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



2 July, 2009

Absentees defeat Arizona bill

With many members absent, the Arizona House early Wednesday defeated a bill to criminalize the presence of all illegal immigrants in the state and draw local police officers deeper into the fight against illegal immigration. The House voted 26-15 for the bill Wednesday morning, but the "yes" votes were five short of the 31 needed for passage by the 60-member chamber. The Senate approved the bill 16-11 earlier Wednesday morning. The bill would have made Arizona the only state to criminalize the presence of illegal immigrants through an expansion of its trespassing law.

The proposal also would have prohibited cities and counties from limiting police officers in enforcing federal immigration law and require officers to try to determine people's immigration status when questions arise about their presence in the country. Nineteen representatives missed the vote, which took place near the end of an overnight session as some lawmakers left the Capitol because of the approaching end to their 2009 session.

Though absenteeism likely was a factor in the bill's defeat, Pearce said he wasn't surprised that the measure failed in the House. "Some people support law breakers over law keepers," he said. "How many more officers are we going to have killed?" He said he would keep trying to get the bill to become law and might gather signatures to take it to the ballot.

Although immigration has long been considered the sole responsibility of the federal government, advocates for tougher border enforcement have said for several years that local authorities could help lessen border woes in Arizona, the busiest illegal entry point into the United States.

The practical effect of such a new law wasn't clear. Immigrant rights advocates predicted it would lead to racial profiling that would target Latinos who are U.S. citizens. Supporters say local officers enforcing an expanded trespassing law would provide a second layer of enforcement to catch immigrants who slip past federal agents and point out that officers would still need probable cause to believe that people violated the law before they could arrest them.

Many police bosses in Arizona have resisted past efforts to have local officers confront border woes, saying it would detract from investigations of crime in their communities and jeopardize the trust they have built in immigrant communities.

The Legislature's defeat of the measure was the third time since 2006 that lawmakers have considered a trespassing expansion aimed at illegal immigrants. In 2006, then-Gov. Janet Napolitano vetoed two bills with similar trespassing provisions. The Democratic governor had said she opposed automatically turning all immigrants who sneaked into the state into criminals. Illegal immigrants account for an estimated 500,000 people in Arizona's 6.5 million population...

Currently, most of Arizona's immigration enforcement is done by federal authorities at the border and in the state's interior. A few police agencies enforce a state immigrant smuggling law and have officers with special training in federal immigration law.

SOURCE



Justice Department: U.S. Border 'Underprotected,' 'Easily Breached'

Judging from recent reports by the National Drug Intelligence Center, you could come to the conclusion that Mexican drug cartels can do something the U.S. government cannot: control border crossings. The cartels maintain "gatekeepers" -- their own sort of Border Patrol. "Gatekeepers regulate the drug flow from Mexico across the U.S.-Mexico border into the United States by controlling drug smugglers' access to areas along the border," says identical language in NDIC reports on southern Arizona and West Texas. "Gatekeepers collect 'taxes' from smugglers on all illicit shipments that are moved through these areas, including drugs and illegal aliens. The taxes are generally paid to the DTO that controls the area; the DTO then launders the tax proceeds."

By contrast, these and other reports published this year by the NDIC -- a division of the U.S. Justice Department -- describe a U.S. government that often exerts little control over who crosses the border and with what. California's border, says NDIC, is "easily breached." "The vast border area presents innumerable remote crossing points that traffickers exploit to smuggle illicit drugs, primarily marijuana into the country from Mexico," says NDIC's March report on California's border region. "These areas are easily breached by traffickers on foot, in private vehicles or in all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) as they smuggle drugs between POEs (Ports of Entry), particularly in the mountainous areas in eastern San Diego County and the desert and sand dune areas in Imperial County."

Between official ports of entry, says NDIC, Arizona's border has "few physical barriers" and is "underprotected." "Large amounts of illicit drugs are smuggled into the area from Mexico, and bulk cash is transported from the area into Mexico," says NDIC's report on southern Arizona. "These trafficking activities are facilitated by several factors unique to the region, including ... a remote, largely underprotected border area between Arizona's points of entry."

Most of this "underprotected border" is not fenced. "By the end of January 2009," says the NDIC report, "108 miles of the 262-mile shared border between Arizona and Mexico will have some type of fencing. However, few physical barriers exist in border areas between POEs, particularly in the West Desert area of the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Tucson Sector, to impede drug traffickers, chiefly Mexican DTOs, from smuggling illicit drug shipments into the United States from Mexico."

Some fences that have been built are pathetically inadequate. "Traffickers use vehicle platforms or car carriers retrofitted with ramps that can extend over the border fence to allow vehicles to cross into the HIDTA (High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area) region," says the report. "The ramps are set up in less than a minute, providing agents with a very small window of time in which to interdict these types of smuggling attempts."

Arizona's border is also vulnerable to exploitation by potential terrorists. "Alien smuggling organizations reportedly also smuggle aliens from countries other than Mexico, including special-interest countries," says the NDIC report. "Special-interest countries are those designated by the intelligence community as countries that could export individuals who could bring harm to the United States through terrorism." New Mexico's border is hampered by "minimal law enforcement coverage."

"More than half the length of this border is desolate public land that contains innumerable footpaths, roads and trails," says NDIC's April report on New Mexico. "These factors and minimal law enforcement coverage make the area an ideal smuggling corridor for drugs and other illicit goods and services -- primarily alien smuggling into the United States and weapons and bulk cash smuggling into Mexico."

The West Texas border also suffers from scarce law enforcement and potential exploitation by terrorists. "Moreover, the region's location along the U.S.-Mexico border poses national security and law enforcement issues for the region, such as alien smuggling, weapons transportation, and terrorist entry into the United States through and between ports of entry," says NDIC's West Texas report, published in March. "As with other areas between POEs along the U.S.-Mexico border in West Texas," the report says of Big Bend National Park, "limited law enforcement presence and rugged terrain make the park conducive to smuggling activities."

Between ports of entry in South Texas, NDIC says, the border is "easily breached" and guarded by few "physical barriers." "Few physical barriers exist between POEs to impede drug traffickers, particularly Mexican DTOs, from smuggling illicit drug shipments into the United States from Mexico," says a report published in February. "Along many areas of the U.S.-Mexico border in South Texas, the Rio Grande River can be easily breached by smugglers on foot or in vehicles, enabling Mexican DTOs to smuggle multikilogram quantities of illicit drugs, primarily marijuana and cocaine, into the United States."

Our president and congressional leaders now seek to control Earth's climate by capping carbon emissions in the United States -- even as they fail to perform their constitutional duty by capping the flow of contraband crossing our border from Mexico

SOURCE





1 July, 2009

What About Legal Immigration Reform?

