon, as I saw, for those arriving to have wads of cash in various currencies, in excess of $US1000 ($1140) at least. This is after paying up to $20,000 per person. Residence in Australia should not be driven by the highest bidder, where people smugglers ultimately decide who comes.

The government's changes have created a sea highway to Christmas Island that has become a visa factory for people smugglers. As long as these policies remain and the government continues in denial, people will continue to risk their lives on this journey. Also, places for those waiting five years in Indonesia and generations in camps, like those in Thailand, will be asked to wait even longer. These seem to me to be good reasons to change these policies and stop the boats.

SOURCE





7 February, 2010

France's burka ban a boost for equality

OF all the countries of Europe, France has the best chance of coping successfully with large-scale Muslim immigration. That's not to say it's a very big chance, but it has some chance. This is because of France's strong republican ideology. This enables it to confer benefits as well as responsibilities on citizens regardless of ethnicity. French republicanism demands something of the citizen and asserts certain fundamental values.

This is most evident in the law banning the hijab, or Muslim headdress, from state schools. Last week a French parliamentary committee recommended banning the full Muslim burka in government offices, public transport, hospitals and schools.

The hijab is a bit more than a loose scarf that covers all the hair and generally the shoulders. The niqab reveals only the eyes and the burka covers everything, allowing a woman to see only through some sort of mesh arrangement. However, burka is the term most commonly used in the West to mean full face-covering, body length female Muslim attire.

France's President Nicolas Sarkozy has been the most effective Western statesman on these issues. He gave an eloquent speech last year in which he rejected the burka and said it offends French values. This was not primarily because of the distance and separation the burka enforces between its wearer and the broader society. Rather, it was because of women's rights.

When, in 2005, the French banned the hijab, I thought they were making a mistake. Broadly speaking, I don't really care what anybody wears. But I was wrong. Spending time in France last year, I realised the French see this as a great liberal reform in the interests of women's rights. The French go to great lengths to distinguish secular from religious spaces. They have gone to great lengths to make this law non-discriminatory. At state schools, Christians cannot wear large crosses, Jews cannot wear yarmulkes, Sikhs cannot wear turbans.

The truth is this law was aimed at Muslims. And everyone knows this. One consequence of large-scale Muslim immigration, therefore, is that all of France has to become a little less liberal, in that Christians, Jews and Sikhs must suffer restrictions when there was no problem at all in their religious dress. But the hijab is both a symbol and a tool of the repression of women. The reform has been such a success because for several hours each day, young Muslim women at state schools are French women, with the rights and independence and respect that accrue to French women. They are for that time no longer subject to the rules of their brothers and fathers and the religious extremists in their communities.

Incidentally, the French rules are similar to those that have applied in Turkey for much of its modern history.

But the most important aspect of the French law is that it makes explicit to the Muslim minority the demand that to be a French citizen you must subscribe to, and live up to, certain French civic values, of which equality for women is one. The proposed limited ban on the burka is an extension of this. And here is a perplexing conundrum. If you really believe that women, but not men, should be fully covered, why would you want to live in a society such as France, or indeed Australia, in the first place?

Here we meet a hard truth of Muslim immigration to Europe, and perhaps to Australia. There is a strong body of belief that at least a large number of the African, and especially Maghrebi, Muslims who move to Europe do so not to embrace the European lifestyle, that is to pay the immigrant's traditional compliment to the new society, but to recreate their Third World lifestyle at a European standard of living.

Diversity is a good thing and there is a vast range of values and traditions that are perfectly acceptable in most Western societies. But women's inherent inequality is not one of them.

Muslim immigration to Australia and the US has so far been much more successful than Muslim immigration to Europe. This is often seen to be a consequence of our superior settlement policies, in particular that the US not only confers rights on immigrants but imposes civic obligations on them as well. The truth might be that it is just because the relative numbers of Muslims in the US and Australia are so much smaller.

Mass Muslim immigration challenges a liberal Western society in a way that no previous immigration did, in part because most mainstream interpretations of Islam see it as requiring its adherents to establish a political order as well as a religious order. The vast majority of Australian Muslims are perfectly law abiding, happy with the Australian civic order and in every way good citizens. But the experience of Europe strongly suggests this could be quite different if the Muslim minority were much, much larger.

For societies such as Australia and the US, the traditional pro-immigration bias, which I wholly share, may need some calibration in relation to Muslim immigration. Successful immigration involves acceptance and immersion in the core values of the new society. A state that tolerates open and socially destructive defiance of this is very weak.

These are very sensitive issues. But Western civilisation needs to stand for some positive values beyond an anything-goes relativism that will be destroyed by more vigorous belief systems.

The French are moving cautiously, incrementally, and in my view belatedly, but with almost unique courage and intelligence, to try to repair the outcome of the nihilistic trends in Western intellectual life and their interplay with a mass immigration that Europeans did not choose and have never understood. Vive la France!

SOURCE



Australia's immigration-fueled population growth too fast to be affordable

AUSTRALIANS must prepare for a fundamental shift in the way we live because the country cannot afford to cope with 36 million people. Economic modelling produced for the Herald by PricewaterhouseCoopers shows the task of building the new roads, houses, schools, supermarkets and recreation facilities needed by 2050 will be so great that the nation's current pool of savings will struggle to cover it, even with the help of foreign capital.

As a consequence Australians will have to make major lifestyle changes. These range from dramatic increases in housing density and an end to our reliance on the car, to the creation of self-sustaining urban communities capable of generating their own energy to avoid the need for new power stations.

Planning experts say we must also consider whether population increases will be accommodated in larger regional centres rather than allowing cities such as Sydney to grow. "The bottom line is 'prepare for change'," the PWC economics and policy team leader, Jeremy Thorpe, said. "The task of providing this infrastructure is a very significant one and at the moment we don't have the savings to cover it. Governments have to make a decision about what trade-offs they want to make to maintain a standard of living." Using figures from the government's intergenerational report, Mr Thorpe and his colleagues have calculated Australia will need 6.9 million more homes to cope with a population of 36 million by 2050. This represents 82 per cent of our existing housing stock.

