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

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



7 November, 2009

Obama Saved/Created 650,000 Jobs?

Maybe -- but America imported 1,125,000 foreign workers at same time

The White House issued a new report claiming that the Stimulus Bill earlier this year has created or saved approximately 650,000 U.S. jobs. Unfortunately, another government program -- immigration -- completely wiped out any overall benefit the stimulus jobs could have been for the American working man and woman.

All of us need to point out to every local newspaper, every Member of Congress and every one of our co-workers and family that the federal government has imported more than a million working-age foreign citizens this year to negate every positive impact the stimulus could have had for U.S. workers.

Yes, we are happy to see the news that far fewer H-1B visas have been issued this year for foreign tech workers than usual. But the H-1B visas -- as destructive as they are to some occupations -- are only a tiny fraction of the flow of working-age foreign citizens into the U.S. each year. Here is what CNN just reported about the Stimulus jobs:

The largest stimulus program in the nation's history has created or saved at least 650,000 state and local jobs, according to a report released by the Obama administration on Friday.

Based on approximately $150 billion in spending from the $787 billion recovery package, the tally is the first broad, concrete look at the stimulus program's impact on the economy. The numbers are drawn from tens of thousands of reports from state and local recipients as well as private companies.

NumbersUSA has tried since last November to persuade the news media to monthly report how many working-age foreign citizens are getting first-time work permits from the feds. It remains the great national secret because the U.S. news media -- from the liberal to the conservative wing -- won't report these facts. So, NumbersUSA once again will stand alone in telling you the inconvenient truth from the latest U.S. government statistics:

* Each month, the feds give out about 160,000 first-time permanent and temporary work permits to working-age foreign citizens.

* The 160,000 working-age foreign citizens are divided almost equally into those getting permanent work permits through green cards and those getting temporary work permits each month.

* Of the immigrants aged 18-65 who get permanent work permits each month, about 35,000 of them were already working in the U.S. on previous temporary work permits.

* Thus, the NET figure is 160,000 minus 35,000 equals about 125,000 foreign citizens who are getting a work permit for the first time each month.

The bottom line is that while this White House has focused on saving or creating 650,000 U.S. jobs, that same White House and about 90% of the Members of the U.S. Congress have allowed the federal bureaucracy to give out permanent and temporary work permits to about 1 million one hundred and twenty-five thousand first-time foreign workers thus far during 2009.

The White House said the actual number of jobs created so far is likely closer to 1 million, since its report on stimulus job creation only focused on $150 billion of the $339 billion in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds spent so far. -- CNN

Even if you accept the White House's claim of having created/saved 1 million jobs, the feds have wiped out all the benefit to the American worker by giving work permits to 1.125 million new foreign workers in 2009.

Until Pres. Obama and Congress pass an Immigration Suspension bill, they are going to be throwing hundreds of billions of dollars down a rat hole as they create jobs in the economy that don't even keep up with the immigrants they are bringing into the country.

SOURCE (See the original for links)



It's Rudd's fatal shore

Andrew Bolt comments on the illegal immigrants who come to Australia on overcrowded small boats -- some of which sink. The "Fatal shore" is an allusion to the fact that many of the original British immigrants to Australia died on the way because of the primitive sailing-ship technology of the time

TWELVE more dead. Now will the Rudd Government finally see that its "compassion" kills? The sinking on Sunday of a boat carrying Sri Lankan asylum seekers brings to 54 the number of boat people who have died this year trying to reach us. Yes, 54. That's the price of the "compassion" this Government showed last year by weakening the laws that once deterred boat people from risking their lives like this.

And don't tell me I have no right to be angry. I've warned a dozen times, in print and on air, that people would die as a consequence of what Rudd had done. Just last week I showed that 42 boat people had died already in sinkings off Malaysia and Indonesia, and in an explosion at Ashmore Reef, proving the Government had again deceived you in claiming there was "no evidence" of these deaths. Now we have these latest deaths - including two boys - and more will die, too, unless this deceitful and opportunistic Prime Minister undoes the mischief he has wrought.

No, I do not blame Rudd directly for these deaths. He didn't man the boats or sink them. But I do blame him directly for luring people into such lethal voyages through his sheer foolishness, political opportunism and vanity. And I blame him for then deceitfully disclaiming all responsibility.

Let's first nail the worst of those deceits - his claim that he's actually been "tough" on boat people, and this year's 12-fold increase in arrivals has nothing to do with his policies: That it's outrageous to suggest that he's luring people to their deaths. Well, look at the graph on this page, taken from the website of his own Department of Immigration.

See the circle? I've added that to mark the date in late July last year when Rudd revealed his most dramatic changes to the boat people laws. And see the number of illegal immigrants caught and detained immediately soar? Draw your own conclusion.

As for Rudd being "tough" on boat people, let's check what he actually did that day to instead persuade them their luck was in, and Australia once more a soft touch.

Rudd had already scrapped the temporary protection visas, which allowed us to send back refugees who'd got here by boat once their countries were again safe. He'd also scrapped the "Pacific Solution", under which boat people were sent to Nauru and Manus Island, with no guarantees they'd ever be let into Australia. And on July 29, he sent the biggest signal of all to show that unlike wicked John Howard, he was compassionate. Automatic detention of boat people was over. From now on, children and adults cleared of security risk would no longer be held. They'd be free to stay at large while the government worked out if they really were refugees. What's more, the onus of proof would be switched: rather than making boat people prove they were no threat, the government would have to prove they were to keep them in detention.

How the Left cheered! How journalists praised. How rights activists sighed they could feel proud again. And how the people smugglers pricked up their ears.

Rudd denies he went weak, but this is how his grand gesture in July was hailed at the time by constitutional law expert Professor Clive Williams, a human rights activist and candidate for Labor pre-selection, who summed up well the mood in Rudd's ranks: "A clear break has been made from the Howard era ... this risk-based approach is more compassionate ... "

Rudd was warned against this "clear break", of course, and not just by some who-cares journalist. The Australian Federal Police, the International Organisation for Migration and Indonesian officials all said it gave people smugglers a green flag.

Look at the graph again: he had. Or ask boat people themselves if they'd seen this signal - people who'd waited in Indonesia for months, even years, for some such sign. An Iraqi told the ABC: "Kevin Rudd - he's changed everything about refugee. If I go to Australia now, different." An Afghan told The Australian: "I know Kevin Rudd is the new PM ... he has tried to get more immigrants. I have heard that if someone arrives it is easy."

