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



30 November, 2007

UK population 'to double in one lifetime'

The UK’s population could almost double within a lifetime to more than 100 million, new figures have shown. A combination of record immigration, high fertility rates and longer life expectancy could push the numbers to 108 million by 2081. The extraordinary estimate issued by the Office for National Statistics yesterday came as a parliamentary committee heard evidence of the growing impact on schools and hospitals. One teachers’ leader said some schools were ''struggling to cope” because they had not been given enough money to deal with the influx.

The most likely forecast based on current trends is that the population will rise to 71m in 2031 and to 85m in 2081, but if birth rates grow more quickly than expected, immigration remains high and people live longer this could reach 108 million - nearly twice today’s 60m. High immigration is also fuelling a baby boom because new arrivals tend to be younger and to have larger families than the indigenous population.

David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: 'This confirms what we have been telling the Government all along. ''Labour needs to wake up and understand the factors driving population change as well as the solutions.”

Sir Andrew Green, the chairman of Migrationwatch, said: “Our country is already facing massive changes as a result of the government’s failure to control our borders. ''These population projections are a sharp reminder of what could well happen if they continue to fail to take firm and effective action to bring a halt to the mass immigration which they have stimulated.”

Liam Byrne, the immigration minister, said: "These projections show what might happen in 75 years’ time unless we take action now. "Frankly, it underlines the need for the swift and sweeping changes we are bringing to the immigration system in the next 12 months, which will include the introduction of an Australian-style points-based system, so only those that Britain needs can come to work and study.”

The figures were published as representatives of teachers, doctors and nurses spoke of the impact of migration on the public services. In evidence to a House of Lords committee inquiry into the impact of immigration, Steve Sinnott, general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, said a phenomenon once limited to urban areas was now affecting rural primary schools which needed more expert staff and specialist books for pupils who speak no English. "We do have schools where we have had significant, large numbers of youngsters appearing very quickly,” he said. "We have had schools in London where on a Friday afternoon the head has arrived with seven or eight youngsters and taken them to a GCSE English class and none of the youngsters can speak English. '’The teachers have been pulling their hair out,’’ he said.

Mick Brookes, general secretary of the head teachers’ union NAHT, said the education of both migrant and local pupils was at risk in some schools. "Some schools are struggling to cope,’’ he said. "The capacity to do the best they can for the local children - and the children who are coming in - is being stretched.’’

An analysis by the union suggested that extra Government funding for each immigrant child would only pay for about three weeks of a teaching assistant’s time. Josie Irwin of the Royal College of Nursing said there was only anecdotal evidence about the impact of immigration on hospitals but there were ''particular difficulties” in the inner cities.

Prof David Blanchflower, a member of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee, predicted a second wave of migration from eastern Europe as the current well-educated arrivals gain new skills and get better jobs. He believed the flow from the east was ''inexorable” and probably had not peaked. Prof Blanchflower expected another inflow of Poles and other EU nationals from Ireland, which has seen a greater number of arrivals proportionately than the UK but where work is drying up. There would be a new migration to help London prepare to the Olympics in 2012, he added. Prof Blanchflower said there was evidence that the high levels of immigration were depressing wages among low-skilled workers, something the Government has disputed.

Source



Wow! Glimmerings of sanity in Sweden

And its from a Social Democrat (Leftist) too

People who have been smuggled into Sweden should be deported, a leading Social Democrat politician has said. Allowing those who have paid thousands to people smugglers to stay is not fair on people who can't afford to pay to leave their homelands. Goran Johansson, leader of Gothenburg Council, said he based his views on the fact that many of the 20,000 Iraqis expected to come to Sweden this year came here illegally, often with the help of people smugglers.

"If it is obvious that someone has been smuggled in they should be sent back again," Johansson told newspaper GT. People pay around 100,000 kronor ($16,000) each to be brought to Sweden. "We should never accept this. By not saying anything we are tacitly accepting people smuggling," Johansson said.