Should Australians continue to rely on the car, the country will need 173,348 kilometres of new roads - a 51 per cent rise equivalent to the entire road network of Thailand. We would need 3254 new schools, 1370 new supermarkets and 1370 cinema screens.

In dollar terms, the amount spent by both government and the private sector on infrastructure would need to increase by approximately $2.5 billion every year until 2050.

The PWC economists say that while the government talks about increasing productivity, it makes no mention of the crucial role the national pool of savings plays in funding infrastructure. "The banks rely quite heavily on the savings of individual people to provide capital for investment in infrastructure. Because as a nation our savings are currently quite low, there is a real risk that there will be a significant shortage of credit."

As a result, both the private sector and government have come to rely heavily on foreign capital. But the global credit crunch has dramatically lifted the costs of overseas borrowing, requiring government and companies to take on extra debt.

The ageing population exacerbates this situation as older people contribute less to the savings pool, and tend to draw more from government coffers in the form of social security and healthcare.

But a spokesman for the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, dismissed the analysis. "Australia's reputation as one of the most attractive investment destinations in the world allows it to access large savings pools of foreign investors … to fund high levels of investment in our own economy," he said. "We are able to be a net importer of capital because foreign investors are confident we use their capital so well."

SOURCE





6 February, 2010

Fantasies of the Obama administration

If you are arresting fewer illegals entering the USA, does that mean that fewer are coming or that your enforcement activities have been less effective? Guess which the Obama admin wants you to believe?

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano (aka, J-No) in December 2009 assured the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Obama Administration had already made great strides in securing our borders, thus moving us one step closer to “Comprehensive Immigration Reform.”

“Our efforts are achieving their desired results at the border. . . . In short, the security of our southwest border has been transformed.”

--Testimony of Secretary Napolitano before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, December 9, 2009

As proof of this outrageously optimistic assertion, Secretary J-No pointed to a decline in the number of illegal aliens apprehended along the border.

“[A]pprehensions of illegal aliens at the border have dropped to their lowest levels in decades, signaling reduced traffic flows and fewer attempts to illegally enter the United States.”

--Testimony of Secretary Napolitano before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, December 9, 2009

Apprehensions have, in fact, dropped from 723,840 in FY 2008 to around 556,000 in FY 2009, and the FY 2009 figure is the lowest since the early 1970s. It is also likely that some of this decline reflects the fact that fewer illegal aliens are attempting to enter the United States, especially considering our double-digit unemployment. However, even DHS’s own inflated estimates acknowledge that the Border Patrol has “effective control” over only 939 of the 6,000 miles of land borders.

Moreover, when I visited with Border Patrol Agents in the Tucson Sector in mid-October of 2009 and asked if they believe the official DHS line that three illegal aliens successfully enter the United States for every one who is apprehended, they laughed. The reality, they said, is that 10 or more get through for every one who is caught. That was two months before Secretary J-No shared her rosy view with the Senate Judiciary Committee.

If the Border Patrol agents’ estimate is correct, that would mean that illegal aliens successfully penetrated our borders more than 5.5 million times in FY 2009. That doesn’t sound much like a “transformation” to me. In Secretary J-No’s world, however, this transformation explains why she has asked Congress for $11.6 million less in funding for “border security between ports of entry” and for $225.8 million less in funding for “border fencing, infrastructure, and technology” for FY 2011.

I also have to wonder if the marked increase in the number of armed illegal aliens and the astronomical increase in the number of reported incidents of violence against border agents are part of the “desired results” that Secretary J-No touted during the Senate hearing. The number of assaults against Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers along the Southwest border increased by 176% in FY 2008. While official data for FY 2009 have not yet been released, anecdotal evidence suggests that violence directed at CBP officers has continued to grow. It seems safe to say that this is not a desired result—at least not for CBP officers, in any case.

Speaking of armed illegal aliens entering the United States undeterred, the accompanying video was captured by “game cameras” (i.e., cameras with motion sensors to activate them) set up by a group of Arizona Minutemen in the Arizona desert in December 2009—the very same month that Secretary J-No was assuring the Senate that the Obama Administration has “transformed” the southwest border. The video you see here is actually three separate video clips caught when the game cameras were triggered on three different days in December. All three are from cameras set up in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, which is comprised of almost 500,000 acres southwest of Phoenix and is managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which has only a small handful of law enforcement rangers to patrol and protect this vast area.

The first two video clips were captured at the same location at two different times. The first clip shows two illegal aliens armed with rifles with scopes. The second clip shows a group of illegal alien drug mules (also called “backpackers” for obvious reasons) carrying bundles of marijuana on their backs. Each of the bundles weighs 40-50 pounds. The black jugs all these individuals are carrying are water jugs made specially for the Mexican drug cartels from black plastic, since regular plastic jugs reflect moonlight and so are easily visible at night. As I saw during my border visit in October, large parts of the desert are littered (no pun intended) with these black jugs.

When these backpackers reach a pre-designated place along a road or highway, they will stash the drugs near the road, but out of sight. The drugs will then be picked up by armed men in a vehicle with U.S. registration and driven to a stash house. The illegal-alien backpackers will either head back to Mexico for the next load or they will continue on into the U.S. city of their choice to join the existing illegal population, depending on whether they are employed by the cartels or were just working off part of their smuggling fee by carrying the drugs.

The third clip shows one illegal alien, followed shortly by a second illegal alien with a MAC-10 machine gun strapped over his chest.

Note that all three clips were captured in broad daylight.

I think we can probably all agree that the Southwest border has been “transformed.” I doubt, however, that most of us would associate this transformation with security or see it as a desired result.