But Rudd was too intoxicated with the easy praise to heed such warnings. Too pleased with this chance to damn the Liberals as the nasty party which put children "behind barbed wire". Oh, how easily Labor preened and mocked back then, and how feebly the spineless Liberals took it.

In the very month that Rudd watered down the laws, the Labor head of a joint parliamentary committee on migration toured the detention centre at Christmas Island and declared it "an enormous white elephant". Michael Danby said his committee agreed with him, and was now wondering what to do with Howard's "stalag". Could they turn it into a tourist centre, perhaps?

Still laughing, Michael? Thanks to the great wave of boats unleashed in large part by your boss, this "stalag" at Christmas Island is so crammed that Rudd is now having to double its size, and has rushed over dongas once intended for Aboriginal communities.

Of course, Rudd is trying to dodge any blame. Here's his latest spin to explain the surge in boats: "What we're faced with in Sri Lanka is 260,000 people displaced because of the civil war." More deceit, I'm afraid. In fact, that war ended in May with the defeat of a terrorist group the Tamil Tigers. Sri Lanka is now safer, not more dangerous, both for the Tamils and Sinhalese there.

While it's true that some Tamils, especially those connected with the Tigers regime, are now trying to leave Sri Lanka, not least for economic reasons, it's also true that many of the 78 rescued Tamil boat people now refusing to leave our patrol ship Oceanic Viking have said they'd actually left their island years ago, and have spent up to five years in Indonesia, waiting for this chance to sail here. And let's not forget that many of the boats now coming are filled not with Tamils but Afghans, Pakistanis, Iraqis and even, it seems, some Sri Lankan Muslims.

But it's the lie of Rudd's "compassion" that most needs puncturing before more people die. LET me give just one more example of how misapplied "compassion" can actually kill. The Oceanic Viking Tamils were rescued by Australia last month after issuing a fake SOS from their ship, after reportedly drilling holes in the hull. Likewise, 42 Afghans were rescued in April at Ashmore Reef and even granted permanent residency here after blowing up their own boat, killing five.

How compassionate we were both times. And foolishly so, in the case of the Afghans, who can now stay despite refusing to say which of them set off the deadly explosion.

But now check the price of this compassion. The Government has just ordered a coroner's inquiry into the deaths on Sunday of the 12 Sri Lankans to find why their boat suddenly capsized off the Cocos Islands, just as they and 27 others were about to be rescued in Australian search-and-rescue territory. Why the inquiry? Because some of those involved in the rescue claim the Sri Lankans may have deliberately sunk their own boat. Plus, of course, an inquiry lets Rudd say "no comment" in the meantime.

Yes, it's nice to seem good. But it's far finer to actually do good, even if it makes you look bad. Kevin Rudd chose last year to seem good, but with the dead now bobbing in our waters, he must be judged instead by the deadly consequences. What has his "compassion" - of a flashy kind so common in this Age of Seeming - actually brought?

SOURCE





6 November, 2009

Berets and Baguettes? France Rethinks Its Identity

For decades, the French considered it taboo to question whether immigration and foreign influences were diluting France's social and cultural character. Indeed, the topic was considered so toxic that no one in France besides extreme-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen would even take it up in public. But times have changed. Twenty years after Le Pen's National Front Party (FN) became a political force in France, its view that immigration is threatening the French national identity is starting to gain wider acceptance. Now, the government is putting the issue front and center for the first time by encouraging people to have a vigorous national debate about what it means to be French in the 21st century.

"We must reaffirm the values of national identity and pride in being French," Eric Besson, the Minister for Immigration and National Identity, said as he announced the three-month series of discussions on Nov. 2. "This debate doesn't scare me. I even find it passionate." Besson says it's important for an increasingly diverse France to define its essential unifying values and reclaim a national pride and patriotism that the National Front co-opted long ago for its own xenophobic purposes.

Others are worried, though. Fleshing out how people view the concept of Frenchness today has sparked controversy, as one might expect. Detractors have loudly denounced the initiative as stealing the national-identity page from Le Pen's playbook — and casting suspicion on immigrants, naturalized citizens and French-born minorities as posing threats to it. Some opponents have also accused the government of using an emotive issue to try to divert attention from a series of high-profile political scandals in recent months, such as the accusations of nepotism surrounding a bid by President Nicolas Sarkozy's son to attain a public post and the allegations that the French Culture Minister Frédéric Mitterrand paid for sex with boys in Thailand. Besson was also highly criticized himself for ordering an illegal refugee camp near Calais to be razed in September, and three Afghans be deported back to their war-torn country. "Shaken by a series of political scandals that have thrust the FN back onto the stage, the government is again serving up the old nationalist soup," says Djamila Sonzogni, a Green Party councilor in eastern France.

Critics also believe the idea is motivated by political opportunism. With regional elections looming next March, leftist politicians and pundits say the government is using the national-identity theme to appeal to the right-wing Le Pen voters who flocked to Sarkozy's 2007 presidential campaign once he began promising to get tough on crime and immigration. Le Pen's daughter Marine, the FN vice president, has voiced a similar accusation. "This country is suffering a major crisis of identity that is driving it into chaos," she told the Europe 1 radio station on Oct. 28. "We've been denied this debate for 25 years. We want a (real) national debate, not an electoral gadget."

The French public seems to be either split or confused by the government's motivations in calling for the debate. One poll published on Oct. 29 showed that 64% of people believe the issue is being used "above all as an electoral tool," but in another poll released three days later, 60% of respondents favored a debate on the topic.

The discussions are to take place during hundreds of locally organized town-hall meetings involving education, union and cultural officials and ordinary people concerned about the state of French identity. Among the questions Besson has suggested for the debates: Should France implement "integration contracts," which would set minimal levels of language and cultural knowledge for citizenship; and should students be required to sing the national anthem "La Marseillaise" at least once a year?

Some fear that these types of questions — even the debates themselves — invite assumptions that generations of immigrants have already undermined France's identity and may provoke nationalist sentiments long championed by Le Pen. "When you put immigration and national identity side by side, it creates the notion that immigration poses a threat to national identity — which can inspire racism," Mouloud Aounit, president of the Movement Against Racism and for Friendship Between Peoples, told the daily l'Humanité on Nov. 2. "But this debate also reveals an identity crisis of a part of French society ... and the failure of its model of integration, which doesn't allow people to do just that."