H-1B visas allow foreigners, who have an undergraduate degree or higher, to work in the United States. Currently only 65,000 visas can be issued each year, a number which is far too low. Yet, when President Obama talks about “comprehensive immigration reform,” the discussion is anything but comprehensive.

President Obama has raised the specter of adding another hot button issue into the national debate. At the National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast the President said that he is “…committed to passing comprehensive immigration reform…” but he was silent on the matter of legal immigration reform.

Then, last Thursday, the President met with members of Congress to discuss immigration issues. The political attention is rightly focused on illegal immigration, but if the administration ignores problems that exist within the legal immigration system, can its reform package really be considered comprehensive?

Skilled foreign workers, with high levels of education, contribute greatly to America’s economy. Currently only 65,000 visas are issued down from 195,000 in 2001. While this year’s applications have slowed somewhat as a result of the current recession, the limit is expected to be reached shortly. A 2007 Congressional Research Service report showed that the 65,000 visa cap was met the first day it opened in 2005 and the 2006 cap was hit before FY06 began.

The 2008 cap was met during the first two days of availability. A Heritage study demonstrated that these workers are highly paid, and pay a significant amount in taxes. Raising the cap to 195,000 would increase payroll tax and income tax revenues by $2 billion per year. Given recent levels of federal spending and the current state of the economy, increased tax revenue (and more importantly, increased economic growth) would be good for the United States.

Too often, H-1B visa holders are caricatured as “taking American jobs” when the opposite is often true. The value of an H-1B worker is that they contribute a unique skill set, and can often create jobs by creating value and allowing for businesses to expand. For instance, hiring an H-1B worker who writes software code may cause an American company to hire more Americans because it has an entirely new product to offer. Indeed, many of America’s most innovative technology companies already rely heavily on high skilled immigrant workers. Increasing the H-1B cap will help these companies remain competitive in the world marketplace.

During the Presidential campaign WIRED magazine gave Obama a ‘C’ on the issue of H-1B visas. At this time, though, the Administration has been silent on the H-1B issue. While she was Governor, Janet Napolitano was one of 13 governors to sign a letter to Congressional leaders urging them to increase the cap. Now, as DHS Secretary, she has the ability to act on this issue. The Obama Administration should live up to its promise and enact truly comprehensive immigration reform.

SOURCE



At last, the truth about "asylum seekers" going straight to the head of the line for British welfare-housing

The Government's announcement yesterday that they are handing councils new powers to give local people priority on the waiting list for social housing is a clear admission that they have been misleading us over the huge impact of immigration on housing. For years, they have been in total denial, refusing even to discuss how immigration has affected the supply of housing. Now, at last, they have acknowledged that this is an issue which must be tackled. Supply of social housing has fallen far behind the demand for it because waiting lists have grown by over 60 per cent in just six years.

One major reason for this is the number of asylum seekers who have been granted asylum - or other forms of protection which entitle them to remain in Britain - and offered social housing. Politicians frequently assure us that asylum seekers do not get social housing. This is true up to a point, as they are given private rented accommodation at public expense while their cases are decided. But as soon as they are granted permission to stay, they can go on the housing lists. Astonishingly, over the past ten years the Government has granted more asylum seekers permission to stay in Britain than they have actually built social housing for. So, inevitably, the waiting lists have got ever longer.

This is not to suggest that we should not provide housing to genuine refugees. But surely the Government should have provided for the extra housing demand that their own policies have generated.

So who on these bulging lists actually gets a council house? Currently, it is decided on the basis of 'need' which, in turn, is heavily influenced by family size. And once granted residence, a migrant or an asylum seeker can bring over his entire family and thereby move up the priority list.

Of course local working people have seen this happening for years in their own communities. They know perfectly well that the Government have not been telling the whole truth - but few were prepared to listen.

But a major study called 'The New East End', published in 2006, revealed the true extent of the problem. The researchers from the Young Foundation looked at what had happened in Bethnal Green in London's East End over the past generation. They found that the Whitehall concept of 'need' had, in practice, favoured Bangladeshi workers who were beginning to bring over their families.

Young British workers with smaller families were pushed out to Essex, away from their roots and away from their parents, who stayed put in their council houses in East London. The outcome was that family and social bonding between Bangladeshi families was strengthened - while the traditional working-class family structure of the British workers, especially the role of grandmothers, was severely weakened. The researchers found that the white working class were seething with resentment.

The Government rushed to assure their supporters that there was no truth in any of this, insisting that it was all down to scare tactics. Taking advantage of local resentment, the BNP started making inroads. In contrast to the major parties, they were willing to speak frankly about the issue - even if their solutions were distasteful. But when, in May 2007, the local MP, Margaret Hodge, remarked publicly on the advances the BNP was making in the local elections and suggested something should be done about it, she was jumped on by the Left of her party and told to shut up.

A report was subsequently commissioned by the then Commission for Racial Equality which conveniently concluded that there was no evidence that newly arrived migrants were being allocated housing in preference to UK-born people. But that was to dodge the real issue. The rules for allocating social housing might have been administered scrupulously. But it was the system itself that was unfair. Little or no credit was given for the length of time people had been waiting for housing, nor for the strength of their ties to the locality.

As a result, white working class people were indeed being leapfrogged by new arrivals with large families. That is the background to yesterday's announcement. Only now have the Government been forced into long-overdue action because their own supporters are deserting them in droves. But it is not just social housing that has been coming under such pressure because of immigration. All housing has been affected - yet the Government refuse to acknowledge this, let alone discuss it.

All over the country, despite deep opposition, planning authorities have been told how many more houses they must build. They have no idea how much of this is caused by immigration - and nor do the local residents. But Migrationwatch dug out the figure from the last line of the last table of a technical paper produced by the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister - and, astonishingly, it is nearly 40 per cent of all new homes.

This figure comes from the government predictions of new households which are issued every two years. The latest set shows that 252,000 households will be formed every year until 2031. They also show that without immigration, there would be only 153,000 households. In other words 99,000 households, or 39 per cent, will be caused, not by existing immigrants, but by future immigrants and their families.

Put another way, that is a requirement for a new home every five minutes for new immigrants over the next 23 years. This is an astronomical number. No wonder the Government avoid any discussion of it. As we face the most serious financial crisis for two generations and as the Government find themselves virtually broke, one has to ask, who is going to pay for all this? That is another subject the Government do not wish to discuss.

SOURCE





30 June, 2009

Feds squabble over who directs military’s border role

A proposal to send National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to counter drug trafficking has triggered a bureaucratic standoff between the Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security over the military's role in domestic affairs, according to officials in both departments.

The debate has engaged a pair of powerful personalities, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in what their subordinates describe as a turf fight over who should direct the use of troops to assist in the fight against Mexican cartels and who should pay for them.