Nevertheless, in Secretary J-No’s world this transformation (combined with double-digit unemployment) means it is time to concede the seven million American jobs currently held by illegal aliens and make sure those illegal aliens can keep those jobs permanently.

“We must seize this moment to build a truly effective immigration system that deters illegal immigration, provides effective and enduring enforcement tools, protects workers from exploitation and retaliation, and creates a tough but fair path to legalization for the millions of illegal immigrants already here.”

--Testimony of Secretary Napolitano before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, December 9, 2009

Note that Secretary J-No uses the oxymoronic term “illegal immigrant” here, but she uses the correct term, “illegal alien,” when she’s bragging about securing the border. (By definition, an “immigrant” is an alien who has been granted lawful permanent residence, and so cannot be illegal.) Hmmm.

Since taking office, Secretary J-No has dismantled many of our most effective enforcement tools. She has:

* Ended worksite raids;

* Prohibited state and local police from turning over regular illegal aliens (i.e., those who have not committed any crimes except illegal entry or other crimes associated with being in the United States illegally) to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE);

* Rescinded the so-called “No-Match Rule” which told employers to fire known illegal-alien workers; and

* Worked to repeal the REAL ID Act, which prevents illegal aliens from obtaining state driver’s licenses, among other things.

I have to agree that now is the time for “effective and enduring enforcement tools.” The problem is figuring out what this statement means in Secretary J-No’s world.

More HERE



Obama Proposes to Cut 180 Border Patrol Agents

But he is hiring more bureaucrats

Pres. Barack Obama's newly proposed 2011 budget would reduce the number of Border Patrol agents along the Southwest border by 180 and cut the funding for the "virtual fence." Homeland Security said it plans to cut the jobs through attrition, and it would result in increased pay for the remaining agents.

White House senior officials say the move will not compromise the effectiveness of the border patrol. But House Judiciary Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-Texas) says otherwise.

The President’s budget proves once again that the Obama administration is not serious about enforcing our nation’s immigration laws.

The administration found money for 25 new positions in the Secretary of Homeland Security’s management office, but didn’t find funds for any of the following critical homeland security programs: there is no funding for a single new detention bed, no increase in funds to find and deport immigration fugitives or criminal aliens, no additional special agents to investigate workplace immigration violations, no funding to expand the visa security program, and no funding to build any more of the border fence.

The President ought to be using immigration enforcement to address key priorities such as jobs and national security. But instead of doing so, the Obama administration is maintaining the status quo. That means that citizens and legal immigrants will be forced to continue to compete with eight million illegal immigrants for jobs; and by underfunding key national security programs, we leave ourselves vulnerable to future terrorists attacks.

-- Ranking Member Lamar Smith

The "virtual fence" would have funding cut by $226 million. The system is made up of cameras, radar and sensors placed on towers.

Obama's budget does include an increase of $103 million for improvements to E-Verify.

SOURCE





5 February, 2010

Rumbles about the unfairness of Britain's immigration rules in the Labour party

Migrants would be forced to 'earn' the right to benefits and council housing over several years under explosive plans outlined today by a senior Labour minister.

Margaret Hodge warns British values of openness and tolerance are under threat because of an increasing sense of 'unfairness' over immigration. The Culture Minister is calling for a new points system - based on length of residence or national insurance contributions - to determine that only migrants who have made a fair contribution to society get the same rights as local families.

Mrs Hodge, who is facing a General Election challenge from BNP leader Nick Griffin, told the Daily Mail it was time to 'lance the boil' of growing discontent over the wave of economic migrants entering Britain. Labour strategists fear there are signs that the far-Right BNP will mount a 'serious challenge' in her Barking, East London seat. One recent poll found that 65 per cent of voters believe foreign arrivals get favourable treatment over housing and benefits. It also showed a third of voters support a core policy of the far-Right BNP, proposing that people from ethnic minorities should lose all state benefits, including NHS treatment, to pay for a 'resettlement policy' for those wishing to leave the country.

Migrants currently have the right to claim in-work benefits, such as tax credits, if they have a job. Those who have come from the EU must spend a year working in Britain, but can then claim the same level of state support as any citizen. They are treated the same as UK citizens in respect of claims for income support, jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit.

There has been particular controversy in recent years over revelations that taxpayers are funding child benefit for as many as 50,000 children of migrant workers, even though the youngsters still live in their home countries. Migrants qualify for the payments, even if they have left their children behind. British handouts are much higher than in other countries, particularly in Eastern Europe where the cost of living is much lower.

Mrs Hodge was attacked as 'offensive' by senior Labour colleagues after calling for a shake-up of housing rules two and half years ago. But last year, the Government announced it was adopting the policy proposal she made to give councils new powers to give local people priority on waiting lists. Now the minister is risking angering colleagues again by going further, with an admission that the Government has failed to address voters' concerns over immigration.

Her proposal to strip benefits from immigrants who have not been contributing to society for a fixed period will infuriate Left-wing Labour MPs, who argue people cannot be left destitute. But Mrs Hodge insisted: 'At the moment, people don't feel the system is fair and we can't ignore that. If we are serious about reconnecting with people, then we have to listen to what they are saying. 'We have to lance this boil. This isn't just a message to my own party, it's a message to all mainstream parties. 'If we can demonstrate we are being fair to people, and recognising what they and their families have put into the community, then we can address some of the racist exploitation of the issue that the BNP indulges in.

'I am talking about economic migrants, not genuine refugees. These are people who choose to come here because they want to improve their quality of life. The idea is people have to earn their rights. 'I think we need to be radical in our thinking and look at drawing up a point system based on length of residence, citizenship or national insurance contributions which ensures economic migrants can only access social housing and key benefits when they have paid into the system. 'This isn't about race, it's about having a transparent system which people understand and which is fair.'

