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

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



20 November, 2009

Work site arrests of illegals fall dramatically under Obama

Surprise, surprise!

Arrests of illegal immigrant workers have dropped precipitously under President Obama, according to figures released Wednesday. Criminal arrests, administrative arrests, indictments and convictions of illegal immigrants at work sites all fell by more than 50 percent from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2009.

The figures show that Mr. Obama has made good on his pledge to shift enforcement away from going after illegal immigrant workers themselves - but at the expense of Americans' jobs, said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the Republican who compiled the numbers from the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE).

Mr. Smith, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said a period of economic turmoil is the wrong time to be cutting enforcement and letting illegal immigrants take jobs that Americans otherwise would hold. "Those stolen jobs should be returned to out-of-work citizens and legal immigrants," he said. "The Obama administration should put citizens and legal immigrants first, especially when it comes to jobs."

One area where the Obama administration has made progress was in audits of businesses' I-9 forms, which jumped 300 percent. Those audits could produce fines in the future, but Republicans said that most businesses consider them a cost of doing business, not a deterrent.

The numbers were released just days after Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the administration has made such advances on border security that Congress should now work on legalizing illegal immigrants. "These statistics reflect a myopic, outdated and distorted view of effective enforcement," said Homeland Security spokesman Matt Chandler. "Just a week ago, we highlighted the more than 11,000 murderers, rapists and kidnappers identified in our jails by the Secure Communities program in the last year, nearly 2,000 of which have already been deported. ICE has prioritized its enforcement efforts by focusing on hardened criminals and employers who knowingly hire illegal workers and break the law."

Frank Sharry, founder of America's Voice, an immigrant rights advocacy group, said Mr. Smith shouldn't be surprised - this is what Mr. Obama promised to change from the George W. Bush administration, which focused heavily on illegal immigrant workers rather than employers. He said it marks a major change from former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to Ms. Napolitano, and that it will pay dividends as employers take heed.

More HERE



Government Data Imply High Immigrant Crime Rates

New study findings Contradict Older Research Showing Low Rates

Center for Immigration Studies has published a detailed report on immigration and crime based on a variety of recently released data, including some obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests. The newer government data implies that immigrants have relatively high rates of crime. This contradicts older academic research that generally found low rates of crime. The overall picture of immigrants and crime remains confused due to conflicting information and a lack of good data.

The report, 'Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue,' is authored by Steven Camarota and Jessica Vaughan. Among the findings:

* The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimates that immigrants (legal and illegal) comprise 20 percent of inmates in prisons and jails. The foreign-born are 15.4 percent of the nation’s adult population. However, DHS has not provided a detailed explanation of how the estimates were generated.

* Under contract to DHS in 2004, Fentress, Inc. reviewed 8.1 million inmate records from state prison systems and 45 large county jails. They found that 22 percent of inmates were foreign-born. But the report did not cover all of the nation’s jails.

* The 287(g) program and related efforts have found high rates of illegal-alien incarceration in some communities. But it is unclear if the communities are representative of the country:

o Maricopa County, Ariz.: 22 percent of felons are illegal aliens;
o Lake County, Ill.: 19 percent of jail inmates are illegal aliens;
o Collier County, Fla.: 20 to 22 percent of jail inmates and arrestees are illegal aliens;
o Weld County, Colo.: 12.8 to 15.2 percent of those jailed are illegal aliens.

* DHS states that it has identified 221,000 non-citizens in the nation’s jails. This equals 11 to 15 percent of the jail population. Non-citizens are 8.6 percent of the nation’s total adult population.

* The Federal Bureau of Prisons reports that 26.4 percent of inmates in federal prisons are non-citizens. However, federal prisons are not representative of prisons generally or local jails.

* Recent reports by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) and Immigration Policy Center (IPC) showing low rates of immigrant incarceration highlight the data problems in many studies. The 2000 Census data they used are not reliable.

* An analysis of the data used in the PPIC and IPC studies by the National Research Council found that 53 percent of the time the Census Bureau had to make an educated guess whether a prisoner was an immigrant. The studies are essentially measuring these guesses, not actual immigrant incarceration.

* The poor quality of data used in the PPIC and IPC studies is illustrated by wild and implausible swings. It shows a 28 percent decline in incarcerated immigrants 1990 to 2000 – yet the overall immigrant population grew 59 percent. Newer Census data from 2007 show a 146 percent increase in immigrant incarceration 2000 to 2007 – yet, the overall immigrant population grew only 22 percent.

* The 'Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities' shows that 8.1 percent of prisoners in state prisons are immigrants (legal and illegal). However, the survey excludes jails and relies on inmate self-identification, which is likely to understate the number of immigrants.

* In 2009, 57 percent of the 76 fugitive murderers most wanted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) were foreign-born. It is likely however that because immigrants can more readily flee to other countries, they comprise a disproportionate share of fugitives.

* Most studies comparing crime rates and immigration levels across cities show no clear correlation between the immigrant share of a city’s population and its level of crime. This is one of the strongest arguments that immigrants do not have high crime rates. However, such studies generally measure only overall crime, not crimes specifically committed by immigrants. Also, a 2009 analysis by DHS’ Office of Immigration Statistics found that crime rates were higher in metropolitan areas that received large numbers of legal immigrants.