Johansson admitted that his idea, if put into practice, would lead to more people being returned directly to their homelands. "Then they can come back by the normal route," he said. He added that it was immoral for money to decide who would make it to Sweden. "There may be those who can't scrape together 100,000 kronor whose need to come here is perhaps greater. But they don't get a chance," he said.

Source



Australian police ready for sweep to deport New Guinea illegals

Note here that it is Melanesians (blacks) calling for the expulsion of Melanesians

FEDERAL officers are preparing an unprecedented sweep through the Torres Strait to deport Papua New Guineans illegally living on some of Australia's most remote territory. Community leaders in the Torres Strait held emergency meetings with immigration officials last week, after a surge in the number of people arriving from PNG, securing a commitment to have them deported. An immigration spokesman yesterday refused to discuss the coming operation, but confirmed meetings with community leaders had recently taken place. "The department has held recent meetings with councils in the Torres Strait. However, we will not discuss operational details," the spokesman said.

Thursday Island Mayor Pedro Stephen said communities including Saibai, Boigu, Iama, Masig, Dauan, Erub and Badu islands were in danger of being annexed by PNG because of the large number of illegal arrivals. "All seem to have more PNG nationals living there than local islanders," Mr Stephen said. "They are coming and taking over all the businesses." The situation has become particularly bad on Saibai Island in northern Torres Strait, where as many as 300 of the immigrants, dubbed "overstayers" by the locals, have strained resources and almost run the islands limited water supply dry.

Mr Stephen said the Torres Strait Treaty, which came into effect in 1985 and allows the movement of people between PNG and the Australian islands, needed to be rewritten to ensure economic development in PNG's Western Province. "There's been nothing built there for decades. What you have is the Third World just a stone's throw from an Australian community," Mr Stephen said. "It's no wonder they travel to access services. They've got nothing at home."

Even the most senior PNG national in Torres Strait, the Reverend Lawes Waia, who lives on Thursday Island, just off the tip of Cape York, has called for the borders to be closed and the Torres Strait Treaty to be torn up. "Whether we drink contaminated water, whether we carry sickness and diseases on our bodies, whether no government services are reaching us, let's stop bothering the Torres Strait Islanders with their island facilities and resources. Please close the border now and put all words into action," Mr Waia said.

Mr Stephen said communities in the northern Torres Strait were concerned the numbers might become so great they would wind up becoming PNG territory. "You have to remember that when the Torres Strait treaty was signed, PNG wanted to basically cut the strait in half and administer the islands north of Badu," Mr Stephen said. "A lot of people remember that and think maybe this is a way of getting those islands."

A senior Saibai Island community member, who asked not to be named, said the PNG nationals ignored local immigration officers, and had built a filthy shanty town on the northern edge of the island. "We are pleased the Department of Immigration is finally going to do something," the local said. "These people have brought diseases which we can not cope with. It is not good for our community."

Source





29 November, 2007

British singer sparks row over immigration

The outspoken former Smiths singer Morrissey has found himself at the centre of a row after alleged comments about immigration and its impact on British identity in a magazine interview. The star, who has enjoyed a highly successful solo career since the band's split, reportedly told the music magazine NME that Britain had suffered an "immigration explosion", adding: "England is a memory now". "The gates are flooded and anybody can have access to England and join in," he was reported as telling NME reporter Tim Jonze.

According to the magazine, the singer - who now lives in Rome - said that while he didn't have anything against people from other countries, "the higher the influx into England the more the British identity disappears". "The British identity is very attractive, I grew up into it and I find it quaint and very amusing," he went on. "Other countries have held on to their basic identity yet it seems to me that England was thrown away."

He said that while immigration does enrich the British identity, it meant saying goodbye to "the Britain you once knew". "The change in England is so rapid compared to the change in any other country. "If you walk through Knightsbridge on any bland day of the week you won't hear an English accent. You'll hear every accent under the sun apart from the British accent."

He was challenged over the comments in a second interview, in which he insisted he did not intend to be "inflammatory". "I find racism very silly," he said. "Almost too silly to discuss. It's beyond reason. And makes no sense and is ludicrous. I've never heard a good argument in favour of racism."