Mrs Hodge conceded that she had been criticised for suggesting two years ago that economic migrants' rights should not come before people who were born or lived in Britain for many years. But she added: 'We need to have an honest conversation about what's going on in our working class communities. The very mention of immigration causes controversy and the whole debate is often seen through the prism of racism. 'The result is parties like the BNP tap into people's frustrations and that's why we've seen a rise in support for them. It's not because people like what the BNP stand for - in fact people are repulsed by Nick Griffin's views on the Holocaust and his sympathy with the Nazis.'

Mrs Hodge said she believed arrivals from new EU countries should be made to wait for longer than 12 months before they get the right to the same benefits and support as established British families. 'We have people staying on council waiting lists for housing for eight to ten years,' she said.

The minister conceded that some measures aimed at EU, rather than non-EU migrants, might need agreement from other countries. But she added: 'If we have to argue about this to get action at an EU level, then that is what we must do.'

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the MigrationWatch, said: 'This sounds like a very promising idea. It's just a pity that the Government has not done anything about it over the last 13 years.'

Mrs Hodge received 13,826 votes at the last election, a majority of 8,883. The BNP finished only 27 votes behind the Tories on 4,916.

SOURCE



Boat people blow Australia's immigration detention budget

A flood of "asylum seekers" has blown the federal government's immigration detention budget, the opposition says.

Opposition immigration and citizenship spokesman Scott Morrison said the government had been forced to more than double the money it allocated in the last budget for offshore immigration processing. "In the May budget the Rudd government had allocated $125 million for offshore processing,'' he said in a statement today. "However additional estimates figures reveal the government is now asking for another $132 million for this work, an increase of more than 100 per cent.''

The claim comes on top of the arrival of another boatload of asylum seekers in Australia's northern waters today and fears the detention centre at Christmas Island will be unable to cope with further arrivals.

The boat was intercepted by HMAS Armidale at 11am (AEDT) about 11 nautical miles (20km) north of the Ashmore Islands, the federal government said. Initial indications suggest 89 passengers and four crew were on board. The group will be transferred to Christmas Island where they will undergo security, identity and health checks and their reasons for travel will be established.

It is the 10th asylum seeker boat to be intercepted in Australian waters this year. The Rudd government is under pressure over its border protection regime with detention facilities on Christmas Island at breaking point. There are already almost 1,800 detainees in immigration facilities on the island which have a capacity of 1900.

Mr Morrison said the government's border protection policy had failed. "Barely a day after 89 asylum seekers were flown to the Australian mainland in a futile effort to reduce overcrowding on Christmas Island, another 89 asylum seekers plus three crew are on the way to take their place,'' Mr Morrison said. "Seventy-eight boats have now arrived since the Rudd government started weakening the border protection regime they inherited from the coalition government, with 10 arriving this year alone with 602 people on board.''

SOURCE





4 February, 2010

Business and Labor on Immigration

Zogby Poll: DC Lobbyists Often Out of Step with Constituencies

A new Zogby poll of senior executives, business owners, and members of union households finds that each of these groups thinks the best way to deal with illegal immigrants in the country is to enforce the law and cause them to return home. This is in stark contrast to lobbyists for large companies, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which argue for legalization. The findings of the survey are consistent with surveys done by the National Federation of Independent Business, which represents small enterprises, showing strong opposition to legalization. Among unions, the leadership strongly supports legalizing illegal immigrants, but this survey shows enforcement — not legalization — is by far the option favored by union members and their families. This survey of likely voters uses neutral language and includes 7,046 members of union households, 2,490 executives (e.g., CEOs, CFOs, VPs or department heads), and 9,990 small business owners.

Among the findings:

When asked to choose between enforcement that would cause illegal immigrants in the country to go home or offering them a pathway to citizenship with conditions, most members of the business community and unions chose enforcement.

* Executives (e.g. CEOs, CFOs, VPs etc.): 59 percent support enforcement to encourage illegals to go home; 30 percent support conditional legalization.
* Small Business Owners: 67 percent support enforcement; 22 percent support conditional legalization.
* Union Households: 58 percent support enforcement; 28 percent support conditional legalization.

One of the most interesting findings of the survey is that members of the business community think there are plenty of Americans available to fill unskilled jobs.

* Executives: 16 percent said legal immigration should be increased to fill unskilled jobs; 61 percent said there are plenty of Americans available to do unskilled jobs, employers just need to pay more.
* Small Business Owners: 13 percent said increase immigration; 65 percent said plenty of Americans are available.
* Union Households: 10 percent said increase immigration; 72 percent said plenty of Americans are available.

Most members of the business community and union households do not feel that illegal immigration is caused by limits on legal immigration, as many of their lobbyists argue; instead, members feel it is due to a lack of enforcement.

* Executives: Just 13 percent said illegal immigration is caused by not letting in enough legal immigrants; 75 percent said inadequate enforcement.
* Small Business Owners: 10 percent said not enough legal immigration; 79 percent said inadequate enforcement.
* Union Households: 13 percent said not enough legal immigration; 74 percent said inadequate enforcement efforts.

In contrast to many businesses group and union leaders, most executives and union members think immigration is too high.

* Executives: 63 percent said it is too high; 5 percent said too low; 16 percent said just right.
* Small Business Owners: 70 percent said it is too high; 4 percent said too low; 13 percent said just right.
* Union Households: 63 percent said immigration is too high; 5 percent said too low; 14 percent said just right.

Discussion: The large divide between union members and their leadership on the immigration issue is not really surprising. Union members and their families want higher wages and better working conditions that would likely come from lower levels of immigration. While union leaders also want improved conditions for workers, they see legalized immigrants as potential new members, giving them a different point of view. The divide between some business lobbying groups and their members of the business community on immigration is perhaps more surprising.