* From 1998 to 2007, 816,000 criminal aliens were removed from the United States because of a criminal charge or conviction. This is equal to about one-fifth of the nation’s total jail and prison population. These figures do not include those removed for the lesser offense of living or working in the country illegally. The removal and deportation of large numbers of criminal aliens may reduce immigrant incarceration rates because many will not return and re-offend, as is the case with many native-born criminals.

* Some have argued that the fall in overall national crime rates since the early 1990s is evidence that immigration actually reduces crime. However, overall crime rates are affected by many factors. Moreover, the 1970s and 1980s saw crime rates rise along with immigration levels.

* Overall incarceration rates are also a poor means of examining the link between immigration and crime. Since the 1970s, the share of the U.S. population that is incarcerated has grown almost exactly in proportion to the share of the population that is immigrant. But unless inmates can be identified as immigrant or native-born this information sheds little light on the issue of immigrant criminality.

The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: center@cis.org. Contact: Steven Camarota, (202) 466-8185, sac@cis.org





19 November, 2009

Nigerian man married his OWN daughter so she would be allowed to stay in Britain - and the British government knew about it

A Nigerian Home Office worker 'married' his own daughter to get her a British visa, the Daily Mail can reveal. The extraordinary scam was apparently executed by Jelili Adesanya while ministers turned a blind eye. Mr Adesanya, 54, has lived here for more than 30 years and holds a British passport, but wanted his daughter, her husband and their four sons to join him from Nigeria.

He faked a wedding ceremony complete with a photograph of the happy 'couple' which helped fool immigration officials that his daughter, Karimotu Adenike, was really his wife. Miss Adenike, who is in her mid-30s, was duly granted permission to live in the UK. The pair are waiting for her to be granted a permanent right to remain before they undergo a quiet divorce and attempt to bring the rest of her family here. It is expected she would try to remarry her real husband to get them all visas.

But despite being tipped off two years ago, the Home Office seems to have done nothing to stop the scam by one of their own workers. Until recently, Mr Adesanya was employed as an occupational health nurse for the Home Office, working with immigration officials at Gatwick airport.

A whistleblower sent letters to the High Commission in Lagos and the UK Border Agency including specific details such as names, addresses, passport numbers and even a copy of the wedding photograph. When there was no response, he sent emails to then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith and ministers Vernon Coaker and Phil Woolas on February 1 this year. He heard nothing.

Mr Adesanya, who came to Britain in 1976, flew back to Nigeria on May 29, 2007, and held the bogus wedding ceremony a few days later at a register office in Ikorodu, Lagos. A source said: 'They paid people to attend the wedding so that the British High Commission in Lagos would believe it was genuine. The commission then gave Karimotu Adenike a two-year settlement visa in October 2007. 'On her settlement visa application form, of course, she did not mention that she already had a husband and four children. 'The date of birth on her Nigerian passport is not her real date of birth.' Miss Adenike is believed to have aged herself by ten years on her wedding certificate to disguise the age gap with her father.

Although her settlement visa expired last month, she is hoping to be given the right to remain.

David Burrowes, the Conservative MP for Enfield Southgate and Shadow Justice Minister, was also tipped off by the whistleblower and wrote to the Home Office. This time there was a reply, but it said that although the matter was 'under investigation', no further information would be provided because it could 'breach of our obligations under the Data Protection Act'. Mr Burrowes told the Mail: 'I am very surprised and concerned that no action appears to have been taken, because the allegations are extremely serious.'

Mr Adesanya, who lives with his daughter in Dagenham, Essex, vehemently denied the plot and said he had never been questioned about the allegations. He said: 'Married my own daughter? I have never heard anything like this in my life. I deny it. She is my wife, not my daughter.' However, asked to confirm his 'wife's' date of birth, he said he did not know without checking her passport, and refused to allow her to speak for herself.

Unbeknown to him, his daughter had confirmed the arrangement when she told a friend she would shortly apply for her own British passport and 'divorce daddy'.

Last night Jonathan Sedgwick, from the UK Border Agency, said: 'These individuals are already under investigation, and I want to make it clear that abuse of our immigration laws will not be tolerated. 'If we identify marriages which we believe are not genuine, we will challenge them and prosecute where appropriate. 'We are determined to send home any foreign nationals convicted of these types of crimes once they have served their sentences.' [But only if a newspaper draws attention to it]

SOURCE



Immigration deceptions by Australia's Leftist government

There is an emerging credibility gap in the Rudd government's navigation of contentious policy issues, a compulsion that denies the obvious and rests on the apparent assumption that Australians are mugs.