Besson's supporters say the goal, however, is not to single out immigrants and minorities, but rather to safeguard the unique aspects of the French identity that they perceive as being threatened by foreign influences. "Globalization erases a little more of every nation's characteristics every day," says Frédéric Lefebvre, spokesman for Sarkozy's ruling Union for a Popular Majority Party. Given such cultural erosion, Lefebvre called for a defense of our "cultural model and la Douce France" — an allusion to crooner Charles Trenet's famous 1943 song rhapsodizing about the villages, people and traditions of pastoral France.

But Trenet's song was meant to be an inspiration to his countrymen to withstand the brutal Nazi occupation of France. Some of Besson's critics say the national-identity debate, meanwhile, is rooted in modern-day xenophobia, not nostalgia. Perhaps a solution might be to inspire patriotism by asking French people to warble Trenet's ditty regularly rather than dutifully drone "La Marseillaise" once a year.

SOURCE

Another take on the French identity debate here.



Australian Govt policy 'benefits people smugglers'

Federal Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull has accused the government of outsourcing its immigration program to people smugglers as 78 Sri Lankan asylum seekers continue to refuse to leave an Australian customs vessel.

Australia has been trying for almost two weeks to convince the ethnic Tamils to voluntarily leave the Oceanic Viking and enter the Tanjung Pinang Detention Centre on the Indonesian island of Bintan. Security clearance for the vessel to remain in Indonesia expires on Friday night and it is not yet known whether Indonesia will grant another extension.

Mr Turnbull said Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's changes to the previous government's asylum-seeker policy had resulted in a system that benefited people smugglers. "He made those changes and what do we have? Thousands, 2,000, unauthorised arrivals, a surge in people smuggling. Our immigration program is being outsourced to the people smugglers," Mr Turnbull told ABC Radio on Friday.

He said he was reluctant to give advice about the current situation on which he was not fully briefed, but said his party had a clear policy on border protection. "If we have an election next year and I win and become the next prime minister, our border protection policies will be tougher and we will over time once again, as we have before, eliminate people smugglers," he said.

SOURCE





5 November, 2009

Health Care Reform Legislation Becomes Vehicle for Reshaping Immigration Policy

Weak Verification and Loosening of Welfare Reform Rules Alter Longstanding System of Enforcement and Incentives

Current versions of both the House and Senate health care reform bills contain inadequate verification measures that will fail to prevent millions of illegal aliens from accessing taxpayer funded health benefits, charges the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). And in a radical change from current law, both versions of the bill grant immediate health care benefits to immigrants currently subject to a 5-year waiting period before they may access most federal benefits.

FAIR has pledged to try to block these proposals: "If powerful special interests prevail, the final version of a health care reform bill will have been used to transform immigration policies as aggressively as it was used to transform the U.S. health care system itself," says Dan Stein, President of FAIR.

FAIR states that narrow special interests such as the National Council of La Raza and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus have been pushing hard to include sweeping changes to immigration policy within the health care reform bill - no limits to eligibility and immediate access for everyone regardless of status. "They never know when enough is enough," says Stein.

While FAIR takes no official position on the overall bill, The Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962), the group contends that health care legislation should be "immigration neutral," not a vehicle to reverse longstanding immigration polices. Not properly checking the citizenship status of those applying for benefits, and granting instant access to legal residents still bound by their 5-year waiting period for benefits, shatters the integrity of a system based on penalties and incentives.

Background: The verification measures to stop ineligible aliens from accessing benefits under the House health care reform bill still contain loopholes for fraud and abuse. While those claiming to be non-citizens will be checked through the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, the verification mechanism recommended for those who claim to be citizens is a new, untested system that does not require supporting documentation. This is a massive loophole. FAIR urges Congress to instead mandate use of an existing verification model, approved by Congress in 2005, which requires that individuals claiming to be citizens first present citizenship documentation before receiving federal benefits such as Medicaid.

In addition to eligibility verification deficiencies, providing immediate access to federal health benefits for immigrants threatens to dismantle one of the original reforms of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA or Welfare Reform). The Act created a 5-year waiting period before new immigrants can access "Federal means-tested public benefits" and required that a person petitioning for an alien's admission must sign an affidavit promising financial support to the alien. In addition to reducing overall federal outlays, the policy was designed to protect American taxpayers by ensuring legal immigrants do not become public charges by immediately taking advantage of benefits upon their arrival in the United States.

The policy has been one of the very few sensible reforms made to an immigration system that is otherwise in chaos. Yet, both the House and Senate versions of the health care reform bill specify that taxpayer subsidies are not subject to the 5-year waiting period, thus allowing legal aliens to immediately access benefits at a cost to American taxpayers of at least $33.8 billion during the 2014-2019 budget period. Unless, this provision is removed, FAIR believes this will establish a dramatic and costly precedent to eliminate the 5-year waiting period for virtually every federal benefit.

"Neglecting verification loopholes that reward those who have no legal right to be here, and offering instant benefits to people the day they get their green cards is costly health care policy, and even worse immigration policy," charged Stein. "It's unimaginable that Congress is making vast transformational changes to our immigration system under cover of a health care reform bill that is already a politically risky bill for lawmakers. House members should be irate at party leadership for having loaded this bill with immigration changes that most Americans will vehemently oppose."

The above is a press release dated October 9 from Federation for American Immigration Reform, 25 Massachusetts Avenue - Suite 330 Washington DC, 20001, Office 202-328-7004. Contact Bob Dane 202-328-7004 or Ira Mehlman 206-420-7733 for details of the above. Email: media@fairus.org. Founded in 1979, FAIR is the oldest and largest immigration reform group in America. FAIR fights for immigration policies that enhance national security, improve the economy, protect jobs and wages and establish a rule of law that is recognized and enforced.



Australian government being conned by Tamil tall tales about persecution

By Michael Roberts (Adjunct associate professor of anthropology at the University of Adelaide)

AS a dual Australian Sri Lankan national, what has struck me most about the ongoing debate in Australia about Sri Lankan boat people is the abysmal ignorance about Sri Lanka's geography and distribution of peoples. This has led to the inability of Australians to put Tamil migration in its historical context and instead to uncritically accept tales of Tamil persecution and even genocide that are patently untrue.