The largest business association representing big companies is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber supports 'earned legal status leading to legal permanent residency' for illegal immigrants. But when given the options of a conditional legalization or enforcement and illegal immigrants going home, executives and small business owners choose enforcement over legalization two and three to one. As for future levels of immigration the Chamber has made clear that, 'We face a larger and larger shortage' of low-skilled workers. The Chamber's president argues that more immigrant workers are needed, 'to fill jobs Americans don't want.' While the idea of improving wages and working conditions to attract American workers does not seem to have occurred to the Chamber, small business owners and executives consider this the best option. Four to one, executives said if employers can't find enough workers they should pay more rather than increase immigration levels. For small business owners it was five to one.

The survey reported here might be surprising to some, but the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) states clearly on its website that, based on its survey of members, 79 percent 'believe undocumented workers should return to their country and seek admis¬sion legally.' Their website goes on to state that 'NFIB will not support legislation that contains amnesty for undocumented workers.' Although the Zogby poll discussed here never uses the word 'amnesty,' when asked about conditional legalization, versus enforcement, small business owners and executives are clear - immigration laws should be enforced and illegal immigrants should go home.

Methodology: Zogby International was commissioned by the Center for Immigration Studies to conduct an online survey of 42,026 adults. A sampling of Zogby International's online panel, which is representative of the adult population of the United States, was invited to participate. For small business owners, Zogby asked respondents if they owned a small business. Executives are those who indicated they were either a C-level executive, managing partner, managing director, or served on the board of directors. Persons in union households are either a member of a union themselves or live with someone who is a union member. The survey was conducted by Zogby from November 13 to 30, 2009. The margin of error for all likely voters is +/- 0.5 percent. The margin of error for executives is 2 percent, for small business owners 1 percent, and for those in union households 1.2 percent.

The survey is available online here

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: Steven Camarota, (202) 466-8185, sac@cis.org



3 February, 2010

Can Reid Win an Amnesty?

History will record January 19, 2010 as a day of transition for America; a day when a political bomb shell landed on politics as usual. While I initially thought the elections in 2006 and 2008 were simply bad election cycles for Republicans and a referendum on President Bush, I’m starting to change my mind and wonder if our country has actually entered a whole new era of history and politics. I wonder if the public wasn’t targeting Republicans, but instead incumbents and the Republicans were just the low hanging fruit as the party of power for the past decade. Like the Era of Good Feelings, Gilded Age, Progressive Era, Watergate, and the Reagan Era, America may be entering a new period of history, but what should it be called?

The election of Scott Brown of Massachusetts to the United States Senate may be an awakening and it may signal more change as populism returns to rotate the crops. Scott Brown may be a new and independent voice and he may represent the 41st Republican vote needed for a filibuster, but he will also be forever linked to the late Senator Ted Kennedy who held that seat from 1962 until his death in August. Like Brown, Kennedy also won the Senate seat in a special election. However, unlike Brown, Kennedy became the epitome of elitist liberalism on numerous issues including immigration. Kennedy was one of the Senate’s leading voices in support of amnesty and his leadership in passing the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 started the largest immigration wave in history. Scott Brown appears to be a sharp contrast to Kennedy on immigration, but most importantly his 41st vote severely complicates matters for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who still wants a healthcare bill and really wants another shot at “comprehensive” amnesty.

While there are a few pro-amnesty Republicans in the Senate like Sam Brownback and John McCain, even they realize the political stakes and don’t want to give Harry Reid a victory or endanger other Republicans, even if they personally support open borders. In effect, without the supermajority, the Democrats have less time to move an amnesty bill because Reid has to move at least one Republican to his side while holding all 57 Democrats and 2 independents, which is a tough lift and long negotiation process. Furthermore, immigration is still not the top issue for Democrats and it will take more time and negotiating to finish a healthcare bill before they move on to other issues, not to mention Appropriations season. And, if the 2005 and 2007 Senate amnesty bills are any indication, whatever comes from the Senate will contain numerous pages of legislation, numerous press conferences, and hearings in every committee of jurisdiction.

Reid has about 8 months to complete an amnesty bill before Senators return to their states to campaign and control the damage caused by an unpopular 111th Congress. Considering the slow process, the most likely threat for a Senate amnesty is a smaller bill like the DREAM Act after the elections and before the new Congress when lame duck Congressmen have one last shot to move their bills, and without political repercussions. More specifically, Reid’s Nevada senate seat is in cycle, he is trailing in the polls, and he has to return to Nevada to defend his record and convince voters to elect him to a 5th term. If he gets too involved in immigration, he has less time to raise money and defend his job in Congress. Not to mention the media and political winds blowing against him. Without a reliable Senate vote from Massachusetts, Reid’s entire policy agenda is now pushed off schedule, which reduces opportunities for comprehensive legislation of any type and threatens the reelection of the Democrat leader.

While I intend to write another blog about Harry Reid later in the election process discussing his polls, growth in office, and a conveniently located Mexican Consular office in downtown Las Vegas, the election shockwave from Massachusetts can be felt right now in Nevada and the grass roots populism that helped Scott Brown win a seat once held by the Kennedy family is ready to go after the Senate Majority Leader. If Reid is defeated, it will mean heavy apples falling high off the tree of liberty, not just low hanging fruit. Moreover, Reid is not likely to be the only apple to fall. We will have entered an age of the citizens.

SOURCE



Netanyahu Warns Israeli Union of High Immigration Numbers

In a speech to the Manufacturers Association, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned of the dangers of high immigration numbers. Like the United States, workers unions in Israel want an increase in immigration numbers, but Netanyahu is looking to pass strict immigration enforcement laws.

"You will not like this, but we plan to legislate strict laws and enforce them with a firm hand against the illegal employment of infiltrators and foreign workers," Netanyahu told the Manufacturers Association.