There are many examples but the issue of asylum-seekers offers compelling evidence. Kevin Rudd invested much time in parliament on Monday insisting that the 22 asylum-seekers who first left the Oceanic Viking were receiving no preferential arrangement. Asked by 3AW's Neil Mitchell last week if there was special treatment, the Prime Minister replied: "Absolutely not." Yet the terms set out by the Minister-Counsellor Immigration in the Jakarta embassy, Jim O'Callaghan, to the asylum-seekers suggests a set of detailed special arrangements. They were authorised by the Rudd government's border protection committee of cabinet chaired by Immigration Minister Chris Evans.

The Australian's Jakarta correspondent Stephen Fitzpatrick reported yesterday that the Oceanic Viking people were quarantined from others because of resentment at their preferential conditions courtesy of the Rudd government.

There are three key provisions in O'Callaghan's document: if the UNHCR has found a person to be a refugee they will be resettled within four to six weeks of disembarkation; if an individual has already registered with the UNHCR they will be resettled within 12 weeks of disembarkation; and if people are not yet registered and are found to be refugees, they will also be resettled within 12 weeks. These provisions are highly generous. It is no surprise they are exceptional within UNHCR Indonesian operations. There are many refugees in Indonesia and none is given resettlement in four to six weeks.

The Australian offer included English language and orientation classes while cases are being processed. A "highly professional" team of Australian officials will work "every day" to assist refugee applications. The Red Cross will assist in tracing family members. The Sri Lankans were told many services will be provided in the resettlement country and these may include "assistance with housing, medical care and counselling, income support, English language tuition and help to find a job".

Rudd has been desperate to persuade the Sri Lankans to disembark in Indonesia. He had rightly drawn a line in the sand; he would not allow the boat to come to Christmas Island and he had a victory yesterday with reports that all Sri Lankans would disembark after the past month's protracted agony.

To grasp the nature of the special arrangement, consider the following: at October 1 there were 1760 registered asylum-seekers in Indonesia and 573 people recognised as refugees by the UNHCR in Jakarta; the typical delay time for processing and resettlement far exceeds 12 weeks and usually runs beyond 12 months. Australia, in short, is fast-tracking the Oceanic Viking people.

Evans said last week that Australia was "more likely to get the larger proportion" as the final destination. The exceptions to this, mentioned by Evans, was "if, for instance, they've got a first cousin living in Canada". Decoded the message is most are headed for Australia. However, this is far from the normal arrangement.

About 1300 people have been resettled from Indonesia to third nations in recent years and Australia has taken about one-third, with the rest going to Canada, the US, New Zealand, Sweden and France. Having rejected force to remove people, Australia had only one option left: it had to persuade them. Nobody should be surprised at the inducements offered. It was the price Rudd had to pay to keep the boat out of our territory. The price is justified. After the shambles of the past month it is a relief that Australia did not have to offer more. The criticism of Rudd is not that he paid such a price; it is that he pretends he paid no price whatsoever. He seems to think almost any line can be spun and will be believed, even when it is nonsense.

On Monday Rudd tabled a letter in parliament from Immigration Department Secretary Andrew Metcalfe to Evans, dated the same day. It was a classic example of recruiting under duress a senior public servant to buttress the government's line. The letter is a study in fact and political evasion. On tabling Metcalfe's letter, Rudd claimed it showed from the perspective of the departmental secretary "that these are not preferential arrangements". The letter shows nothing of the kind. Indeed, it is significant that Metcalfe avoids any such formulation.

He merely says that the group is being treated in a manner "consistent with that afforded to any other asylum-seeker or refugee in Indonesia". He does, however, say that Australia and Indonesia have agreed on "timeframes for the processing", which may imply a special arrangement. Requesting such a letter achieved nothing and the request should not have been made. Yet Rudd persisted in using Metcalfe as a shield and, responding to criticism from Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull, he claimed that Turnbull was disputing advice from "the independent Public Service of Australia". On the contrary, it shows the government stooping to use the public service to buttress a bad case.

It is noteworthy that Rudd was not involved in authorising the offer to the Sri Lankans. He told parliament on Monday that he was unaware of the offer's terms and did not authorise it. Turnbull seemed to find this unbelievable. But Rudd's denial was unequivocal. It stands despite his subsequent clarification that the cabinet committee that did approve the offer contained Rudd's staff.

The real point is that the Rudd government authorised a necessary special deal and, embarrassed about its domestic ramifications, tried to deny the obvious.

SOURCE





18 November, 2009

New from the Center for Immigration Studies

1. Roadblocks to Amnesty: State Sovereignty, Double Jeopardy, and Legalization

Excerpt: In an October 2009 speech on the West Lawn of the U.S. Capitol, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) outlined a plan for a so-called “comprehensive immigration reform” bill. The centerpiece of this bill is a legalization program for aliens now living here illegally. Similarly, President Obama has expressed support for creating a “path to citizenship” for illegal aliens. Pro-legalization activists are pressing for Congress to take up a bill early in 2010.

********

2. Immigration-Related Theses and Dissertations, 2008

Excerpt: It is the mission of the Center for Immigration Studies to examine, inform, and critique American immigration policy. In the pursuit of this goal, the Center seeks to provide the latest immigration news and research for all involved in the debate over this complex issue. In addition to its e-mail news services, reports, and books, the Center disseminates an annual list of doctoral dissertations and theses which relate to immigration in order to keep those involved abreast of the most recent developments in emerging scholarship. This compilation contains dissertations completed in 2008.