At issue is a proposal to send 1,500 additional troops to the border to analyze intelligence and to provide air support and technical assistance to border agencies. The governors of Texas, Arizona, California and New Mexico made the request in January, drawing support from Napolitano but prompting objections from the Pentagon, where officials argue that it could lead to a permanent, expanded mission for the military.

President Barack Obama has signaled that he is open to the idea, asking Congress for $250 million to deploy the National Guard while also saying he was "not interested in militarizing the border." The issue, which has been stalled before a National Security Council policy committee, will be decided by the president.

Neither Napolitano nor Gates has made the disagreement personal, although some of their aides have privately expressed exasperation at what one called an interagency "food fight."

"It should not be that we always rely on the Department of Defense to fulfill some need," said Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr., head of the U.S. Northern Command, which is responsible for defending the continental United States. Border law enforcement agencies should have adequate funds to do their job, he said. If the Guard is tapped, it should be for capabilities "that do not exist elsewhere in government," Renuart said. "When we send the National Guard, they go with specific missions, with specific purposes. And we put some duration on that so there is an end state."

Homeland security officials and governors counter that there is a legitimate need for troops to back up border agencies against the most serious threat to the Southwest and that a deployment would not represent a new military mission. Under a 1989 law, the National Guard already assigns 577 troops to help states with anti-drug programs that "can easily expand," the four governors wrote Congress in April.

Napolitano, who as governor of Arizona prompted President George W. Bush to send 6,000 National Guard troops to the border in 2006, has supported the governors.

Brian de Vallance, senior counselor to Napolitano, said she "feels we have an obligation to do whatever we can do to disrupt those forces that are destroying lives in over 200 American cities. ... It comes down to whether folks want to be as aggressive as we can be against the cartels and take every advantage of this historic opportunity" of cooperation between Mexico and the United States.

The debate goes to the heart of the military's role, which has expanded since the 2001 terrorist attacks, with an increasing commitment of troops and resources to homeland defense, particularly to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear attack or other domestic catastrophe. The deployment of new troops to the border would represent a mission the military has not traditionally embraced.

"What we're seeing is here is a move toward reframing where defense begins and ends," said Bert B. Tussing, director of homeland defense and security issues at the U.S. Army War College's Center for Strategic Leadership. "Traditionally the military looks outward, but looking outward has begun a lot closer to home, and it may involve looking just across the border."

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) requested 1,000 Guard troops in January that he later said could form 24 border reconnaissance platoons, support Texas Ranger and parks and wildlife tracking teams, and back up air and marine operations. Perry, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R), California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D) subsequently asked Congress to add personnel to the National Guard's Counter-Drug Program in their states. Currently, troops provide translators, reconnaissance and administrative support, relaying aircraft surveillance images, for example.

Border states bear "unique and/or disproportionate" costs of dealing with illegal immigration, drugs and violence, Brewer wrote. "It is abundantly clear that additional resources are needed — and needed now," the governors wrote in a separate letter.

The fight is largely over money. For the past two years, Pentagon budget officials have tried to slash funding for state drug-fighting operations, citing the financial strain of waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And military officials say governors could pay for their own guard units.

But governors contend that securing the border is a federal responsibility and that Washington should cover the cost.

Paul McHale, Gates's assistant secretary for homeland defense until early this year, said the broader worry is strategic. "The real concern is, if it works once, and it works a second time ... at some point a temporary mission becomes permanent," he said. "Do it four or five times over a decade, and the political and military repercussions are likely negative."

A senior White House national security official said the president is comfortable with the disagreement and "wants to see the kind of creative tension and full-out debate that major policy decisions engender."

The official added, "It's the president's view that ... frankly, that kind of debate among two Cabinet officers like Secretary Gates and Secretary Napolitano, both of whom he holds in high regard, will inevitably lead to a better policy."

The official noted that the administration has already taken some steps, sending 450 DHS and Justice Department agents to the border in March to fight cash and weapons smuggling. And, he pointed out, crime in U.S. border communities and border arrests have fallen.

For now, administration officials are working through differences. In response to the Pentagon concerns that the troops could become permanent, DHS officials are searching for benchmarks that would end a deployment, such as a drop in cartel violence or improved Mexican enforcement.

When the Bush administration sent Guard units to the border, they went as a stopgap measure, backing up the U.S. Border Patrol for two years while it added 6,000 agents. The troops rotated through non-law enforcement duties.

SOURCE



Up to 10,000 Asian refugees expected to head to Australia

"Asia" apparently includes the Middle East these days

A MASSIVE influx of up to 10,000 asylum seekers is expected to head to Australia, Indonesian authorities have warned.

About 1500 asylum seekers have already arrived in Indonesia from Malaysia by boat this year and registered for refugee status, while the same number again are believed to have arrived and not registered, Fairfax newspapers report.

Malaysia is used as a staging point to obtain tourist visas before refugees seek passage to Australia via Indonesia. The refugees are believed to include people from Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Burma and Iraq.

An Australian immigration enforcement official says the high volumes of people present a similar situation to the thousands who began arriving in the late 1990s.

With Australian financial and technical support, the Indonesian government will announce on Wednesday a strike team of 12 dedicated police to combat human trafficking. But the sheer number of asylum seekers from Malaysia will put pressure on the new security measures.

Coordinator of the Malaysian immigration support group Tenaganita, Aegile Fernandez agreed that up to 10,000 asylum seekers in Malaysia were planning to come to Australia. "I would put the blame on these agencies that have been promising Australia as the destination,'' she said.

The United Nations High Commission for Refugees has 49,000 registered refugees and asylum seekers in its records in Malaysia and estimates there are 45,000 unregistered illegal immigrants.

SOURCE





29 June, 2009

Foreign Police in the U.S.

A report from the AP discloses that foreign police officers are now performing law enforcement functions in the United States under a scheme supported by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials. Reportedly, foreign police officers from Mexico, Argentina, Colombia and Canada are participating.

Although it's generally indicated that the foreign police are engaged in anti-smuggling operations, it's unclear what specific law enforcement functions they are permitted to perform. For example, it's mentioned that Canadian law enforcement officers have been given arrest authority in New York whereas Mexican officers do not have the same authority in Texas. However, Mexican officers are given the authority to investigate in Texas which logically means they can interview and interrogate suspects.

Consequently, one must ask which nation's laws and procedures are employed when foreign officers perform these functions. Interrogation of suspects under Mexican law is quite different from interrogations conducted under U.S. law.

Also, arrests of suspects in the U.S. by Canadian officers appear to be completely outside the law. And it seems to set a dangerous precedent where any nation could send policemen to the U.S. to arrest somebody to be tried in a court in -- pick a place -- Beijing or Islamabad or Pyongyang.