The Prime Minister also spoke about the "cultural, social, and economic damage" created by accepting a large number of immigrants. With an unsecured border with Egypt and close proximity to other Third World nations, Israel's economic success and prosperity has led to immigration issues much like the United States.

"Anyone walking around Arad, Eilat, or even south Tel Aviv today, can see this wave, and the change it is creating, with their own eyes," Netanyahu said. "They are causing socio-economic and cultural damage and threaten to take us back down to the level of the Third World. They take the jobs of the weakest Israelis."

A proposed immigration enforcement bill in Israel would construct a fence along the Egyptian border and calls for stricter penalties for Israelis who help illegal crossings.

"This is a strategic decision, that will ensure the Jewish and democratic character of the State of Israel," Netanyahu said. "Israel will remain open to war refugees, but will not allow its borders to be used to flood it will illegal foreign workers."

SOURCE





2 February, 2010

Obama’s Amnesty Footnote

At the very end of his State of the Union address, President Obama said, “we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system -– to secure our borders and enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation.”

Like most Americans, I agree with those broad principles, and that is exactly why Obama was so vague in his speech. His claim that “jobs must be our number one focus in 2010” would be exposed as a complete fraud if he promoted giving amnesty for illegal immigration and importing hundreds of thousands of additional legal foreign workers in the same address.

The situation is already bad enough as it is. At least twelve million illegal immigrants are in this country and eight million illegal aliens are in the American workforce. Additionally, our government issues 75,000 permanent work visas and 50,000 temporary work permits to foreign workers every single month. A recent census study found that one out of every six workers in this country is foreign born.

While he left the specifics on immigration out of his televised address, the White House website issued talking points to expand on what the line meant. They elaborated, The President is pleased Congress is taking steps forward on immigration reform that includes effective border security measures with a path for legalization for those who are willing to pay taxes and abide by the law. He is committed to confronting this problem in practical, effective ways, using the current tools at our disposal while we work with Congress to enact comprehensive reform.

“The steps forward on immigration reform” to which he is referring is HR 4321, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 or “CIR ASAP” sponsored by Rep. Louis Gutierrez, Solomon Ortiz, and 90 other Democrats.

As we all know, “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” and “Path for legalization” are nothing but code words for amnesty. The last two times the open borders folks introduced amnesties, they at least established some preconditions and made illegal aliens jump through a few hoops and before they could get amnesty. Under Gutierrez’s bill, every single illegal alien in this country the day of the bill is signed will be eligible. This gives foreigners a great incentive to come to this country illegally because they know they’d soon be eligible for amnesty. A recent Zogby found that 56% of Mexicans said themselves or people they knew would be more likely to enter America illegally if they knew an amnesty was coming.

To make matters worse, when proving they have jobs and were in the country before the amnesty passed, illegal aliens apply for amnesty they are allowed to use their stolen identities, fake green cards, and fraudulent social security numbers without fear of prosecution.

In addition to giving legal status to the 12 million illegal aliens already here, it will make it much easier for more illegal aliens to break into our country in the future. Contrary to Obama’s claim that the bill will increase border security, CIR ASAP does the opposite.

It guts successful enforcement measures, limits raids on illegal immigrants, prohibits use of troops on the border, and replaces the effective E-Verify system used to ensure that employers only hire legal American workers. It also overturns all state and local laws that crackdown on illegal immigration, and abolishes the successful 287 (g) program that allows local law enforcement to cooperate with federal authorities in apprehending criminal illegal aliens.

On top of the millions of illegal immigrants in this country, 1.5 million legal foreign workers come into our country each year. But this number isn’t high enough for Gutierrez and his friends.

CIR ASAP includes a provision “recapture” that will add up all the supposedly “unused” work visas since 1992 and issue them immediately. This is a complete fraud, as all unused work visas are rolled over to the family reunification category the next year. According to the State Department, this will mean 550,000 new foreign workers.

Additionally, CIR ASAP will create 100,000 visas from the countries that send the most illegal immigrants every year. This rewards countries such as Mexico who intentionally promote illegal immigration.

If Republicans want to defeat this bill, we need to stand united as a party against this atrocity. Democrats know this is a loser with the voters, but in the past Democrats were always able to justify their stance on amnesty by pointing to pro-amnesty Republicans like George Bush and John McCain. With Democrats firmly in control of Congress, they just need a few Republicans to give it the air of bipartisanship and to give cover to vulnerable Democrats. We also need to articulate our vision of true immigration reform so we cannot be accused of supporting our failed system.

Instead of granting amnesty, we need to stand for the rule of law. Instead of nullifying state laws like those in Oklahoma, we should use them as a model for the whole country. Instead of ending E-Verify, we should strengthen E-Verify. Instead of reducing workforce raids of illegal aliens and their employers, we should step them up. Instead of increasing legal immigration, we should institute a moratorium on most new immigrant work permits until unemployment falls below 5%.

By supporting Gutierrez’s amnesty, Barack Obama is making it clear he cares more about pleasing the Hispanic Caucus than protecting jobs for American Citizens.

SOURCE



High levels of immigration will be disastrous for the quality of life in Australia

By Barry Cohen, a former minister in the Hawke Labor government

NOW that Kevin Rudd has informed us that he favours a "big Australia" with a population reaching 35 million by 2050, will he also tell us what happens then? Do we continue to pursue policies that will further double our population by 2100, causing us to cease immigration altogether and then apply the Chinese solution: one child per family? And if the population is to increase to 35 million, what's the rush to get there so quickly?

Thanks to the ABC, Kerry O'Brien and The 7.30 Report, which devoted most of last week to showcasing the question of population growth, it appears that at last we are going to have the public debate some of us have been seeking for years.