********

3. J-No Declares Victory at Border, Declares Time for Amnesty

Excerpt: Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has declared that the southern border is sufficiently secured and that it's time for Congress to start working on 'comprehensive immigration reform.' Of course, 'comprehensive immigration reform' is code for mass amnesty and massive increases in foreign workers. I guess the administration hasn't really grasped that 10 percent unemployment might not be the greatest time to try to convince the American people that illegitimate employers really need to import more cheap foreign workers.

********

4. Real Meaning of Napolitano Speech: No Amnesty Anytime Soon

Excerpt: Despite gloating from the open-border groups about DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano's immigration address at a liberal advocacy group Friday morning, her message was clear: 'When Congress is ready to act, we will be ready to support them.' In other words, the White House will not advance an amnesty until Congress makes the first move. The underlying message directed at amnesty advocates: Go bug the legislators and leave us alone.

********

5. Whose Side Are Chambers of Commerce On?

Excerpt: The writer of a letter to the editor recently asked: Whose side is the Chamber [of Commerce] on – American citizens or illegal immigrants?

That's actually a very good question.

********

6. Leon Trotsky's Ghost, The Russian Immigration Service, and Me

Excerpt: This is a story about the Russian immigration service, the ghost of Leon Trotsky, and me.

There are three bits of background to bear in mind before I tell the story.

********

7. Fort Hood: One Heck of a Man-Caused Disaster

Excerpt: Today’s top news is that the 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is finally getting a trial, not by a military commission, but in a courtroom in New York City. Four others that were also key to assuring logistics and finances for the plot will likely be indicted and tried with KSM, according to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder during a press conference this morning. Despite Republican statements claiming that KSM may walk due to a procedural or evidentiary issues related to torture, Holder stated that his personal review of the files indicates there is sufficient evidence to convict these men and seek the death penalty even without presenting questionable evidence. If Holder is right, then the decision to move the 9/11 conspirators to New York to be indicted and put on trial is in keeping with prior successful and noteworthy terrorism convictions such as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; a subsequent plot to blow up key Big Apple landmarks; and the East African bombings of 1998. Defendants awaiting trial for their part in the USS Cole bombing of 2000 will be rightly tried by a military commission. There should be no issue here. The administration is doing the right thing to move these cases to justice after such a long, arduous, and highly argued waiting period.

********

8. Denise Dresser on Education in Mexico

Excerpt: Those who are concerned about economic development in Mexico and the country's ability to provide job opportunities to keep its people at home will find a sobering analysis by Mexican political scientist Denise Dresser in the current edition of the Mexican magazine Proceso.

********

9. Blue Helmets on the Border?

Excerpt: CIS author Glynn Custred wrote an important piece last month on the options for U.S. intervention, should the U.S. be 'forced to in its own interests.'

********

10. Whining from Goliaths

Excerpt: The immigration lawyers' association (among many others) claims credit for its presumed role in ushering Lou Dobbs off CNN. (I write about the broader campaign to silence amnesty critics over at National Review Online.) But what I found interesting about this particular posting (besides its comparison of Dobbs to Father Coughlin) was this:

********

11. Watch Out for 'Streamlining' in Immigration Policy Debates

Excerpt: It sounds harmless but the word 'streamline' spells trouble in immigration policy debates.

Open Borders proponents are always wanting to 'streamline' this or that immigration management procedure, all in the name of governmental efficiency.

********

12. There They Go Again

Excerpt: Having lost the political battle over the 287(g) program, with DHS declining to end the program or restrict its use to jails and prisons, and with continuing strong interest from local law enforcement agencies, frustrated open-borders advocates have settled on a new strategy -- sue the bastards! Certainly everyone involved should be on the lookout for possible problems with racial profiling or abuse of authority. But the latest lawsuit, filed today against Frederick County, Md., Sheriff Chuck Jenkins and a host of other defendants, looks more like a public relations stunt and last-ditch attempt to avoid deportation than a serious legal challenge.

********

13. Heisting HIAS: The Deracination of a Communal Organization

Excerpt: In a recent article in the Jewish weekly newspaper Forward, 'HIAS Still Aids immigrants, but Most Don't Resemble Sergey Brin,' Gal Beckerman describes the metamorphosis in the historical mission of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society: 'HIAS has moved beyond its narrow focus on Jewish refugees alone and refashioned itself into a defender of immigration rights.' (Sergey Brin is the Russian-Jewish immigrant billionaire who co-founded Google and recently contributed a million dollars to HIAS.) With the notable omission of any reference to the intellectual sleight of hand that marks HIAS's 'transition' or the writer's unwillingness or inability to deconstruct the political presuppositions upon which the piece rests, that sentence isn't a bad summary, considering it doubles as a thesis statement and an advertisement by a booster.

********

14. Looking at Other Nation's Migration Policies - Canada's Point System

Excerpt: As I mentioned in an earlier blog, most of the other English-speaking nations in the world have adopted a points system as part of their immigrant-screening process.