But his alleged comments, published in the magazine today, sparked outrage among some fans who said they would boycott the singer's Best Of album due to be released in the new year. One, named Slimjim, of Bradford, wrote on an internet message board: "It's totally out of order. Morrissey sounds like a Tory MP these days. It's a disgrace. I'll think twice about buying his next album."

It is not the first time he has caused controversy, nor the first time he has fallen out with the magazine's editors. In 1992, he was criticised by NME after he appeared on stage in Finsbury Park to support Madness wrapped in a Union Jack flag. Some of his song titles and lyrics have also attracted criticism, including the tracks Bengali in Platforms and National Front Disco, which included the lyrics: `You've gone to the National Front Disco/Because you want the day to come sooner'.

But his manager responded angrily, accusing NME of a "poorly thought out and terribly executed attempt at character assassination" of the 48-year-old. "Anti-racist songs such as "Irish Blood, English Heart," "America Is Not The World" and "I Will See You In Far-Off Places" tell you the true measure of the man," Merck Mercuriadis wrote on the Morrissey fan website True To You.

Dr Rob Berkeley, deputy director of the Runnymede Trust, which campaigns for equality and justice, said that while he did not agree with Morrissey's comments, his views were not that uncommon.

Source



Blacks too much even for Leftist Spain

Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero called for stronger European Union border defenses to control the influx of illegal immigrants to the continent - the brunt of which is borne by Spain. Zapatero told the European Parliament on Wednesday that the EU border agency, Frontex, must be strengthened and EU cooperation enhanced to fight illegal immigration.

Thousands of Sub-Saharan migrants try to reach Spain by sailing in rickety wooden boats from West Africa to Spain's Canary Islands, just off the coast of Morocco. The dangerous trip can take more than a week and is often deadly. About 24,000 migrants were caught trying to reach Spain last year, compared to less than 10,000 so far this year.

Source





28 November, 2007

Defending illegals is unwise

I wonder if the Democrat Presidential candidates will learn that lesson in time? Best if they don't maybe. There is enough hypocrisy in politics already

Tom Selders is still baffled at how quickly the city he served for years turned on him. The two-term mayor of this conservative farm town had been a political fixture for nearly two decades. A businessman who prided himself on bringing efficiency to city government, Selders infuriated his constituents after jumping into the national debate over illegal immigration. In May he spoke at an open forum in Washington about the effects of last year's immigration raid on a meatpacking plant here, which led to the detention of 262 undocumented workers. "Many families and children were devastated by parents being arrested and detained," Selders said. "Children -- citizens of the United States -- were left without parents."

The reaction in Greeley, whose Latino population has nearly tripled since 1980, was swift and furious. Selders, who was seeking a third term as mayor, was overwhelmed with angry calls. He became a regular target on local talk radio. A mailer linking him to illegal immigrant gang members flooded mailboxes. Earlier this month Selders was ousted from the nonpartisan post, losing to a retired police officer by a 3-2 margin.

"I really feel betrayed by my community," said Selders, 61. "There's a big contingent of people in this community who are just full of anger and hate about illegal immigration, and that anger and hate has been transferred to me."

What happened to Selders, a lifelong Republican, is a cautionary tale of the politics of illegal immigration. To some, it shows how a good man trying to do the right thing was taken down by the forces of intolerance. To others, it shows what can happen to elitist politicians who dismiss voters' frustrations over unchecked illegal immigration. "A lot of people in Weld County remained silent" as people like Selders criticized the December 2006 raid, said County Dist. Atty. Kenneth R. Buck, who supported Selders' opponent. "They don't want to be called racist, they don't want their business to be boycotted. . . . There were a lot of people who were waiting to be heard in their anonymous way." ....

Opponents of illegal immigration are elated to see Selders go. "Now it's going to change," Breuer said. "People who don't want to follow the laws will get out of here." Immigrants rights activists in Greeley are still in a state of shock and wonder whether they missed a chance to help a rare ally. Selders' campaign got some support in the heavily Latino neighborhoods, said activist Sylvia Martinez. "People didn't believe [in Selders] because he is white, because he is a Republican, because he is a businessman," [bigotry?] she said. "I don't think a lot of people believed he was running for his life."