According to Tim Durst, ICE chief of contraband smuggling, the focus of the effort is information: "We look at it as real-time, firsthand information sharing. It is one of the few ways to go back to the source of smuggling activity."

So, according to Durst, the whole scheme is designed for information-sharing but, as described, it appears to go way beyond simple communications. To my knowledge, putting someone in handcuffs has never been considered "information-sharing."

Nonetheless, the way the scheme supposedly works is that U.S. immigration and border patrol officers tell the Mexican, Colombian, Argentine and Canadian officers the plans for disrupting smuggling operations and the foreign officers tell their colleagues back in Mexico, Colombia, Argentina and Canada what is going down. The intended result is cross-border cooperation in stopping the flow of contraband.

Of course, the whole plan is predicated on a belief that most law enforcers in the foreign countries are not corrupt. I suggest that the belief is flawed with regard to Mexico, Colombia and Argentina where police allegedly often work in unison with smugglers.

In conclusion, I contend that foreign police performing law enforcement functions in the U.S. is not a good idea and it probably violates wheelbarrows-full of existing American laws. And most troubling of all is a statement by Tim Durst, the head anti-smuggling man with ICE: "By working with our foreign partners, we can basically remove the border as a barrier," Durst said.

Frankly, I don't know how anyone in a position of authority could suggest removing the border.

SOURCE



The "don't ask, don't tell" approach to immigration is what has given Britain's despised anti-immigration party an opportunity

By FRASER NELSON

Does it matter if immigrants have taken (or created) all the new jobs in the British private sector? I reveal this in my News of the World column today, as the key fact from a data request I made from the ONS. It’s a divisive topic, and even exploring it make ministers feel uncomfortable. But this ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ approach to immigration has not just given the BNP the political space needed for its electoral breakthrough three weeks ago, but left ministers ignorant about what’s going on in our labour market. Between Q1 of 1997 and Q1 of 2009, immigrants account for 106% of new jobs in the private sector – ie, there are more new workers (1.55m) than new jobs (1.47m).

I’ll update this post later with key graphs and put online the full response to my data request - this all deserves to be in the public domain. But it does strike me that the best way to fight the BNP is not to ban its MEPs from the House of Commons (as our MPs are now trying to do) but actually start learning about, and dealing with, the dynamics of migration. BNP support is the scream of the forgotten voter – and unless Westminster collectively starts to reach out to these people then the BNP’s success story may well have a good bit left to run.

SOURCE





28 June, 2009

Scandal of the migrant criminals in Britain: How legal lunancy left serial sex offender free to kill girl, 12

In the year to April, Britain received more than 3,500 requests from foreign countries for the return of their criminals. More than 150 were suspected or convicted murderers. The astonishing total was up by a quarter on the previous 12 months.

The vast majority of the 'wanted' suspects hailed from European Union countries. As Detective Chief Inspector Murray Duffin, of the Scotland Yard Extradition and Intelligence Unit, has warned: 'Britain is becoming a magnet for increasing numbers of criminals from the former Eastern bloc countries which are now members of the EU.'

Notably, the number of fugitives being sought by Poland has soared 14-fold since 2004, when the country joined the EU and its citizens were allowed to live in Britain. The Warsaw police now send a charter plane to Britain every month to pick up their countrymen wanted for killings, rape, robbery, burglary, drugs and theft. Last year, officers from the extradition unit returned 275 Poles accused of crimes back home.

Even the police chief of Albania - which is not an EU member - has warned that Britain has become the favourite sanctuary for fugitives. He recently claimed that the UK is harbouring 80 Albanian killers and 20 other serious offenders. Many have got British citizenship after deceiving our authorities and claiming asylum by pretending to be from war-torn Kosovo.

So why does our extradition system take so long to send back the suspected foreign criminals found here? And what are the implications for our own safety as rapists and murderers freely walk our streets?

In London, a fifth of all offences, a third of all sex attacks and half of all frauds are committed by those born overseas. In the West Midlands, the number of foreigners accused of crimes doubled to 3,700 in the five years up to 2008. In the country as a whole, drink-driving convictions of foreigners have shot up 17 times. And it is hard not to suspect that many of them will have had criminal records before they came to Britain. For as one London senior police officer told me: 'A criminal doesn't stop being a criminal just because he moves country - and that is the real problem. Our first call when we get an extradition request from a foreign country is to the British prison authorities, because that is where they are often to be found.' Indeed, about 5 per cent of all extradition requests concern suspects who have already been jailed for offences committed in the UK.

Many have arrived here illicitly, smuggling themselves into Britain hidden in lorries [trucks] arriving from Calais, Dunkirk and Boulogne, or on trains through the Channel tunnel. This week the Home Office said that last year 28,000 foreigners clandestinely tried to enter the country by these routes. 'Inevitably, some are running away from their own justice system,' explained the police officer.

The trouble is, by the time foreign criminals are successfully tracked down it's often too late. In one horrific case, schoolgirl Katerina Koneva, 12, was strangled at her home in Hammersmith, West London, by Andrezej Kunowski, who had spent 15 years in jail in his native Poland for serial sex offences. The 51-year-old was awaiting trial in his home country for further sex attacks when, in June 1996, he was freed on bail for urgent medical treatment and absconded, travelling to Britain under a tourist visa. (Poland was not yet a member of the EU.)

He murdered Katerina a year later, and although the Polish authorities continued to seek his extradition, Kunowski remained at large in the UK for six years after her death. It was only when he was arrested for the rape of a 22-year-old student from London that police were able to use the DNA samples they had taken to link him to Katerina's killing. He is serving life in prison in Britain and is unlikely ever to be released - which means that he will never face justice in his own country.

Yet shocking though his case is, there are many more like him still at large in Britain. In fact, only a fraction of those suspected of crimes in their home country and traced to Britain are ever successfully extradited. Of the 3,526 foreigners for whom extradition requests were made by European Union countries in the past year, 683 were arrested and only one in seven - 516 - returned, according to the latest figures released to the Mail by the Serious Organised Crime Agency.

As for those from outside the EU, the Home Office says that of the 300 'wanted' by the rest of the world since 2003, a third escaped extradition and remain here. There are a myriad legal loopholes to sidestep removal. The suspects' lawyers often claim - successfully - that their clients will suffer human rights abuse or will not face a fair trial back home. The extradition process can be dragged out for years if suspects appeal to the High Court and then up again to the Home Secretary. If they come from outside the EU, many instantly claim asylum. This request has then to be considered by the courts before the extradition process can even begin. In a further twist, those accused of offences carrying the death penalty in their home country cannot - by our law - be returned because Britain has abolished capital punishment.