Such a system allows the government to make more nuanced decisions on whom to admit to the country – as opposed to our all-or-nothing system. For example, if you are a skilled would-be migrant and you want to come to the U.S., (and can not do so as a refugee or a family member) you will need an employer and a government-approved labor certification. If you are certified you can come – unless you are a known criminal. If you do not have the certification, you are totally out of luck.

********

15. The Fraudulent Ecclesiastical Mandate of Sen. Schumer's Religious Allies

Excerpt: In a blatant display of the partisan card stacking which routinely debases the intellectual and ethical currency of Congressional hearings on 'immigration reform,' Sen. Charles Schumer (D, NY) last month chaired a session of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security titled 'Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Faith-Based Perspectives.' Even a fig leaf of balance was missing; the minority wasn't allowed its fractional quotient of witnesses. Only supporters of 'comprehensive immigration reform' were invited to testify. The hearing violated the spirit of open, oppositional discourse essential to the functioning and preservation of democratic institutions. The farce was also a sham. In an unseemly spectacle, leaders of religious denominations, hedging their testimony with equivocation, sought to convey the impression they speak in the name of their flocks, traducing their religious bona fides in a futile effort to lend an aura of credibility to misrepresentation.

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.





17 November, 2009

Environmental laws put gaps in Mexico border security

In the battle on the U.S.-Mexico border, the fight against illegal immigration often loses out to environmental laws that have blocked construction of parts of the "virtual fence" and that threaten to create places where agents can't easily track illegal immigrants.

Documents obtained by Rep. Rob Bishop and shared with The Washington Times show National Park Service staffers have tried to stop the U.S. Border Patrol from placing some towers associated with the virtual fence, known as the Secure Border Initiative or SBInet, on wilderness lands in parks along the border.

In a remarkably candid letter to members of Congress, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said her department could have to delay pursuits of illegal immigrants while waiting for horses to be brought in so agents don't trample protected lands, and warns that illegal immigrants will increasingly make use of remote, protected areas to avoid being caught.

The documents also show the Interior Department has charged the Homeland Security Department $10 million over the past two years as a "mitigation" penalty to pay for damage to public lands that agencies say has been caused by Border Patrol agents chasing illegal immigrants. "I want this resolved so border security has the precedence down there. If wilderness designation gets in the way of a secure southern border, I want the designation changed," said Mr. Bishop, Utah Republican, who requested the documents. "If it means you lose a couple of acres of wilderness, I don't think God will blame us at the judgment bar for doing that."

The conflict between the environment and border security has raged for the past decade as better enforcement in urban areas has pushed the flow of illegal immigrants into Arizona and straight into some of the nation's most remote and fragile desert.

A major problem is wilderness - lands deemed so pristine that they should be maintained in that condition, free of man-made structures. Wilderness is governed under a 1964 law that imposed strict rules that tie Border Patrol agents' hands, and there is a lot of that land along the border. According to the Congressional Research Service, California has 1.8 million acres of wilderness within 100 miles of the border, and Arizona has 2.5 million acres. New Mexico and Texas have smaller plots.

According to e-mails obtained by Mr. Bishop, Park Service officials at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and at the Denver office that oversees the park said they will not allow the Border Patrol to place electronic surveillance towers on parts of the park that are designated wilderness. In one 2008 e-mail, officials tell the Homeland Security Department to "pursue alternative tower locations." In another 2008 memo, the superintendent of Organ Pipe says Park Service officials could reject towers even beyond wilderness areas if they deem the effects would spill over into wilderness.

More HERE



Fury as immigrant baby killer is paid £4,500 'bribe' to quit Britain

An immigrant convicted of the horrific killing of a 17-month-old baby has been given £4,500 by the Government as a 'bribe' to leave the country. Malaysian Agnes Wong, 29, was jailed for five years in 2008 for the brutal manslaughter of a toddler she was supposed to be child-minding. She was let out of prison in July this year, and two weeks ago was put on a plane at Heathrow and sent to Malaysia with a 'voucher' worth £4,500 to spend when she got there.

Wong was jailed after a court heard how she had swung the boy, Hugo Wang, by his ankles and smashed his head. He died of brain injuries.

Wong's payment has sparked disbelief and outrage, coming just days after the Prime Minister said he understood the public's mounting concerns over immigration.

Tory immigration spokesman Damian Green said: 'Only last week, Gordon Brown said he "gets it" on immigration but this is proof he doesn't get it. For an immigrant who killed a child to get taxpayers' money to help with her future life is nothing short of appalling.' Mr Green demanded to know why Wong had not been automatically deported without a penny of public money. 'Even while Labour repeatedly boasted about introducing automatic deportation for people like this, it now appears they have been using public money to help people get round that very system,' he said.