Those known as Ceylon Tamils did not just begin migrating because of the end of the civil war in Sri Lanka. In fact, Tamil migration is a two-stage process and it has been under way for more than a century.

Ceylon Tamils began migrating from the north to the south in search of jobs from the late 19th century. By 1921, they constituted 11.5 per cent of the population in Colombo, while Indian Tamils (more recent migrants from the nearby state on the Indian mainland of Tamil Nadu) accounted for 13.4 per cent. So Tamils, (both Ceylonese and of more recent Indian origin), have resided in the city environs for generations. Some Ceylon Tamils have also been a segment of its Westernised elite. However, such status did not protect them during the mini-pogroms of 1958 and 1977 and the major pogrom of July 1983, which involved widespread assaults on Tamil persons and property in the south of the island.

It is worth noting that although the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam had been formed in 1976, and the goal of an independent state of Eelam proclaimed that year, the pogrom of 1983 - which followed a deadly assault by Tigers on the military - is widely regarded as the start of the civil war.

While middle-class Tamils have, together with Burgher, Sinhalese and Muslim families, been participating in the migration from Sri Lanka in search of better employment and education for their children since the 50s, the big surge in migration occurred after July 1983.

Despite this migration, Colombo District has not been denuded of its Tamil population. The Tamil population as a whole rose from 11.2 per cent in 1981 to 12.2 per cent in 2001. The number in the metropolitan cluster in fact rose by 58,291 in that period. This is because migration to foreign lands has been exceeded by internal movements from the northern and eastern parts of the island, to escape the conflict and in search of better economic opportunities.

Tamils have been under-represented in state-sector employment for some time, no doubt at least in part due to positive discrimination in favour of Sinhalese and negative discrimination against Tamils. Remarkably, however, a handful of senior Tamil officers remained in the armed services, a minute proportion of the senior ranks, but notable in a context where one might anticipate a zero figure. Moreover, a number of Tamils are sprinkled through the mercantile sector and professions. Indeed, some of the richest entrepreneurs are Tamil. Such success, however, has not eliminated memories of July 1983 and the sense of political marginalisation among some Tamils.

Such sentiments encourage some Tamils to migrate; but in a fair proportion of cases, the desire to migrate is inspired by a concern for the educational prospects of their children and the monetary support provided by kinfolk who are already in some Western country. The migration of Tamils from the Jaffna Peninsula and Batticaloa regions to Colombo in the recent past, therefore, is often a first stage in a projected step outwards.

This second step, of outmigration, calls for patience. Not all can meet the strict criteria laid down in Australia for skilled migrants or family reunion. Some, therefore, seek the illegal pathway provided by people smugglers who take them to Italy or Australia. It is usually young males, mostly Sinhalese but also Tamils and Muslims, who take the sea lanes by trawler to Italy.

It appears recently a few families elected to fly to Malaysia where they boarded the Jaya Lestari. This was a costly exercise. It also required passports and visas. It is unlikely that any of the Tamils (numbers uncertain) who slipped out of the internally displaced persons camps by, say, July could have secured the necessary papers in two months, unless they had connections with the LTTE or criminals engaged in forgery. In view of all the above, my conjecture is that Brindha, the tearful nine-year-old filmed by the ABC pleading for asylum, and her family did not spend time "in the jungle" as they claimed and were not fleeing the IDP camps, but are much more likely to be from the Tamil communities of Jaffna or Colombo. This is not to say they should be refused admission to Australia as migrants, simply that they are unlikely to be refugees.

Australians engaged in public debate about Sri Lanka need to be better informed. People such as Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young have uncritically accepted "the stories of the conditions in the camps . . . of people being persecuted and executed simply because they say, 'We don't want to be here any more' ". The fact is there is absolutely no evidence that people are being persecuted, much less executed. There is a vital distinction between political dissatisfaction and a well-founded fear of persecution, and Australians need to recognise that what is driving Tamil boatpeople is a mix of political grievance and economic hope, which is inspiring migratory moves along uncomfortable, and even perilous, paths.

SOURCE





4 November, 2009

New from the Center for Immigration Studies

1. The 287(g) Program: Protecting Home Towns and Homeland

Excerpt: This Backgrounder examines the 287(g) program’s history and its status. How is it being used? Which law enforcement agencies participate? What has the 287(g) program’s effect been on the foreign-born criminal element? We interviewed participating local law enforcement agencies (LEAs), reviewed statistics and reports provided by local LEAs, analyzed data provided by ICE through a FOIA request, and scoured news reports on the program. We begin by recounting briefly the program’s origin, then describe its application and results. We conclude by offering a number of recommendations. Between those bookends is the story of the 287(g) program’s successes, challenges, and potential.

********

2. Strategic Negligence: How the Sierra Club's Distortions on Border and Immigration Policy Are Undermining its Environmental Legacy

Excerpt: The environmental devastation in the Arizona borderlands caused by illegal immigration and drug smuggling is undeniable, and not just at Organ Pipe. The same account could have been written from other extraordinary places, including the Cabeza Prieta Wilderness, Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, and the Coronado National Forest.

********

3. Physician, Heal Thyself: Special Pleaders Demand Coverage of Illegal Aliens, While Mexico’s Health Care System Is a Wreck

Excerpt: The demand that illegal immigrants be eligible for taxpayer-funded benefits under the health care reform measures now before Congress offers an opportunity to examine the deep flaws in Mexico’s own health care system. American taxpayers already provide more than $1,100 in health care every year for each of the nearly eight million Mexican immigrants (legal and illegal) in the United States who are uninsured or on Medicaid. This is more than twice the per capita health expenditure of Mexico’s own health sector, which is corrupt, unwieldy, and grossly underfunded. Mexico’s neglect of its own people’s health care increases the demands of its expatriates on America’s emergency rooms, clinics, hospitals, doctors, and other providers.

********

4. Feds target Arpaio, jeopardize us

State and local involvement in immigration-law enforcement is essential these days, as foreign nationals bent on terrorism remain a looming threat, as Mexican drug cartels and other international crime syndicates extend their reach into American communities, and as illegal workers increasingly resort to identity fraud to stay employed in scarce jobs.