More here



English is the foreign language for 40% of British primary school pupils

Schools are struggling to cover the cost of providing specialist teachers for thousands of new immigrant pupils, headteachers warned today. Forty per cent of primary age children in London now speak a language other than English at home and some schools take several new arrivals a week as pupils "appear from nowhere", heads have said. The National Association of Head Teachers called for schools to be given the "infrastructure" they needed to get pupils whose first language is not English fluent enough to cope with the national curriculum as soon as possible.

The NAHT warned that the Government's Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant, which is doled out by Whitehall to town halls to allocate among schools according to need, was failing to cover the cost of English as an Additional Language teachers. NAHT leader Mick Brookes said: "These children are welcome in our schools but we need the capacity to look after them properly."

Latest government figures show that the capital's primary schools alone took in more than 197,000 children for whom English is not their first language this year, up from just over 190,000 last year. Secondary schools' proportion of non-native English speakers rose from 33.5 per cent to 35.3 per cent. Most are concentrated in inner London - in Tower Hamlets, three quarters of children in primary schools are now not native English speakers.

Ofsted research has shown that primary schools typically spent their EMAG on a single EAL teacher, supported by a classroom assistant. But Ofsted also found that primary schools with a track record of successfully integrating EAL pupils were forced to find thousands of pounds more from their general budgets. Most had suffered cuts in their EMAG grants. "Schools were pessimistic about being able to sustain the excellent work they had built up over the years if funding continued to decline," said Ofsted.

Clarissa Williams, head of Tolworth Girls' School in Kingston, said she got œ1,300 from the Government to teach English to foreign pupils, and topped that up with another 30,000 pounds. "These children just turn up on your doorstep and it places a significant additional strain on budgets," she said. A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families insisted the EMAG was keeping up with demand, saying it was going up from 178.6million this year to 206.6million in 2010-11.

Source





27 November, 2007

Romney talks tough on immigration

See the original for a link to the video

Mitt Romney pledges to take charge to stem illegal immigration in a new TV ad that will air in Iowa and New Hampshire. "We need smart, tough solutions, not just talk," the announcer says before pointing out that Romney, while governor of Massachusetts, opposed driver's licenses and in-state tuition for illegal immigrants and pushed for English in the classroom.

As Romney is pictured rolling up his sleeves, the ad then says that he is the only candidate with a proven record of fixing major problems and will bring a no-nonsense, corporate-style approach to a problem that has vexed politicians of both parties: "Take charge. Demand results. No excuses."

Romney and other Republican presidential hopefuls are generally trying to out-tough each other on the issue, and criticizing each other for not being tough enough. The Democratic candidates are pushing a welcoming approach, though they acknowledge that immigration is a hot-button issue.

Source



Roundup of the recent European immigration experience

See the original for links

Large scale immigration to Europe, a trend going back to the end of World War II, may not be new, but the crisis the continent currently faces is. As second and third generation immigrants from the Middle East and Africa come of age, Europe is grappling with the challenge of protecting its own values while searching for a solution to the social ills - alienation, segregation, poverty, illiberalism and terrorism - associated with immigration.

Muslims in France:

France has perhaps received the most international media attention, particularly during major riots in 2005 when young immigrant youth burned cars, buses, and buildings. France's new employment law, now repealed after major protests, was meant to address the economic origins of the riots. Other controversies include a nativist group which served pork soup to the homeless and the controversial decision to prohibit girls from wearing headscarves in school.