The horrific story of Hugo's last hours caused national revulsion when Wong's sadistic behaviour was exposed in court. The unregistered childminder, who came to the UK in 2003, was paid £120 a week to look after Hugo in her home in Salford, Greater Manchester, while the boy's parents worked 16 to 20 hours a day to make ends meet. She was accused of waging a 'regime of terror' against him, torturing him with a hairdryer and hitting him so hard with a ruler that it snapped. Hugo died in January 2007, a day after he was taken, unconscious, to hospital where he underwent emergency surgery. He had been struck with such force that his brain had shifted in his skull and caused internal bleeding. Doctors also found bite and burn marks on his body.

Wong, who denied murder, was found guilty of manslaughter but was sentenced in May 2008 to just five years in prison. The Mail on Sunday has now learned that Wong served only the minimum jail term of two-and-half years, including her time in custody before and during the trial.

Just two weeks ago, she was deported to Malaysia under a controversial 'Facilitated Returns Scheme' under which foreign prisoners are paid up to £5,000 if they agree to leave the UK as early as possible without fighting their deportation using human-rights laws or by claiming asylum. So far, around 1,000 have left the UK and been given the money.

It is not known for certain whether Wong - who used the anglicised name Agnes, although her Malaysian name is Siew Teng - entered Britain legally or illegally. However, any immigrant who commits a serious crime can forfeit their right to remain in Britain and can be deported.

David Wood, the UK Border Agency's director of criminality and detention, defended the scheme, saying: 'We don't want foreign criminals in the UK. Every day that we can get these individuals out of the country early removes the risk they present to UK citizens and saves our taxpayers more than £100 a night in detention costs as well as administrative and court costs.'

As Wong boarded a plane at Heathrow on November 2 bound for Kuala Lumpur, immigration officials handed her a letter confirming that she was entitled to a 'reintegration fund' payout of up to £4,500. The letter informed her that the money, provided by UK taxpayers but administered by an international migration organisation, could be 'invested' in training for a new job, housing, education, medical treatment or to help set up a small business. The letter - seen by The Mail on Sunday - also advised Wong, who was kept in an immigration detention centre between her release from jail in July and her deportation earlier this month, how to claim the money.

Hugo's parents, who were immigrants from China, both worked at the China City restaurant in Southport, where Liverpool football star Steven Gerrard is a regular. Friends have now spoken of how Hugo's father, Jian Lin Situ, never got over the death of his son and how he had taken the baby's ashes back to China. They also voiced their anger that the boy's killer would get thousands of pounds of public money to build a new life. One said: 'It is an absolute disgrace that she has got this money. That sort of money will go a long way in Malaysia.'

The friend recalled how Hugo's father had been distraught to learn that some of his son's body parts were initially retained by the coroner in case Wong appealed against her conviction. 'When Hugo died it was big in all the newspapers in China. We followed the proceedings and were all horrified by what happened to that poor boy,' said the friend. 'Jian and Hugo's mother Zhen split up soon after. I think they both blamed each other for their son's death.

'I think Zhen went back to China. Jian never got over Hugo's death. He was absolutely devastated. He took Hugo's ashes back to China, to the Canton district, the family's ancestral home. After that, Jian moved on to a restaurant in Liverpool. From there he went to another restaurant in Blackburn and we lost touch.'

The friend added that Mr Situ would be 'horrified' to learn that Wong had already been returned home, especially as he protested that she should originally have been given a 15-year jail sentence. 'Jian thought five years was too lenient. This is just an insult to Hugo's memory. What are they playing at, letting her out so early? They should have thrown away the key.'

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think-tank, said: 'It is absolutely wrong in principle that criminals who thoroughly deserve to be deported should be paid for going. This should not happen at all.'

A Home Office official confirmed there were two other voluntary schemes offering illegal immigrants incentives to return: one for individuals in the asylum system paying up to £4,000; and one for immigrants who have no right to be here but have not claimed asylum, paying out a maximum of £1,000.

SOURCE





16 November, 2009

The British Labour party’s heartland won’t be fooled on immigration again

There is something a little pitiful watching Gordon Brown tell the country how worried he is about immigration, and how it must not be a taboo issue. Like watching a paralytic drunk explaining in slurred tones how he will never touch another drop, and all the while you can smell the paint-stripper on his breath.

There is no issue — with the possible exception of Iraq — on which Labour has been more deceitful to the public at large, or has more egregiously betrayed its core working-class support. The only reason Brown is addressing the issue now is that we are six months away from an election and he fears that the troglodyte BNP thickoes will chew away great big gobfuls of angry working-class voters across a diagonal swathe of supposedly Labour country, from the white-flight satellite towns of Essex to the old mill towns of east Lancashire.

It is little more than lip service from the prime minister and, worse, unaccompanied by even the vaguest admission that his government has let its people down.

We know from the Labour backbencher Chris Mullin’s diaries that ministers would not address the issue of immigration because they were terrified of being called racist: so they did nothing. More recently, the former home office adviser Andrew Neather suggested that the Labour government threw open the doors to vast numbers of immigrants precisely in order to create a truly multicultural Britain, whether or not the British public wanted such a thing (every opinion poll suggests that they did not).