I once asked in question time whether the prime minister was aware that immigration levels were causing concern because of the pressure they exert on "education, health and social services, housing and land prices and the consequent diminution in the quality of life that overcrowded cities have on our environment". I asked for a white paper on immigration to evaluate the costs and benefits of continued large-scale immigration. That was on June 10, 1970, and John Gorton's answer indicated he was none too pleased with my question. Neither was Labor's immigration spokesman Fred Daly. Having written and spoken about the issue for 40 years, I'm delighted a serious debate is about to begin.

My view then was that Australia couldn't have an immigration policy without first having a population policy. It hasn't changed. The then minister for immigration, Phil Lynch, understood what I was on about. He set up an inquiry under Wilfred Borrie, but when Borrie eventually reported in 1978, no mention was made of population numbers.

What surprises me is that Rudd has decided to support a massive increase without the matter being debated in public, the parliament, the party or the press. I am not alone in my concern. What advocates of big Australia haven't yet done is spelt out clearly the benefits from such a huge population increase. In the early 1990s our annual growth rate, including immigration as well as births and deaths, dropped below 1 per cent. It is now, thanks to more babies and more people living longer, almost 2 per cent.

With a population of 22 million, the deterioration in the quality of life in our cities is already obvious. Daily our media highlights the inadequacy of our schools, hospitals and transport system, housing and water shortages, and spiralling land prices. You don't need to be an urban planner, demographer or sociologist to see the problems. If the 35 million predicted by 2050 is correct, with Sydney and Melbourne rising to seven million each, we are courting disaster. Double the population and life in the cities will be intolerable.

No, no, say the big Australians, we can take millions more. We can but who will benefit? It is up to the big Australians to show how this will improve the quality of life for present and future generations of Australians.

In the immediate post-war period, Australia, having just fought a war of survival with the Japanese, recognised that we could not occupy or defend a vast island continent with six million people. It may seem xenophobic today but fear of being swamped by the yellow peril before, during and after World War II was real enough. Most of these fears have now abated and, thankfully, with the end of the White Australia policy, most Australians recognise that our security is no longer dependent on increased population. If it is, what numbers will be necessary to repel the three billion who live to our near north? .

The other reason given at the time was that a larger population would provide our manufacturers with the economies of scale. That may have had some validity then, but Australia's economy now depends more on mining, tourism and agriculture as well as financial and educational services rather than manufacturing.

The Prime Minister might also care to explain why the government is telling us we must reduce our carbon footprint while suggesting we should double the number of feet. We appear to be on two different planets. Some suggest that not to share our country with millions more immigrants is selfish and that we have the responsibility to help other countries to lighten their population load. Excuse me? What about helping them with population control?

Why has it taken so long for this debate to take place? One reason is that the ethnic lobby brands anyone who questions immigration as racist. That won't work with the type of people who are now entering the debate. People of the calibre of Dick Smith, Bob Carr and, if I may say so, yours truly can't be so labelled.

More and more Australians are speaking out on this issue and they will not be silenced out of fear of being blackguarded by those afraid to seriously debate the issue.

The pundits suggest the federal election will be fought on the economy, climate change, health care and education. To that we can add population and immigration. It's the big sleeper. Rudd and Tony Abbott take note. It will be a debate not about who comes to this country but how many.

SOURCE





1 February, 2010

Most American Jews want open borders

Or something close to it. Such ideas would seem to show a surprisingly limited ability to think ahead. Emotion rather than logic involved, I think

Even as health care reform twists in the wind, immigration policy looms as the next big political debate, and Hispanics and Jews are moving to the forefront in a burgeoning political alliance. The next three months are seen as critical in the fight for immigration reform, but the weakening of the Democrats, grip on Congress with the recent loss of a key Massachusetts Senate seat does not bode well for the passage of reform legislation.

The Jewish-Latino alliance on immigration issues builds on the heritage and experience of the Jewish community and on the enthusiasm and urgent needs of the Hispanic community, which has a strong interest in issues of family unification and the status of the some 12 million illegal immigrants, most of them from Latin America. But Jewish activists also see the joint work as an opening for cooperation with the Hispanic community on other issues, such as Israel.

"If we want to engage with the Latino community on issues that are of concern for us, including Israel, we need to engage on issues that bother their community," said Gideon Aronoff, president and CEO of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society. "We want to create growing bonds with the Latino community, and we cannot create these bonds if we are indifferent to the issues that are of concern to them."

Alliance: Luis Gutierrez (left) and Charles Schumer are trying to drive reform through Congress.Some advocates view the ethnic backgrounds of the two key lawmakers leading the drive for immigration reform as symbolic of the growing alliance on the issue. In the House, the main immigration reform bill was presented Rep. Luis Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat, and in the Senate it is expected that New York's Senator Charles Schumer will soon present his version of immigration reform legislation.

The Gutierrez bill has been praised by advocates for immigrants as providing answers to most of the concerns of the Hispanic community, but so far it has failed to gain any Republican support.

Schumer's bill, now in the making, is expected to have more bipartisan appeal, by taking a nuanced approach to the thorny issue of providing a path to legalization for millions of illegal immigrants.

While Democratic-backed health care reform legislation was uniformly opposed by Republicans and now seems to be stuck in Congress, advocates agree that immigration reform stands no chance of passage without bipartisan support.

But immigration advocates believe that the blow suffered by health care reform supporters following the Massachusetts Senate election does not necessarily dictate the same fate for immigration reform. Indeed, said HIAS?s Aronoff, it might even help the cause, due to increased pressure on lawmakers to show progress on key issues. "All Americans have seen the gridlock in Washington and are very frustrated with it,? he said. ?Now the president and Congress need to show that they can solve problems for Americans."

But with the political clock ticking, supporters of reform fear that major legislation is becoming harder to pass, and so they set the first half of 2010 as a desired deadline for passing legislation. "Every day we get closer to the elections, the harder it becomes," said Richard Foltin, director of national and legislative affairs at the American Jewish Committee, referring to upcoming congressional elections.