Illegal African Immigrants Come By Boat to the Canary Islands:

The Canary Islands, a Spanish protectorate better known to the world as a mecca for cruise ships, are fast becoming a prime destination for illegal immigrants from Sub-Saharan Africa. (Read more)

Danish Cartoon Controversy:

When the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed deeply offensive to Muslims, what began as an assertion of free speech in Denmark deteroriated into violence in countries thorughout the Muslim world. Some think European Muslims' reaction was an expression of feelings of alienation and neglect. (See: "Read more)

UK's Immigrants & The London Bombings:

The 2005 London bombings once again brought home the real threat of terrorism in Europe and its relation to immigration. The bombers were three men of Pakistani descent who born and raised in the UK, but thought to have been "radicalized" during trips to Pakistan. The fourth was a young man born in Jamaica who had converted to Islam after moving to London. (Read more)

Holland's New Immigrant Quiz:

How would you react to...Men kissing in a park? A woman lounging topless on a beach? A measure designed to severely limit Muslim immigration to the Netherlands screens potential immigrants for their social attitudes and knowledge of obscure Dutch trivia. (Read more)

Germany's Turkish Immigrants:

In Germany, Turkish and Muslim immigrants are segregated from Germany society physically, linguistically and culturally. "How Germany Has Failed Its Immigrants" (Der Spiegel) looks at why the immigrants are not the only ones to blame and why European governments should be doing more.

Source





26 November, 2007

Pathetic Britain

Illegal immigrant demands to be flown home because Britons are 'rude and unfriendly'. Why is there ANY taxpayer support for people who have been told to leave?

An illegal immigrant has demanded to be flown home after saying he was fed up with British people - because they are "rude and unfriendly". Speaking today, Mokhtar Tabet, 30 - who has been given a home, food and free travel around London - claims his local council has breached his human rights by moving him to a place he does not like. He was refused asylum in 2004 and is set to be deported.

He said: "The council evicted me from my home in September and moved me to Streatham, which I don't like. "The new place is small, and the kitchen closes at 9pm, so I can't have anything to eat late at night. They have taken away my human rights."

Croydon Council says it has bent over backwards to help Tabet, who fled Algeria in 2002. A spokesman said: "Mr Tabet was accommodated in Norbury Crescent, with Croydon Council paying his rent, council tax and utility bills. "In July, his landlord gave him two months' notice to quit the premises, and the council offered him a flat in Anerley Road, which he refused citing its poor state of repair. "The necessary repairs were carried out and he again refused it. "He was told that refusal would amount to him making himself intentionally homeless and he would be placed in hostel-style accommodation. He agreed to this."

Mr Tabet is entitled to return to Algeria at his own expense and admits that he "does not like it here". But he refuses to do so and says Britain will have to pay for his travel if it wants him to leave. He moaned: "I miss Algeria. The English people are not helpful, they are so unfriendly and rude. "I thought I had made friends in Croydon, but when I ask them for money they don't give me it, so I know they can't be my friends."

Mr Tabet fled Algeria in 2002 after being arrested for refusing to give up his home so the army could monitor terrorist activity in his town. Released after 30 days' solitary confinement he fled to Britain, illegally entering the country on a flight from Tunisia, and sought asylum. He now receives 32 pounds a week in vouchers from Croydon Council to buy food with while he awaits deportation. Unsatisfied at this, he griped: "Croydon Council only gives me food vouchers, they won't give me cash. I want the money. "I have nothing to buy new clothes with, I have to go to a refugee centre. But if there's not anything nice there, you leave with nothing. "I want the council to give me a bigger flat and money instead of vouchers."

Mr Tabet suffers from diabetes, a retina disease and kidney failure and believes he should be allowed to stay in the country so he can continue to get free NHS care. He said: "The Home Office said I could afford the medicine back home, but I can't, I don't have a job."

The council insists he has no grounds for complaint. The spokesman explained: "He is supported by the council by way of vouchers, in accordance with the law." Mr Tabet admits that since he was refused asylum he has "stayed and no one has said anything about it".

Source



Feds to revise immigration plan

U.S. labor, business and farm groups have convinced the White House to revise a planned crackdown on firms employing illegal immigrants. The Bush administration has agreed to make unspecified changes to its plan to pressure employers to fire as many as 8.7 million workers with suspect Social Security numbers, The Washington Post reported Sunday.