By utilizing immigration-law-enforcement tools in connection with local crime-suppression operations in Maricopa County, Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been keeping us all safer.

********

5. Obama Lifts HIV Immigration Ban

Excerpt: President Obama has announced the elimination of immigration provisions which ban entry of immigrants with HIV in a move that will undoubtedly increase HIV infection cases in the United States. The background to this change and the Bush Administration’s role was discussed in an earlier Center for Immigration Studies blog.

********

6. Here's Some Real Hate Speech for You

Excerpt: Well, their efforts are starting to pay off. No, CNN hasn't decided to fire Dobbs (which would cause them to drop behind the Hallmark Channel in viewership). Instead, someone fired a shot at Dobbs' house. As reported today by Fox News (!), a shot was fired on October 5 at Dobbs' home while he and his (Mexican-American) wife were out front; New Jersey State Police took the bullet for analysis.

********

7. WSJ Spin on H-1B Numbers

Excerpt: The Wall Street Journal has a front page story today on that portrays a sharp decline in the number of H-1B visas.

The paper reports that 'only 46,700' applications had been made for 65,000 H-1B visas available.

********

8. Giving Illegal Aliens the Police Service They Deserve

Excerpt: Chief Bratton, the Police Foundation, and law enforcement officials across the country who place the interests of the millions of criminal illegal aliens ahead of the safety and well-being of American men, women, and children dishonor their oath of office and the uniform that they wear. Rather than ignoring crimes committed by illegal aliens and pushing for amnesty, law enforcement officials should set the example for all Americans by upholding and safeguarding the rule of law.

********

9. Hate, Hate Everywhere

Excerpt: I feel like taking a shower after writing about the Southern Poverty Law Center, but for some reason it's taken seriously by the media and even government agencies, so I can't avoid it. A couple examples this week of how ludicrous the SPLC's charges of 'hate' are. James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal wrote 'In Defense of Carol Swain' in reaction to the SPLC smear-meister Mark Potok's claim that 'Carol Swain is an apologist for white supremacists.' Taranto does a good job of assessing the issue at hand, especially remarkable from the WSJ given the fact that Carol is an immigration restrictionist, though that's not what was at issue. I'll add only that I know Carol, a black woman who went from being a teenage mom and high-school dropout to earning a PhD and teaching at Vanderbilt, and the very idea that she's an 'apologist for white supremacists' is so outlandish, not to mention scurrilous, as to render whoever makes such a claim not credible on anything else. How can any self-respecting reporter ever quote Mark Potok again on anything?

********

10. Abuse of H-1B School Teachers

Excerpt: The H-1B visa, that was supposed to be used to fill jobs where U.S. workers are unavailable, has created the business of importing people on H-1B visas. These companies are known as 'H-1B bodyshops'.

********

11. What Do Amnesty Advocates Have Against Africans?

Excerpt: I wonder why supporters of illegal aliens show virtually no concern for the hundreds of millions of Africans who live in countries with exceptionally high child mortality rates and the lowest overall life expectancies in the world.

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 www.cis.org.



Australians want a tougher stand on illegal immigrants

Most voters believe Government weakness on border protection is to blame for the rising number of boats in Australian waters, according to a new poll. The Essential Media poll, reported on The Punch today, also finds more than half of voters believe there is a “real prospect” there are terrorists aboard the boats and say the Government is doing the right thing in trying to turn the boats away.

The findings coincide with the latest Newspoll showing a 7 point rise in primary vote support for the Coalition and a corresponding fall for the Rudd Government.

This spectacular swing comes amid a mounting sense of crisis surrounding the arrivals of asylum-seekers in Australian waters.

Only one in three respondents in the Essential poll said Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was doing an “excellent or good” job on border protection. More than half rated his performance as “not so good” or poor.

But the Essential research finds a majority of voters also agrees that asylum seekers are coming from countries that have seen an escalation in violence and persecution.

Writing on The Punch, director of Essential Media and Communications Peter Lewis said the findings showed Mr Rudd’s “attempts to play tough cop are failing to translate into public approval for his handling of the issue.” Mr Lewis said the public understanding that asylum seekers were fleeing violent countries “suggests that if the public were presented with a story that humanised the plight of the asylum seekers they would be more likely to take a global view” and less likely to blame the Government for the current troubles.

SOURCE





3 November, 2009

Health Care Reform Bill Will Dramatically Reshape U.S. Immigration Policy

Weak Verification and Waiving of Welfare Reform Provisions Key Strategies for Amnesty Advocates and Immigrant Rights Groups

QUICK SUMMARY

If powerful special interests prevail, the final version of a health care reform bill will have been used to transform immigration policies and immigration-related aspects of welfare policy almost as much as transforming the U.S. health care system itself. Current versions of both the House and Senate bills contain inadequate verification measures to prevent millions of illegal aliens from accessing taxpayer funded health benefits. And both versions of the bill now contain language that completely waives the long-standing rule requiring that legal aliens must wait 5 years before receiving access to federal health care benefits. Put into place in the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA or Welfare Reform), the policy was designed to ensure that legal immigrants did not become “public charges” and that they did not come to the U.S. simply to acquire benefits. This common-sense policy has been scrapped and now 5.5 million legal aliens will have instant access to health care benefits. FAIR believes this will establish a dramatic precedent to eliminate the 5 year waiting period entirely for virtually every federal benefit.

ILLEGAL ALIEN ACCESS

As expected, the proposed legislation is a mixed bag when it comes to preventing illegal aliens from accessing the recently resurrected public option. The legislation does call for the use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program for those who claim to be non-citizens. However, for those who claim to be citizens, a new untested verification system is to be used and no photo identification is required!, Furthermore, the bureaucratic channels by which the social security number and name are processed and confirmed have the potential to be ripe with fraud. Even if the documents are found to be fraudulent, the process could take months before the government is alerted to the deceit.

LEGAL ALIEN ACCESS

The welfare reform legislation of 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, made Legal Permanent Residents (LPR’s) wait 5 years before they became eligible for most federal benefits. This effectively reduced federal outlays, but more importantly, reduced the potential that newly arrived immigrants were coming to the U.S. simply to access benefits. The prohibition has been one of the very few sensible reforms made to an immigration system that is otherwise in chaos.

The current House Health Care Reform bill waives this longstanding rule so that LPR’s may instantly receive taxpayer health care benefits!