Labour ministers insist that the previous Conservative government was lax on immigration, too — but that is a specious argument. In 2006 nearly 600,000 immigrants entered Britain, more than 10 times the number who arrived in the last year of John Major’s government; the scale of difference has been beyond reasonable comparison. We should be clear: immigration is primarily Labour’s mess, and it was a deliberate policy.

Even now the argument will be queered by the usual platitudinous drivel; that while addressing this important issue we must all nonetheless embrace the vibrancy of multicultural diversity. The people who always preface their answers with this sort of statement tend not to have lost their jobs to cut-price plumbers, electricians, fruit pickers and so on.

You cannot have it both ways: Brown wishes to capture the votes of the white working class by talking about immigration but not actually doing anything about it. They in turn resent, rightly or wrongly, the fact that their communities have been changed beyond recognition; that street crime figures are up exponentially; that it’s harder to acquire social housing; and that they are priced out of jobs. This is unpalatable to many, but it is how a lot of people feel.

It would be far more honest of the government if it said: tough luck, Labour voters — we want a cheaper unskilled and semi-skilled workforce and we have no moral or intellectual objection to your towns and cities being transformed by huge numbers of people who may not share your cultural values. That, after all, has been the policy of the government for the past 12 years, even if it is one it has not dared to articulate but has instead pursued by a sort of cack-handed stealth.

Nor, aside from the carefully nuanced rhetoric, is there very much in the prime minister’s speech which offers a solution to the problem. For example, he wishes councils to look more kindly on social housing applications from long-term local residents — but of course the councils are statutorily required to offer housing first to the homeless and an awful lot of immigrants are, de facto, homeless when they arrive.

None of this is the fault of the recent immigrants themselves, of course, who are behaving much as we would all behave in similar circumstances; and in the main, I don’t believe those working-class voters blame the immigrants either. They know who to blame — and crocodile tears shed a few months before polling day tend to confirm, rather than dissipate, that blame.

SOURCE



Australia sends some Sri Lankans illegals home

How come these guys did not get the normal big welcome? As far as I can tell, they forgot to say the magic word "asylum" when first interviewed

THE Rudd government chartered a 100-seat jet to Sri Lanka at the weekend to forcibly remove six asylum-seekers who staged a dramatic eight-hour protest inside the Christmas Islands immigration detention centre last month.

The six Sinhalese fishermen became the first asylum-seekers to be isolated inside the centre's controversial "red block", built by the Howard government, with small metal cells to detain violent or unstable detainees.

They were among 50 Sri Lankans who had been trying to reach New Zealand when their boat hit a reef in Torres Strait on March 28. So far, only 12 have been found to be refugees and granted visas.

Another 29 have gone home voluntarily on commercial flights from Perth, one is in detention in Perth in preparation for returning voluntarily on a commercial flight and the remaining two are in detention on Christmas Island while their claims are resolved.

On October 30, the protesting six, who had been assessed and rejected, refused to board a charter plane from Christmas Island to Perth, where they were expected to join a commercial flight to Colombo as voluntary removals. Instead, one of the men stunned onlookers by swiftly climbing a pole thought to be more than 12m. He stayed there poised to jump for the most of the day while the five others refused to co-operate with people sent to the scene, including a psychologist.

The operation to return the six to Sri Lanka began on Friday when the Department of Immigration and Citizenship chartered a Fokker 100 from the mainland. It brought in guards specially trained in involuntary removals. At 6.30am on Saturday, the Sri Lankans were brought to Christmas Island's airport in two minibuses with guards. In total, 17 guards and immigration workers accompanied the men to Colombo on the airliner. The minders returned to Christmas Island alone yesterday morning.

Yesterday there were 1114 asylum-seekers on Christmas Island and 14 crew. Authorities were preparing for the delivery early this week of the 40th boatload of asylum-seekers intercepted this year. The group of 47 and three crew were spotted on Friday near Ashmore Reef.

SOURCE





15 November, 2009

'Declaring success' !!!!

Having millions of illegals still in the country is "success"??? I guess it is from a Leftist viewpoint

Declaring success in border security and immigration enforcement, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Friday that the federal government has done its work and now it's time for Congress to pass a broad bill to legalize illegal immigrants. Her speech signals President Obama will make good on his promise to push Congress to pass an immigration bill next year - adding yet another hot-button issue to an already long and contentious list.

Ms. Napolitano said members of Congress and voters who balked at an immigration bill two years ago, fearing a repeat of the 1986 amnesty that only made the problem worse, can be assured this time is different. She said in those two years, the flow of illegal immigrants across the border has dropped dramatically and the government is doing more to catch fugitive aliens inside the U.S. "The security of the southwest border has been transformed from where it was in 2007," she said in a speech to the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. "The federal government has dedicated unprecedented resources to the Mexican border in terms of manpower, technology and infrastructure - and it's made a real difference."

But Republicans said her declaration of victory on border security was premature. "How can they claim that enforcement is 'done' when there are more than 400 open miles of border with Mexico, hundreds of thousands of criminal and fugitive aliens and millions of illegal immigrants taking American jobs?" said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.