This begs the question of whether the most dangerous foreign criminals are deliberately settling here because they are safe from extradition. The situation is even more complicated if the suspected foreign criminal has a wife and children in this country. Under the Human Rights Act 1998, they can fight removal, claiming their family life would be disrupted.

The crisis was highlighted earlier this month with the Crimestoppers' campaign to track down foreign criminals here. The 16 named suspects were mainly from Eastern Europe (eight from Albania alone) and included six rapists and six murderers. Lord Ashcroft, who founded Crimestoppers, said: 'Fugitives hide across the globe in all communities. When you look at the criminals that are on the most wanted list, they can be truly horrible people and need to be caught.'

To speed the extradition process, new laws on sending criminals back to Europe were passed in 2003. However, over four days in court, I saw a score of foreigners using every twist and turn in the law to fight removal. Take Fred Undrits, who is wanted in Estonia for burning down a house. The 23-year-old was brought to the extradition hearing from prison, where he is serving a 56-day sentence for shoplifting. He has been in Britain since 2006 and his case might take years to decide.

And what of Albanian Shkelzen Gradica? The 33-year-old has changed his name to Robert and was convicted in his absence in Italy of attempted murder. His defence team argue it could breach his human rights to be sent to Rome because he would not get a fair trial. The reason? Gradica was convicted on the basis of an unreliable witness statement and has never had the chance to answer the allegations against him in an Italian courtroom.

From Poland, Maciej Blaszko, 30, has been accused in Warsaw of attempted robbery and driving while disqualified. Here he has been fighting extradition with a team of lawyers paid for with legal aid funded by the British taxpayer. Blaszko says he won't get a fair trial back home because the police case against him was prepared when he had fled the country for the UK.

And then there was paedophile Julius Horvath, convicted in 1996 of the sexual assault and rape of a child in the Czech Republic. Horvath slipped through our borders and came to Britain in 2000. Despite his dubious past, he successfully claimed asylum. Living in a one-bed council flat in Leeds, he even received job seekers' allowance. The 54-year old has also had numerous run-ins with police here, according to evidence given at the extradition hearing. In the past four years, the Czech has been cautioned for affray, being drunk and disorderly, serious assault and shoplifting. Luckily for him, he has one son living here, and four grandchildren who were born here, which means the chances of him ever going home are slim indeed. Why? His lawyers say that a return would infringe his 'family life' under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

And then there was the suspected Hungarian paedophile Balazs Asztalos. He made a second appearance at the extradition court ten days after he was found by police in Milton Keynes. His employers, S and D Leisure, admitted they did not have a clue their polite young employee was a suspected child molester. 'We were really amazed when he was arrested,' said company owner Stanley Reeves. 'If we'd had the slightest inkling he was on the run from police we never would have given him a job.' The family-run company, which operates bungee rides all over the country, had taken down Asztalos' details from his passport and started to run a police criminal record check on him.

Now Mr Reeves is questioning how Asztalos had not been tracked down to Britain before. He arrived in Britain in 2006. In the extradition court, Asztalos' shoulder-length hair was swept back from his face with gel, and he looked completely different to the shavenheaded figure who had appeared in the Crimestoppers photograph. But already there are nagging doubts about whether he can ever be returned. The court heard that the Hungarian police have questioned three other people - including Asztalos' own mother - in connection with child sex abuse in his home town. Defence barrister Martin Henley told the extradition court the trio had all been released without charge.

And then Mr Henley announced his bombshell. He said that under British laws the extradition request was useless if Asztalos was wanted only for interviews by Hungarian police and was not, thus far, subject to a fullblown arrest warrant. While inquiries are made about exactly what the situation is, the young Hungarian will remain in prison.

Asztalos is innocent until proven guilty, but there are countless other foreign crooks and deviants with dubious pasts who are making Britain an infinitely more unsafe place for decent people to live in. It is a scandal of terrifying proportions.

SOURCE



The boatloads of "refugees" heading for Australia are getting bigger and bigger

Wishy-washy Leftist laws and regulations have revived the flow that the conservative Howard government stopped

The biggest boatload of asylum seekers since the Tampa crisis is heading towards Australia. The vessel, believed to be carrying up to 190 people, is being tracked by border protection authorities. It recently passed between the Indonesian islands of Java and Sumatra and is believed to be southeast of Bali. Authorities are waiting to see if it heads east towards Darwin or southwest towards Ashmore Reef.

The boat is one of several being monitored by Border Protection Command, which tracks suspect vessels as soon as they leave port. If the numbers aboard are as high as authorities believe, the vessel could mark a turning point in the tactics of people smugglers.

Home Affairs Minister Brendan O'Connor's office declined to comment, saying it did not discuss operational matters. Most boats in recent times have carried about 20 unauthorised arrivals. But there are bigger profits to be made by smugglers who are willing to load more people aboard old fishing boats and ferries.

The Norwegian freighter MV Tampa rescued 433 asylum seekers from a leaky boat in 2001, prompting the Howard government's so-called "Pacific Solution". The policy was dismantled by the Rudd Government, which axed mandatory detention and closed processing centres on Nauru and Manus Island. It has also stopped billing immigration detainees for the cost of their stay.

The number of unauthorised boats heading to Australia has been steadily climbing, with 15 arriving already this year. The latest came this week, carrying 49 asylum seekers and four crew. The asylum seeker surge will test refugee processing facilities on Christmas Island, which are reportedly close to capacity.

Opposition immigration spokeswoman Sharman Stone said the Government was failing to deter boat arrivals. "It's on for young and old again," she said. "The people smugglers clearly have a well established pipeline to Australia and they are using the Rudd Government's soft policies to recruit more clients."

SOURCE





27 June, 2009

Obama hints at amnesty for illegal immigrants

President Barack Obama stayed away from hot-button words in remarks Thursday on immigration reform, but hinted that his immigration push will include some kind of “amnesty” or “legal path” for illegal immigrants already in the U.S. He also praised U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who was at a White House meeting on the issue and has supported a legal path for undocumented immigrants and a guest worker program.

“What’s also been acknowledged is that the 12 million or so undocumented workers are here — who are not paying taxes in the ways that we’d like them to be paying taxes, who are living in the shadows, that is a group that we have to deal with in a practical, common-sense way,” Obama said after the meeting. “And I think the American people are ready for us to do so. But it’s going to require some heavy lifting, it’s going to require a victory of practicality and common sense and good policy making over short-term politics. That’s what I’m committed to doing as president.”

On his former campaign foe, he said: “I want to especially commend John McCain, who’s with me today, because along with folks like Lindsey Graham, he has already paid a significant political cost for doing the right thing. I stand with him.”

Obama also said Thursday he is making U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano a key point person on the immigration reform push. As Arizona’s former governor, Napolitano signed an employer sanctions bill into law and backed deployment of National Guard troops along the Arizona-Mexico border. She, however, was skeptical about a border wall and flirted with the idea of allowing illegal immigrants to obtain drivers licenses.