Over the last 5 years, the United States has admitted more than 5.5 million immigrants as LPR’s. Under the provisions of the House bill, this population will no longer be subject to the 5 year waiting period. Waiving the 5 year waiting period will cost the American taxpayers at least $33.8 billion during the 2014-2019 budget period. If we assume that all 5 year LPR’s were to utilize the provision, the costs to the American taxpayers would rise to an astounding $173.4 billion over the projected period.

85% Say Government Services Should Go Only To Those Here Legally

Rasmussen Reports recently asked voters to weigh in on whether or not illegal aliens should have access to universal health coverage. The results show 85% of voters support providing proof of citizenship before accessing government services. When asked specifically with regard to health care, 83% stated support for proving citizenship before receiving government funded health subsidies.

The above is part of a press release dated November 3 from Federation for American Immigration Reform, 25 Massachusetts Avenue - Suite 330 Washington DC, 20001, Office 202-328-7004 www.fairus.org. Contact Dustin Carnevale on 202-328-7004 for details of the above. Email: media@fairus.org. Founded in 1979, FAIR is the oldest and largest immigration reform group in America. FAIR fights for immigration policies that enhance national security, improve the economy, protect jobs and wages and establish a rule of law that is recognized and enforced.



Hard decisions on "refugees" must be made by the Australian government

An editorial from the Sydney "Daily Telegraph" below, referring particularly to the recent capsize and sinking of an illegal immigrant boat

THE current refugee crisis - and that often-overused word is sadly justified, with at least 16 people presently unaccounted for in the waters off the Cocos Islands - has effectively paralysed Australian politics.

Decisions are difficult to make in circumstances where so many lives are at stake. An error could lead to a further massive increase in the number of deaths of those seeking unauthorised entry. Yet decisions must be made. An absence of authority on this issue guarantees yet more attempted arrivals, and with them the attendant deadly risks.

The decision-making process would be far easier if the atmosphere were not so charged with allegations of racism. These accusations ought to be put aside. Australians, including those who argue for strong border protection, are not - in the overwhelmingly majority - racist. It is not racist to insist on orderly procedures for immigration, be it formal or through requests for asylum.

Nor is it racist to make Australia a difficult target for people-smugglers and others who would exploit both this country's welcoming nature and the desperation of those who wish to come here. In fact, a case can be made that deterring people-smugglers is a humanitarian act, in that it exposes fewer people to the dangers of rogue sea travel. By some counts, more than 50 have perished since the recent upsurge in attempted arrivals.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has faced criticism over his claim to be both tough and kind over refugee issues, as though it is impossible to be both. This is not the case. By maintaining the toughness of our approach - for example, by not caving in to those who threaten self-harm unless their immigration demands are met - Australia is extending a kindness to others who might be inspired to attempt the same thing.

In response to the current situation, Rudd must add steel to Australia's border protection policies. It matters little that some opponents may make capital from this. Lives are in the balance. Some issues are more important than politics.

SOURCE



British immigration boss admits: we got it wrong on immigration

The Home Secretary admitted yesterday that the Government had made mistakes in its handling of immigration and had overreacted to the 7/7 bombings in London.

In his first speech on the subject, Alan Johnson said that ministers had ignored immigration problems and the growing pressure on jobs and services in parts of Britain. Some communities had legitimate concerns because they had been particularly affected.

Mr Johnson did not directly address the rise of the British National Party, but his comments came 12 days after its leader Nick Griffin made his landmark appearance on Question Time thanks to the party’s success in the European elections. Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, struggled to defend the Government’s record on immigration during the television debate.

Mr Johnson is the first Labour Home Secretary to admit mistakes on immigration. He said his predecessors had not addressed problems that led to huge backlogs of asylum seekers and foreign national prisoners. It emerged in 2006 that there were up to 450,000 “legacy cases” that officials are now working through.

In his speech to the Royal Society for the Arts, Mr Johnson said: “There are communities which have been disproportionately affected by immigration, where people have legitimate concerns about the strain that the growth in the local population has placed on jobs and services.”

Labour had been “maladroit” in its handling of the issue, but he said ending immigration altogether was “no sensible argument”. The Home Secretary also conceded that some counter-terror proposals made after the 7/7 attacks had gone too far. “That probably was an understandable feeling: that we should be more draconian. But perhaps that wasn’t the right way to go,” he said.

Chris Grayling, the Shadow Home Secretary, said: “Three months ago the Home Secretary said he isn’t losing sleep over immigration. Now he’s admitting that it’s putting massive pressure on many communities . . . What we need is a tightly controlled system with much lower levels of immigration and an annual cap on the number of people who come to live and work here.”

SOURCE



Canada to reduce refugee intake

Canada plans to cut substantially the number of refugees it will accept in the coming year from people who make their claim after arriving in the country, according to new government figures.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney says Canada expects to accept between 9,000 and 12,000 claims in 2010, including their dependants, from people who apply for asylum after arriving in Canada. The number is less than half the 22,500 to 28,800 refugees and dependants targeted for acceptance in 2006 under the former Liberal government. The targets have dropped steadily since 2006 according to the annual reports to Parliament on immigration levels.

Olivia Chow, the NDP immigration critic, said Monday she sees the new targets as evidence the government, which is planning to introduce a refugee reform package in the coming weeks, wants to "look tough." "Beatings, torture, suffering and even deaths will occur," she said, "and unfortunately many will be turned away. Canada is no longer a land of hope and compassion."

Kenney has made no secret of his unhappiness with the current refugee process, which he says needs to be reformed to reduce abuse by "bogus" refugees. He also has promised to crack down on phoney immigration consultants who, he says, tutor aspiring refugees on how to outwit the system.

The latest immigration report said Canada plans to accept between 240,000 and 265,000 permanent residents in the coming year, a number that is in line with targets in recent years. The bulk of the new residents — as many as 166,800 — will be admitted under the economic class, meaning people willing to start a business or those having skills that are in short supply in Canada.

The targets for family class have dropped to a maximum of 63,000 from 71,000.

Canada accepted almost 22,000 refugees in 2008. The number includes those sponsored from abroad by the government and private interests, as well as those who sought asylum after arriving in Canada and their dependents.