The Bush administration Friday asked a federal judge in San Francisco to delay hearing a lawsuit brought by labor, business and agriculture until the revised plan is ready.

Those who brought the suit are not convinced, however, their objections will be met, including reducing the enormous cost of the plan to small businesses, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Vice President Randel K. Johnson said. "I hope they give the employer community adequate time to comment and do not just jam it through during the holidays," Johnson said, "particularly given that this regulation covers all industries, across all sectors of the economy."

Source



EU trying to protect little Malta from a flood of Africans

The EU's border control agency is planning to extend its illegal immigration sea patrols mission off the coast of Malta to at least six months next year, The Sunday Times has learnt. The Frontex agency's plans were explained to MEPs during a 'closed-door' session of the Civil Liberties Committee of the European Parliament last week. The agency has earmarked more than 8 million euros (Lm3.47 million) specifically to be used for this mission.

During the session, the agency's executive director Ilkka Laitinen gave a presentation of the surveillance missions that Frontex is planning to carry out next year across all the EU's external borders and how it intends to spend its 70 million (Lm30.4 million) budget, the biggest ever given to this agency. According to sources, Mr Laitinen told MEPs that the mission - once again called Nautilus - will be the second biggest sea patrol for Frontex next year, after the one to be carried out around the Canary Islands, which should last a few weeks longer than the one off Malta.

Nautilus III will now span six months - from April through to the end of September - practically covering the entire illegal immigration 'season'. Frontex has already established the number of helicopters, aircraft and patrol boats necessary to man this operation for the period. There will also be several other land, sea and air missions in other parts of Europe, although on a much smaller scale. The decision by Frontex to triple the extent of the Nautilus mission was taken following a positive assessment of the first two missions during 2006 and 2007. Sources said that Mr Laitinen told MEPs that this year's mission in the Mediterranean, conducted in two stages during July and September, yielded positive results, leading to a marked reduction in the number of illegal immigrants arriving in Malta.

Malta's increased patrols next year are a direct result of a 30 million increase to the agency's budget approved last month by the European Parliament following a proposal by MEP Simon Busuttil. When contacted, Dr Busuttil, a member of the Civil Liberties Committee, declined to comment, saying he was bound by confidentiality. However, Dr Busuttil confirmed that Malta will be benefiting substantially next year from the agency's increased budget. "This is why we worked so hard to double the agency's budget... because we want it to be more effective and help us stem the flow of illegal immigration."

Source





25 November, 2007

Attempted immigration deception by the NYT

By Ann Coulter

Here's a story that may not have been deemed "Fit to Print": In the six months that ended Sept. 25, The New York Times' daily circulation was down another 4.51 percent to about a million readers a day. The paper's Sunday circulation was down 7.59 percent to about 1.5 million readers. In short, the Times is dropping faster than Hillary in New Hampshire. (Meanwhile, the Drudge Report has more than 16 million readers every day.)

One can only hope that none of the Democratic presidential candidates are among the disaffected hordes lining up to cancel their Times subscriptions. The Times is so accustomed to lying about the news to prove that "most Americans" agree with the Times, that it seems poised to lead the Democrats -- and any Republicans stupid enough to believe the Times -- down a primrose path to their own destruction. So if you know a Democratic presidential candidate who doesn't currently read the Times, by all means order him a subscription.

On Sunday, Times readers learned that despite this year's historic revolt of normal Americans against amnesty for illegal aliens: "Some polls show that the majority of Americans agree with proposals backed by most Democrats in the Senate, as well as some Republicans, to establish a path to citizenship for immigrants here illegally." Was the reporter who wrote that sentence the Darfur bureau chief for the past year? By "some polls," I gather he means "a show of hands during a meeting of the Times editorial board" or "a quick backstage survey in the MSNBC greenroom."

As I believe Americans made resoundingly clear this year, the only "path to citizenship" they favor involves making an application from Norway, waiting a few years and then coming over when it's legal. Americans were so emphatic on this point that they forced a sitting president to withdraw his signature legislative accomplishment for his second term -- amnesty for illegal aliens, aka a "path to citizenship" for illegals.