SOURCE



Harry Reid's Assault on American Workers

Assume there are 100 people in your community who do the work you do and 100 jobs for that type of work that local employers want to fill. You are in a pretty good position: You can stay employed.

Now assume there are only 95 people in your community who do the work you do and 105 jobs that local employers want to fill. You are in an even better position: You can stay employed and demand a higher wage because the demand for the work you do exceeds the supply of able workers.

You are, in fact, like all workers in a free society, a small business owner. You are an enterprise of one. You have something of value to sell, which is your labor, and you have a right to hold out for the highest price you can get from willing buyers. Harvard Law School graduates have this right, and landscape laborers have this right. It is at the heart of free enterprise, a core element of our American way of life.

Now suppose the government decides to stop enforcing the nation's borders and immigration laws, allowing 25 people from a foreign country who do the same kind of work you do to illegally enter the United States, settle in your community, and begin competing with you and your neighbors for the jobs you hold.

With additional illegal aliens pouring across the border daily, there are already 120 people seeking the 105 jobs of your type in your town. A few of your lifelong friends are laid off. Your own job is threatened. Your employer slashes wages, and you accept the pay cut because the supply of workers now exceeds the demand. You begin wondering when you'll see a pink slip in your pay envelope.

The illegal-alien families, which pay less in taxes than the formerly higher-paid American workers, put their children in public schools, secure health care at public hospitals and place a net financial burden on their neighbors. Taxes go up; the quality of services goes down.

This is before the recession. First, economic growth slows. Then, it stops. Then, it drops off a cliff. Month after month, hundreds of thousands of additional workers are thrown from their jobs as the economy tumbles down a mountainside.

What policy changes do congressional leaders recommend as employment plummets? In Washington, D.C., today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is plotting an attack on the surviving jobs of American workers. "I'm going to do comprehensive immigration reform," Reid told reporters last week. "I'm not going to do it piecemeal. That's an excuse for everybody to do too little.

"We're going to do it all at once, and we're going to have comprehensive immigration reform that will include taking care of our borders, a decent guest-worker program, bringing the 11 million people out of the shadows, doing something that's so important with the employer sanctions bill that really is a catch-22 for everyone and a number of other things," said Reid. "We're going to do it all in one piece of legislation, not give people an excuse that they voted for one thing and think that they're through with it."

What Reid means by "bringing 11 million people out of the shadows" is making illegal immigrants legal -- thus rewarding illegal behavior and encouraging further illegal immigration. What he means by a "decent guest-worker program" is giving employers the power to import foreign workers into the United States and keep those workers laboring here in a status that is inferior to a free American citizen or permanent legal resident.

These imported "guest workers" would not have the right to sell, or withhold, their labor at any time, place and price they choose -- like real Americans do. Such workers would be subject to federal laws and regulations meant to hold them captive to the employers who imported them. Such workers would be half-slave, half-free -- and part of a country dividing against itself.

What Harry Reid is proposing is an assault on American workers and the principle of free labor. It is as contrary to the American way of life as the federal government owning General Motors.

SOURCE





26 June, 2009

Identity Theft, Document Fraud, and Illegal Employment

In May of this year, a Supreme Court decision severely impeded the use of identity theft charges as an immigration enforcement tool. In June, several people were arrested after a fraud scheme was uncovered at a Florida driver’s license bureau. In July, a new Utah law targeting illegal aliens and document fraud will take effect. As these examples show, illegal immigration is inherently tied to document fraud and identity theft. As states continue to search for answers, it is apparent that the Federal government has not yet found a working legislative solution to deter these crimes.

A new Backgrounder by the Center for Immigration Studies considers how illegal aliens perpetrate document fraud and identity theft, the effects on the victims of this crime, as well as some proposals to deter it. “Illegal, but Not Undocumented: Identity Theft, Document Fraud and Illegal Employment,” is written by Ronald Mortensen, PhD, a retired career U.S. Foreign Service Officer and former Society for Human Resource Management senior executive. The Backgrounder is available online here. The findings include:

Illegal immigrants are not “undocumented.” They have fraudulent documents such as counterfeit Social Security cards, forged drivers licenses, fake “green cards,” and phony birth certificates. Experts suggest that approximately 75 percent of working-age illegal aliens use fraudulent Social Security cards to obtain employment.

Most (98 percent) Social Security number (SSN) thieves use their own names with stolen numbers. The federal E-Verify program, now mandated in only 14 states, can detect this fraud. Universal, mandatory use of E-Verify would curb this and stop virtually 100 percent of child identity theft.

Illegal immigration and high levels of identity theft go hand-in-hand. States with the most illegal immigration also have high levels of job-related identity theft. In Arizona, 33 percent or all identity theft is job-related (as opposed to identity theft motivated simply by profit). In Texas it is 27 percent; in New Mexico, 23 percent; in Colorado, 22 percent; California, 20 percent; and in Nevada, 16 percent. Eight of the 10 states with the highest percentage of illegal aliens in their total population are among the top 10 states in identity theft (Arizona, California, Florida, Texas, Nevada, New York, Georgia, and Colorado).

Children are prime targets. In Arizona, it is estimated that over one million children are victims of identity theft. In Utah, 1,626 companies were found to be paying wages to the SSNs of children on public assistance under the age of 13. These individuals suffer very real and very serious consequences in their lives.

Illegal aliens commit felonies in order to get jobs. Illegal aliens, who use fraudulent documents, perjure themselves on I-9 forms, and commit identity theft in order to get jobs are committing serious offenses and are not “law abiding.”

Illegally employed aliens send billions of dollars annually to their home countries, rather than spending it in the United States and helping stimulate the American economy. In October 2008 alone, $2.4 billion was transferred to Mexico.

Tolerance of corruption erodes the rule of law. Corruption is a serious problem in most illegal aliens’ home countries. Allowing it to flourish here paves the way for additional criminal activity and increased corruption throughout society.

Leaders support perpetrators and ignore victims. Political, civic, religious, business, education, and media leaders blame Americans for “forcing” illegal aliens to commit document fraud and identity theft. No similar concern is expressed for the American men, women, and children whose lives are destroyed in the process.

The Social Security Administration and Internal Revenue Service facilitate illegal immigrant-driven identity theft. Both turn a blind eye to massive SSN fraud and take no action to stop it. The Social Security Administration assigns SSNs to new-born infants that are being used illegally. The IRS demands that victims pay taxes on wages earned by illegal aliens using their stolen SSNs, while taking no action to stop the identity theft.

State and local governments need to adopt tougher laws to supplement federal efforts. The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is targeting large document fraud rings and the most egregious employers, but their resources are limited and stretched across multiple priorities. In 2007, identity theft cases represented only 7 percent of the total ICE case load.