Jewish communal support for immigration reform is organized around several principles, including the need for a path to legalization for illegal immigrants; a mechanism for dealing with future immigration waves; speeding up work on family unification; integrating new immigrants into American society; and finding, as Jewish immigration advocates put it, an "effective and humane" way of enforcing immigration laws and border control.

This last point seems to be a growing concern within the Jewish community, said Jane Ramsey, executive director of the Jewish Council on Urban Affairs based in Chicago. Ramsey, whose organization has been working closely with Hispanic groups, stressed that while both communities strongly support immigration reform, there is still a need to instill in members of the Jewish community the importance of the issue, which for most Jews carries a symbolic, not personal, importance. "Our community is one step removed," she said, "and therefore it is very important to make it real for people by interacting with the Latino community."

While the Jewish organizational world is essentially united on this issue, some have argued that the Jewish rank-and-file is not on entirely the same page as communal leaders.

The supposed divide between religious leaders of various stripes and their rank-and-file was the focus of a recent survey, sponsored by the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington-based group that opposes granting illegal immigrants a path to legalization and instead argues that many will return to their home countries if immigration laws are better enforced. That poll, which was conducted online by Zogby International in December, found that Jews were roughly equally divided between those who prefer a stepped-up enforcement approach and those who prefer granting legal status with a path to citizenship.

Jewish immigration advocates have questioned the survey's methodology, but they agree that there are diverse opinions within the community. Yet the CIS poll also found that Jews were still considerably more likely than members of other religious groups to support granting legal status to illegal immigrants, a finding that immigration advocates say rings true.

The organized Jewish community is more committed than ever to immigration reform. A letter supporting immigration reform, which will be sent out to all Senate offices in early February, was signed by dozens of national Jewish organizations.

Joining forces with the Hispanic community has been a longstanding goal for Jewish groups. But what seems to be a rare chance to reform immigration laws has helped galvanize the relationship.

At a January 10 roundtable in Durham, N.C., Jewish and Latino activists shared their immigration experiences and looked for ways to work together in support of the legislation. "We broke into groups and spoke about the similarity between our grandparents' immigration and their experience nowadays," said Stephanie Grosser, who has been coordinating outreach efforts for HIAS.

One of the issues activists from both sides discussed was hate and hostility directed at immigrants, both past and present-day, whether they were Jewish newcomers at the turn of the 20th century or Latinos in recent decades. "After we talked about why the Jewish community cares about immigration, two Latino women from the crowd came up and hugged me," Grosser recalled.

Cooperation between the two communities goes beyond the issue of immigration reform and includes many joint programs on the local level. On the national level, Jewish and Latino groups are part of broader coalitions organizing a Washington rally in March in favor of immigration reform, which will be preceded by advocacy work in congressional districts during the February congressional recess.

Jewish groups bring to the table their experience and well-established network of political contacts, a contribution highly appreciated by Hispanic organizers. "For us, as newcomers to the society, this experience is extraordinary," said Gutavo Torres, president of Casa Maryland, a Hispanic group active in the metropolitan Washington area. "They know how to work through the system, how to lobby, how to advocate. The Jewish community has a lot of experience and a lot of power."

Jewish organizations have been increasing their efforts to reach out to the Hispanic community for several years, and most national groups have established joint programs and sponsored Jewish-Hispanic events. With the rapid growth of the Hispanic community and with its rising political clout, Jewish groups see added value in building bridges to the community. "We are working on immigration, because it is the right thing to do, because it is part of our values," said the AJC's Foltin. "But the dialogue also creates better understanding for the needs of our community."

SOURCE



Singapore aims to ease fears over immigration

Singapore will seek on Monday to reassure multinational companies that plans to tighten immigration curbs will not affect the city state’s openness to relocation by white-collar expatriates.

A review of economic strategy, chaired by Tharman Shanmugaratnam, the finance minister, has concluded that growth in the number of resident foreigners must be slowed in response to growing concern among locals. Foreigners make up about 34 per cent of the country’s population of 4.99m, following a long period of high economic growth up to 2008 during which Singapore accepted up to 100,000 people each year.

In a report to be presented on Monday, the review committee will say that the focus of reductions in the flow of foreigners must be on relatively unskilled blue-collar immigrants, who work mainly in the service, construction and transport industries, rather than on workers concentrated in the financial sector and professions such as law and accountancy. “The report will make it clear that we remain open to highly skilled, talented people,” said a person familiar with the report. “This cannot be about Singapore letting up on openness.”

The committee is understood to have accepted that the reduction in blue-collar immigration will raise costs for multinational and local companies, requiring a significant improvement in productivity growth to maintain international competitiveness.

The report, by a mixed group of government officials and business people, is technically a series of recommendations to the government, which will respond during debates on the budget, due to be presented on February 22. However, the review committee includes several ministers in addition to Mr Tharman, and its members are understood to be confident its recommendations will be accepted in full.

The economic strategy report will confirm that Singapore’s long-term rate of economic growth is likely to fall to below 5 per cent a year from 8 per cent to 9 per cent a decade ago, as disclosed in the Financial Times in September.

The forecast decline in growth is in part a result of slower growth in the workforce caused by lower immigration and a fall in the birth rate to less than two children per woman, the rate at which population numbers are self-sustaining.

The report will propose a campaign to increase productivity, including government financial support for companies seeking to upgrade the skills of their existing workforces.

The report will also call for action to encourage more Singapore-based companies to expand overseas, and for a campaign to increase the city’s attractiveness to tourists and professional immigrants.

According to the latest government figures, only about 3.25m of Singapore’s 4.99m people are citizens, with 480,000 foreigners living in the city as permanent residents and 1.26m on short-term visas. This compares with just 312,000 foreign workers without permanent status in 1990, who then accounted for 10 per cent of a total population of just over 3m.

SOURCE








Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.


The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: You usually CAN buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.