The number of illegal immigrants being caught on the border has fallen - a measure Border Patrol officials say means fewer are trying to cross - and Ms. Napolitano said the government has hundreds of miles of fencing on the border, has boosted the number of Border Patrol agents to 20,000 and has begun to deport illegal-alien criminals being kept in U.S. prisons and jails. The number of illegal immigrants apprehended by immigration authorities is down from 1.8 million in 2000 to 556,041 in fiscal 2009, which ended Sept. 30, and demography experts say the number of illegal immigrants remaining in the U.S. has actually begun to fall.

Ms. Napolitano said both a slowing economy and better enforcement account for the changes, which she said creates a window for Congress to act.

Rep. Steve King of Iowa, ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee's immigration subcommittee, said Ms. Napolitano "contradicted herself by claiming the downturn in our economy has reduced illegal immigration but then advocated for an amnesty policy that allows millions of illegal aliens to take American jobs." "This is exactly the wrong time to be giving a pro-amnesty speech since we just received news that the national unemployment rate hit 10.2 percent," Mr. King said.

Immigrant rights groups say they've changed the debate in Congress, and Ms. Napolitano said the attitude among Americans has changed as well.

But when it comes to actual votes in Congress, there hasn't been a good test for some years, and earlier this year White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the "votes aren't there right now" to pass a broad legalization bill.

Immigrant rights advocates said they'll be watching to see how much muscle Mr. Obama puts behind the effort. Some have said Mr. Obama betrayed them by embracing E-Verify, the voluntary employee verification system, and revamping but not ending local police enforcement of immigration laws. On Friday, though, groups said they saw a "real commitment" from Ms. Napolitano and the administration to try to pass a broad bill, which they argue would take care of many of the key problems that have led to stepped-up enforcement.

In 2007, President George W. Bush teamed with Senate Democrats and some Republicans to try to pass a bill that legalized most illegal immigrants, rewrote the rules for legal immigration and provided money for some border security. The bill lost on an unusual majority filibuster that saw 15 Democrats and one independent join 37 Republicans in blocking the measure.

A year earlier, the Senate had passed a bill that had legalized some illegal immigrants, while the House passed an enforcement-only measure. Both bills died because they could not be reconciled with one another.

SOURCE



Australia gives illegals plush treatment while assessing them

They get an island holiday with all expenses paid by the Australian taxpayer

DETAINEES on Christmas Island have access to both fast-speed internet services and mobile phones, raising fears they have may have been encouraging the stand-off on the Oceanic Viking. The Department of Immigration confirmed the internet and phone access but declined to answer questions relating to detainees having made contact with either those on the Oceanic Viking, people smugglers or other family members encouraging them to make the illegal boat trip to Australia.

The department says the use of the 30 computers is "supervised''. However, according to eyewitness accounts given to The Sunday Telegraph, such supervision is minimal if it exists at all. Eyewitnesses say guards on the island told them the computers were filtered for the "usual sites like porn'', but that was all. One person who observed detainees using the two computer rooms on the island said: "It's clear they were able to have contact with the outside world. Therefore it's conceivable they might have been in contact with the Oceanic Viking.

"All they have to tell other refugees is that if you get to Christmas Island you'll spend three months max and then 90 per cent are waved through. You'll do less than three months in good surrounds.''

The department refuses to say whether it has any record of who detainees have been in contact with but "restricted internet access'' has been available since early 2007. "Any monitoring of phone calls or internet use would be under-taken by law enforcement or security agencies in accordance with relevant legislation,'' a spokeswoman said, but she did not say whether any such monitoring actually took place.

According to those who have recently been on the island, detainees are also provided with free yoga, fitness and art classes. All health costs are also paid by the Commonwealth - including free dental care. The spokeswoman would not comment on claims one group of detainees destroyed their footwear to get new shoes after one asylum-seeker, who had no shoes, received a new pair on arrival. Fresh food and vegetables are airlifted into the detention centre.

The department refused to confirm this included freshly baked bread costing $10 a loaf - despite there being a bakery on the island. But it did confirm a vegetarian option was made available on the daily menu. Snacks and cigarettes are also available under a "purchase allowance'' points scheme.

The spokeswoman said the total cost for running the island in the less than three months between July 1 this year and September 9 was just over $11 million. A breakdown of the cost included: $6.68 million for overall services, $2 million for interpreters, $1.3 million for health costs, $330,000 for aircraft charter and $800,000 in wages. Those who have been to the island recently say locals have noted the department spares no expense airfreighting the detainees' requirements, while food and supplies for locals come by boat.

The spokeswoman confirmed all health costs were met by the Commonwealth. One recent visitor observed that many ordinary Australians in the bush could not receive access to free dental care.

The spokeswoman said food supplies were ordered from the mainland. She added: "We have a duty of care to ensure the health and well-being of people in immigration detention, including ensuring access to appropriate physical and recreational activities, such as a grassed area for soccer.''

Meanwhile the stand-off on the Oceanic Viking, moored off Indonesia for more than four weeks, showed signs of thawing when 22 of the 78 Sri Lankans on board left the vessel after the Australian Government guaranteed them a special 12-week turnaround of their claim for refugee status.

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.