Employers must do their part. They can ensure that they have a legal workforce by using a combination of the federal government’s E-Verify and Social Security Number Verification Service systems and by signing up for the federal government’s IMAGE program or privately conducted audits.

The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) Contact: Bryan Griffith, (202) 466-8185, press@cis.org



Four in ten under-20s in London aren't white

Four out of ten young people in London are members of ethnic minorities, it was revealed yesterday. A government report found that more than 700,000 children and teenagers are classed as non-white, around 40 per cent of the age group in the capital.

At present, just over a third of Londoners of all ages are reckoned to be non-white - but the new figures indicate that this share will grow substantially in the future. They also point to the way recent waves of immigration have made a bigger impact on London than other parts of the country.

The analysis from the Office for National Statistics said that in the West Midlands, the second most multi-racial area of the country after London, just 19 per cent of children and teenagers are non-white.

The figures were disclosed in Whitehall's annual Regional Trends report. They drew warnings from migration experts that politicians are taking a risk by ignoring the changing nature of cities and suburbs.

Sir Andrew Green of the Migrationwatch think-tank said: 'This illustrates the massive change that is taking place to our society at a rapid pace and without the indigenous population ever being consulted. 'It is high time that the political class took their heads out of the clouds and responded to the very strong public opinion that wants to bring immigration under control.'

Many of the migrants who have come into Britain in the past ten years have settled in London. Three London boroughs have had majority ethnic minority populations since the turn of the Millennium - Newham, Tower Hamlets and Brent - and others are likely to see whites become a minority in the near future. The estimates yesterday put the under-20 ethnic minority population of London at 714,000.

Around 15 per cent of young Londoners are classed as Asian or Asian British, it said, and 14 per cent black or black British. Lowest populations of ethnic minority youngsters were in the North-East - five per cent of all people under 20 - and in the South-West, at six per cent.

The all-party Balanced Migration group of MPs said that 70 per cent of future population increase and 40 per cent of new households will be a result of immigration.

In a statement, the group's co-chairmen, Labour MP Frank Field and Tory Nicholas Soames, said: 'As we face severe cuts in public spending, it is the politics of madness to continue with immigration policies that will mean us having to provide thousands of new homes for newcomers - not to mention the necessary roads, schools and hospitals - on this unprecedented scale, when our own citizens, both black and white, cannot get homes.'

SOURCE





25 June, 2009

Immigration Reform Now Moves to Center Stage in Washington

It has been delayed twice and is flying in under the healthcare debate, but the president and a select group of lawmakers will finally talk immigration reform at the White House tomorrow. The key players last time around were Sens. Ted Kennedy and John McCain. Kennedy continues to battle brain cancer, but McCain will be among the lawmakers at the meeting. "Yes, he was invited, and yes, he will be attending," McCain Communications Director Brooke Buchanan tells Whispers. But as far as the senator taking a high-profile leadership role, she stays mum. "We'll leave it at that for now," she says. Vigils are being held today in Arizona, including outside McCain's Tucson, Ariz., office, to push for immigration reform this year.

Chatter on what immigration reform will look like is picking up in Washington, too. One idea, being shopped around to congressional staffers and reporters yesterday, would be to create a guest-worker program of sorts. Called the "red-card solution," it would have foreign workers head to employment agencies in their home countries to be matched with American employers and issued a noncitizen work permit, a red, temporary ID card that would allow them to stay and work legally in the United States for as long as they held that specific job. Then they would return home. "I think that's a humane, easy thing to do," says Helen Krieble, the founder and president of the Vernon K. Krieble Foundation, who came up with the idea. A businesswoman herself, Krieble was looking for a way to fill lower-paying jobs at her Colorado equestrian center and found herself in the dilemma of not being able to find Americans for the work and not being able to employ foreign workers legally either. "The antibusiness idea that business people are out to rape the workforce does not appeal to me," she says, reiterating that she could not find Americans to do these jobs. This plan would provide a legal means to work temporarily in the United States but would not help the 12 million illegal immigrants already living here.

But just what Congress will actually approve—or even consider—is an open question. Few Democrats or Republicans in the Senate are signaling that immigration legislation is guaranteed to receive a vote before the end of the year. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, noting that it will be considered only after energy and healthcare reform, still gave it a nod. "Being third on the list is pretty good," he shrugged. He did say that the "votes are there" to pass it, however.

Republicans eager to show Hispanics that they care are also pushing for reform, based on the past packages that were rejected during President Bush's second term. Clearly concerned that no package can emerge that starts in Congress, the GOP is urging President Obama to come up with his own plan. "Unless the president comes up with a plan, there not much of a chance," said Sen. John Cornyn, the No. 3 Republican leader. "We know what the options are," added Cornyn, who has previously authored immigration reform legislation. In a likely reference to tomorrow's immigration summit, Cornyn warned the president against just talking about immigration reform. "What we need now is not another photo op," he said. Cornyn also hit the White House for sliding the timing back on beginning immigration reform.

SOURCE



Migrant stowaways at Calais triple in five years

The number of migrants trying to sneak into Britain via Calais has almost tripled in just five years. The revelation that more than 50 a day are being caught follows the re-emergence of refugee camps at Sangatte, close to where lorries board ferries to cross the Channel. In 2004, after the closure of the original Sangatte camp, border officials detected 7,540 stowaways. Last year, the total was 19,399.

Including checks at Coquelles, Dunkirk, Paris and in Belgium the number of migrants caught trying to sneak into Britain was 28,007. But critics point out these are only the illegal immigrants who are caught, with many more likely to have evaded checks.

Immigration minister Phil Woolas said that almost 740,000 searches had been carried out on lorries. He said: ‘We work closely with our French partners to tackle illegal immigration using state-oftheart technology such as carbon dioxide and heartbeat detectors. ‘The illegal migrants in France are not queuing to get into Britain - they have been locked out.’

Stowaways are using a number of methods to try to evade being caught. Ten were found in a lorry of wheelie bins. Officers were alerted to their presence by a sniffer dog, while four Afghans in a lorry load of champagne were discovered by CO2 detectors.

French politicians have blamed Britain for the return of migrant camps to Calais. The mayor of Calais said the UK Government’s policies were ‘imposing’ thousand of migrants on the town, costing the local economy millions. Natacha Bouchart criticised the UK for paying ‘enormous’ state handouts to asylum seekers. Mrs Bouchart said the lure of these payouts was the reason why thousands of foreigners are using the French port as a staging point to get across the Channel.