SOURCE





2 November, 2009

Britain: Bogus student checks 'don't work'

Immigration officers have warned bosses that new rules designed to stop bogus students entering the UK are not working, the BBC has learned.

Non-EU students are supposed to apply to registered institutions, and must prove they can support themselves. But claims are now verified in the students' home countries, and UK staff say they have limited ability to challenge those they suspect. The UK Border Agency insists all entrants must meet immigration rules.

One Heathrow Airport immigration officer - speaking on condition of anonymity - told BBC Radio 5 live's Donal MacIntyre programme that UK staff were overwhelmed by the volume of student arrivals. "Student season has extended now to virtually the whole year," he said. "We are looking at upwards of 500 to 1,000 stuck in the hall, queues stretching for hundreds of yards down the terminal. "On occasions we've had to shut the hall as we couldn't cope. "That has led to planes being backed up... to not allow them to proceed into Heathrow until we could clear what we've got."

Many of these students are entirely legitimate, but he said he and his colleagues are almost powerless to challenge those whom they suspect are not. "If someone presents a case like that to a chief immigration officer, they take a look at the size and the number of people in the hall, and they turn around and say, 'Look, because of the pressure of work, they've got a visa, get them into the country'. "It would take two officers off the desk for hours just to present a case to send them to a detention centre."

And he believes this means people who have been denied entry to the UK on other grounds are able to enter the UK on bogus student visas. "We have an awful lot of students who have been refused five, six, even up to nine visas to come here to this country, whether it be for working holidays or student applications," he said. "And they're now coming here."

Under the new system, colleges which offer courses to students from outside the European Economic Area must be accredited by the Home Office. But the Heathrow immigration officer alleges that the list of approved institutions contains colleges which he and his colleagues know to have a history of awarding fake qualifications. "It beggars belief that these places can be graded the way they are, when we know for a fact that we've proved and got signatures from the passengers that they paid for their certificates," he said.

The immigration officer told BBC Radio 5 live about a recent case of an Indian woman in her 50s who presented herself as a student enrolling on an advanced course, despite the fact that she could barely speak English. "She was going to do an ACCA accounting course, of which when asked in Hindi what ACCA meant, she didn't have a clue," he said. "She wasn't even able to say in her own language what the course was going to entail."

These concerns are echoed on an internal UK Border Agency online message board, seen by the BBC. One officer wrote: "I can no longer feel proud of my role, given that I am forced on a daily basis to allow entry to passengers who clearly hold no ability or intention to follow any course of study in the United Kingdom".

Another commented: "The introduction of the appallingly thought-out points-based system for students has, in one fell swoop, failed the UK taxpayer who expects us to do a good job in tackling illegal immigration." The website quotes an acknowledgement from chief executive Lin Homer that the Border Agency had "not got it right" on student visas.

But Jeremy Oppenheim, head of the points-based system at the UK Border Agency, insisted that the rules were working. "The points-based system means that only those colleges and schools who provide quality education and take responsibility for their students will be licensed to bring in foreign students," he told Radio 5 live. "Schools and colleges are inspected by accreditation bodies and the UK Border Agency to ensure they are genuine. Before we tightened controls, around 4,000 UK institutions were bringing in international students. This currently stands at around 2,000.

"Anyone coming in to the UK must satisfy the border force officer that they meet the immigration rules and will comply with any conditions attached to their visa. If they cannot, the officer can and will refuse entry."

SOURCE



Migration to Australia: the true story

By Paul Sheehan

I begin this column as someone who has been accused of being a ''shameful'' person, ''a nasty piece of work'', an ''ungrateful, unkind maggot'', because I recently wrote about refugee policy in a column that was described as ''bollocks'', ''biased'', ''poorly researched'', ''sensationalist drivel'', ''crap'', ''rubbish'', ''unworthy tabloid rubbish'' and ''playing the race card''.

These insults are useful. They are irrational, immature, febrile. They are also consistent with a slightly more subtle orthodoxy that argues that anyone who supports the detention of asylum seekers on Christmas Island is not merely on the wrong side of a moral and legal argument, but is of cruel and deficient character.

A predictable orgy of blame-throwing has accompanied the latest influx of boat people, an influx that followed changes in the policy and rhetoric of the Rudd Government, which announced it would use mandatory detention as a last resort.

The term xenophobia has immediately been thrown about by the usual suspects, the refugee lobby, the human rights lobby, the utopian left and a predictable section of the media. The policy of detention has been portrayed as self-evidently cruel and discriminatory, and the bipartisan political support for a regime that acts as a deterrent to unauthorised arrivals has been presented as proof of this country's latent xenophobia. Australia is not a xenophobic nation. The argument is nonsense. Let me count the ways:

1. The number of refugees or humanitarian cases admitted by the Howard government was the highest of any government in Australian history, other than a brief spike after World War II. This legal intake did not generate significant public opposition or partisan division in Canberra. The number of humanitarian arrivals admitted during the Howard years was more than 128,000, says the field's leading expert, Dr Katherine Betts.

2. The number of Muslims admitted to permanent residence was far higher during the Howard years than during any other government. The Muslim population rose from 200,000, in 1996, to 340,000 in 2006, a 65 per cent surge in 10 years. (Figures again supplied by Betts.) This surge took place during a time of rising violence by militant Islamists, and the murder of scores of Australians by Islamic fundamentalists. Yet the historic increase in Muslim numbers via legal channels generated no meaningful political opposition.

3. Australia has the highest number of foreign-born residents of any large, advanced Western democracy. The proportion is almost one in four. For years Australia has maintained one of the world's largest per capita immigrants intakes, and the majority of arrivals have been non-European. Debate over immigration has flared only when the immigration stream has been abused by widespread fraud. The most sustained opposition has come from environmentalists concerned with sustainable growth.

4. People who arrive by boat present a more confronting challenge to legal, security and health screening than those who arrive by air and overstay their visas. Arrivals by air must present valid documentation before travelling. It is common practice for those who arrive by boat to destroy their travel documents, and engage people smugglers, measures designed to create a fait accompli, and make it more difficult to send them back to their nations of origin. This makes a far more difficult and expensive process of checking arrivals' legal, security and health status.

5. The rigorous deterrence and screening of unauthorised arrivals is integral to national security. Some of those who have settled in Australia and later engaged in criminal behaviour or welfare fraud have arrived via the refugee or humanitarian programs. The screening process for such programs is more problematic. So, too, is the absorption process. A recent spate of convictions for terrorist activity within Australia has largely involved people who came as immigrants.