SOURCE





24 June, 2009

Australia to cut skilled immigration, but let in lots of unskilled immigrants

This is typical Leftist destructiveness. Decoding note: The "Pacific guest worker program" mentioned below consists of bringing in totally unskilled Polynesians, a group known for a high crime-rate, obesity and not much else. "Shutting down the Pacific solution" means giving residence permits to illegal immigrants, mostly Middle Eastern Muslims with all their horrible attitudes. Leftist speech is routinely designed to cover up folly so needs a lot of decoding

Skilled immigration will fall due to the global economic crisis, the Federal Government says. ''I expect the numbers of our program to drop next year ... as a reaction to the economic circumstances,'' Immigration Minister Chris Evans told reporters. Senator Evans said the size of the cut would be a matter for cabinet.

The government was very aware that labour demand would differ across regions and economic sectors. ''It's not a one size fits all.''

In Britain the government is hardening immigration laws as unemployment rises amid the financial meltdown. Non-European Union workers migrating to Britain will, from April, have to hold a masters degree and will have to show they earned a salary of at least $44,000 before moving to the UK.

Despite the pressures on immigration, Senator Evans said the Pacific guest worker program would not be reviewed ''at this stage''. However, he did say the government was reconsidering what occupations should be listed on the commonwealth's critical skills list.

The Construction Forestry Mining Energy Union has already called for construction jobs to be cut from the list. ''The critical skills list is under review and that's one of the things we will look at as the circumstances change,'' Senator Evans said. ''We will probably have a formal look at that in the next couple of weeks.''

South Australia's Master Builders Association has warned against such a cut, saying the soon to come infrastructure spending by government meant plenty of workers would be needed in the sector.

Senator Evans' comments came after meeting with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres. The meeting culminated in the government offering an extra $4.4 million in funding to the body. Mr Guterres admitted the snowballing economic crisis would not help refugees but praised Australia for taking a bigger role in the issue since Labor's election win, especially for shutting down the Pacific solution. ''We believe things are moving in the right direction,'' Mr Guterres said.

SOURCE



Leftist opposition to illegal immigration

A writer on Daily Kos below is actually urging fellow Leftist to watch Lou Dobbs!

Tonite on Lou Dobbs (CNN) you can get a different progressive take on U.S. immigration. No time to tick them off here today, but there are very sound environmental, economic, and even social justice reasons for reducing U.S. immigration numbers. Since I've been discussing overpopulation here of late, this is relevant. Take a look and see what you think. If you are moved to pontificate, let us know your thoughts here.

I, for one, think that importing slave labor so we can live more cheaply is not a compassionate thing to do.

SOURCE





23 June, 2009

U.S. Immigration agency says backlog virtually gone

This very surprising news requires some comment! A California branch of Citizenship and Immigration Services had such a huge backlog a few years ago that irresponsible employees just shredded 90,000 applications without looking at them. I never heard that anyone was punished for that in any way. I guess they pleaded desperation. Reading between the lines, I would say that checks have become a lot less thorough under the Obama regime. Such laxity is not new, however. Michelle Malkin reported over a year ago that background checks were often being skipped altogether. Many cases never reached the FBI. One wonders how many do these days

The FBI is clearing a backlog stretching a year or more for identity checks on people seeking to work and live in the U.S., or become citizens, immigration officials said Monday. Nearly all requests submitted for routine checks are now being answered within 30 days, with the remaining 2 percent within 90 days, U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services said.

"The FBI has made great strides ... and shown its capable of sustaining that service level," Michael Aytes, acting deputy director of the agency, told The Associated Press.

Petitions that require more evaluation or interaction with other agencies don't fall under the backlog count. About 6,000 cases are pending with Citizenship and Immigration Services, including some in which the application was filed several years ago, Aytes said. "They are being looked at, they don't just sit on a shelf," said Gregory Smith, an assistant director for the agency.

The volume of pending FBI name checks for criminal backgrounds and possible security issues hit its peak in November 2007, with about 350,000 pending cases. At the time, more than half had been waiting for more than three months and a large number had been pending for more than a year, Aytes said.

SOURCE



British passports to be given to a record 220,000 migrants this year

The number of British passports given to migrants is set to hit a record 220,000 this year. In the first three months of 2009, 54,615 citizenship applications were approved - up 57 per cent on the same period in 2008. At that rate, the number receiving passports - and with them the right to full benefits - this year will smash the record of 164,540 set in 2007. Last year the total was 129,310, and when Labour came to power in 1997, just 37,010 people were given citizenship. It means approvals have rocketed by almost 500 per cent under the current Government.

Officials blame the massive increase on the fact that ministers are introducing a 'tough' new system of earned citizenship next year. They say migrants are rushing to obtain their passports before they have to undergo an extra probationary period. Under the new system, obtaining a passport will take six to eight years from a migrant's arrival in most cases, rather than the current five.

Critics said the rush shows just how lax the current system is. They also point out that, by handing out so many passports, the Government is changing the make-up of Britain without any public debate. Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is yet another example of the Government's incompetence in managing our immigration system. 'They openly admit they are introducing a new system and that everyone is rushing to get in before it. It just smacks of ministers having no idea what they are doing.'

Grants of settlement, the stage before citizenship, were also up in the first three months of 2009, running at an annual rate of 190,000. Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch UK, said: 'At this rate, grants of settlement will have trebled under Labour. 'We are on course for a massive increase in the population which nobody wants and on which nobody has been consulted. 'No wonder people are so angry with the political class. It is not just fingers in the till, it is fingers in their ears when the public have a serious concern.'

The top five native countries of those gaining citizenship in the past two years have been India, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia and Zimbabwe. India and Pakistan are historic sources of migration, particularly via marriage to a British citizen. The large numbers of Iraqis, Somalis and Zimbabweans reflects the fact that asylum seekers who arrived at the start of this decade have now been in the UK long enough to receive citizenship.

The introduction of the earned citizenship scheme was recently delayed by nine months, to Decemember 2010. Immigration minister Phil Woolas claimed yesterday that it would save taxpayers up to £2billion in benefit claims. He said the new rules will deter some migrants from travelling to the UK or staying long enough to obtain citizenship and benefits. Until a passport application has been approved, migrants do not have access to child benefit, council and housing tax benefits and income support. Mr Woolas insisted: 'The pull factor of coming to the UK is to be taken away.' [What utter bullsh*t!]

The Home Office said last night: 'The increase in settlement grants reflects the success of UK Border Agency staff in clearing outstanding applications. It also reflects the Home Office's decision to tighten up the criteria for settlement. 'In 2006 we raised the qualifying period for settlement from four to five years, which meant that migrant workers who wanted to stay permanently had to wait an extra year. 'We have also set out our plans for earned citizenship which demand that people earn the right to stay. 'We are now looking at raising the bar further by applying a points-based system to the path to citizenship and we will consult on this in the summer.'

SOURCE