6. The Tamil Tigers, whose campaign for independence from the central government in Sri Lanka led to a long and bloody civil war, have received considerable support from within the Tamil community in Australia. In April more than 1000 ethnic Tamils blockaded the gates of Kirribilli House, the Prime Minister's Sydney residence, calling for a ceasefire in the Sri Lankan Government's military offensive against the Tigers. The Sri Lankan high commissioner to Australia, Senaka Walgampaya, said the Tamil Tigers had received significant support from Australia, a view shared by Australian intelligence.

7. The number of refugees or displaced persons in the world, more than 20 million, is roughly the same as the population of Australia, 22 million. Advanced economies could only accept all these people by incurring domestic social and economic costs, which they are not prepared to make. Immigration policies have ripple-on effects, hence the need for quotas.

8. The Rudd Government deploys a zero-sum refugee policy. Although it increased immigration and temporary-working visa intakes, it maintained the annual intake of refugee/humanitarian at 13,500. Government policy thus dictates that those who arrive by boat and are given asylum status have displaced people who have registered with the United Nations or the government. The 13,500 annual refugee quota is a real waiting line of people with real needs. It is a queue that cannot simply be rendered invisible or irrelevant.

9. UN laws and conventions pertaining to the treatment of asylum seekers have no override authority over Australian law. The concept of ''the international community'' is no more than a rhetorical device. In reality the phrase refers to other like-minded human-rights activists overseas. Most democracies punish governments that fail the test of border security.

10. The 78 ethnic Tamils who have illegally occupied the Australian customs vessel Oceanic Viking are demanding rights that do not exist under international law. Most have been in Indonesia for some time. They want to settle in Australia, or another wealthy country, but that decision is not theirs to make.

The Oceanic Viking needs to be reclaimed, secured, prepared for sea, then sail for Sri Lanka with the 78 recalcitrants on board. They have rejected Indonesia. Anything less is a capitulation to moral blackmail, where children have been used as props and pawns. The impasse is not a test of rights but a test of wills. The prolonging of the Oceanic Viking saga has shown Rudd to be a man who seeks to be all things to all people.

SOURCE





1 November, 2009

Here's Some Real Hate Speech for You

Illegal immigration critic demonized and now shot at

After the 2007 amnesty failed in the Senate, the open borders crowd decided to forego policy debates and turn up to 11 their efforts to demonize their opponents. As part of that strategy, the Southern Poverty Law Center was assigned to designate FAIR a "hate group," La Raza started a "We Can Stop the Hate" campaign, and the new radical-left group America's Voice posted an online election for the "Top Anti-Immigrant Wolf" (vote for me!).

But the chief target of this two-year hate has been Lou Dobbs. The "Drop Dobbs" campaign, to get CNN to fire the only anchor on their network whose show anyone watches, is sponsored by — surprise! — La Raza, the SPLC, Media Matters, LULAC, et al. Last Wednesday, October 21, saw a series of coordinated protests by open-borders groups in cities around the country. The following day, Geraldo Rivera said in a speech that the opponents of amnesty have been "reckless beyond imagining" and that Dobbs in particular "is almost singlehandedly responsible for creating, for being the architect of the young-Latino-as-scapegoat for everything that ails this country."

Well, their efforts are starting to pay off. No, CNN hasn't decided to fire Dobbs (which would cause them to drop behind the Hallmark Channel in viewership). Instead, someone fired a shot at Dobbs's house. As reported today by Fox News (!), a shot was fired on October 5 at Dobbs's home while he and his (Mexican-American) wife were out front; New Jersey State Police took the bullet for analysis.

Whatever you think of Dobbs's schtick, he's always clear that his fulminating is about illegal immigration. He's not even a restrictionist, for heaven's sake, having said a number of times that he favors increased legal immigration. But the open-borders crowd believes — sincerely believes — that there can be no legitimate arguments against amnesty and for enforcement, so anyone taking those positions must, by definition, be evil. This is not a prescription for a healthy policy debate.

In a classic example of bad timing, this very evening America's Voice is set to air an ad on MSNBC (where else?) calling for Dobbs's firing because "Every weekday CNN airs 60 minutes of anti-immigrant hate." Will they have the decency to pull the ad, in light of the physical threat to Dobbs and his wife engendered by their hate campaign? Don't hold your breath.

Source

Jeffrey Lord sees the Left-leaning United Church of Christ as the principal haters. For a Leftist perspective, see The CS Monitor. They blame a "hunter" for shooting at Dobbs. No mention of any hunters sighted in the area, though



Australia: "Asylum-seekers" admit living in Indonesia

A rather gross example of "asylum-seekers" being anything but

Family First senator Steve Fielding has questioned whether 78 Sri Lankan asylum-seekers, who have "hijacked" an Australian customs boat, are real refugees. It has been revealed that most of the ethnic Tamil group, who are refusing to leave the Oceanic Viking moored off Indonesia's coast, have been living in the country for years. In written messages thrown off the boat, Fairfax newspapers reported the asylum seekers as saying they'd been living in Indonesia for as long as five years and had been accepted by the United Nations office in Jakarta as genuine refugees.

Senator Fielding said on Sunday it was the first he'd heard of the development but questioned whether the group, whose spokesman is a man called Alex, really were legitimate asylum seekers. "I remember the first phone call we took from, I think Alex, his English wasn't so good," he told Network Ten. "Within two weeks his English is better than mine, so I'm not so sure how genuine some of these people are."

The group were meant to be offloaded from the ship under a deal struck between Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. But they haven't budged for two weeks and Senator Fielding said the situation was bamboozling the federal government. "This is our boat, it's been hijacked by the refugees, and the Rudd government hasn't got a clue what to do," he said.

Senator Fielding said Labor's border protection policies were attracting more asylum seekers to Australia. "People smugglers are using these laws to send more people our way," he said. "That is a huge concern, something needs to be done. "The Rudd government has a band-aid solution, the Indonesian solution is an Indonesian fiasco and it's clearly not working."

Senator Fielding said every time one asylum seeker was granted an Australian visa, another who had been waiting their turn in a refugee camp missed out. "Those people trying to jump the queue should go to the back of the queue," he said.

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.