This was the goal supported by the president's acolytes at the Fox News Channel as well as a nearly monolithic Democratic Party and its acolytes at ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, MTV, Oxygen TV, the Food Network, the Golf Channel, the Home Shopping Network, The in-house "Learn to Gamble" channel at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas and Comedy Central (unless that was just a sketch on the "Mind of (Carlos) Mencia").

But ordinary Americans had a different idea. Their idea was: Let's not reward law-breakers with the ultimate prize: U.S. citizenship. And the ordinary Americans won. The Times disregards all of that history to announce that it has secret polls showing that Americans support a "path to citizenship" for illegals after all! These polls are living in the shadows!

Only those "angriest on immigration," the Times said, are still using the various words related to immigration that liberals are trying to turn into new "N-words," such as, for example, "immigration." With an exhausting use of air quotes, the Times reports that: "The Republicans have railed against 'amnesty' and 'sanctuary cities.' They have promised to build a fence on the Mexican border to keep 'illegals' out." In liberal-speak, that sentence would read: "The Republicans have railed against 'puppies' and 'kittens.' They have promised to build a fence on the Mexican border to keep 'baby seals' out." (In my version, the sentence would read: "Believing New York Times 'polls,' Democrats irritate 'voters.'")

Half the English language is becoming the "N-word" as far as liberals are concerned. Words are always bad for liberals. Words allow people to understand what liberals are saying. According to the Times, all decent, cultured Americans cringe when politicians use foul words like "illegals" to describe illegals. Apparently, what most Americans are clamoring for is yet more automatic messages that begin, "Press '1' for English." That, at least, is the message the Times got from the stunning victory of grassroots over the elites on the immigration bill this year.

It is against my best interests to mention how utterly out of touch Times editors and reporters are with any Americans east of Central Park West and west of Riverside Drive. I enjoy watching the Democratic presidential candidates take clear, unequivocal positions in favor of driver's licenses for illegals and then denouncing those very positions a week later (after the real polls come in). Some people love watching the trees change color every fall. I enjoy watching the candidates' positions on immigration change.

But it is too much for any human to endure to read the Times' version of history in which "most Americans" agree with the Times on illegal immigration in the very year Americans punched back against illegal immigration so hard that the entire Washington establishment is still reeling. It's not like we have to go back to the Coolidge administration to get some sense of what Americans think about amnesty for illegals. (I mean "amnesty" for "illegals.") Using the Times' calculus, "most Americans" have also enthusiastically embraced soccer and the metric system. Read The New York Times, Democrats. Make my day.

Source



Laws are for suckers? Legal immigrants speak out

Radio host Hugh Hewitt interviewed columnist -- and legal immigrant to the United States -- Mark Steyn, and what Steyn said echoes the experience of my own legal-immigrant relatives:

MS: And if you talk to legal immigrants, they're the ones who are the most resentful of this whole illegal business, because we're the ones, we pay the huge fees to immigration lawyers, we filled in all the paperwork. I've stood in line at these dreary government offices to get these stupid cards and these stupid government numbers, to go through the whole process officially. And everyone whose done that is resentful to the idea that somehow if you just make it across the border, and you get here, you can stay here, and half the state governments in this country will do what they can to make your situation as painless as possible, and the public schools...I'll give you a small example of schools. If you're a legal immigrant, and you enroll your children in a local grade school, they want to know whether they've had all the shots, you know, for this and that.

HH: Sure. Vaccinations.

MS: If you're a legal immigrant, you have to then, you're faced with then getting the documentation out of whatever country you happen to have come from. And sometimes, that can be difficult, because they give them different things at different times, and the school nurse will give you a lot of harrassment. If you actually just say okay, scrub that, they're not legal immigrants, I want them redesignated as illegal immigrants, then you won't be asked for any paperwork. It's a lot easier. The problem at the moment is that it's a rational decision, coming into this country, to be an illegal immigrant. And that is the problem.

My question is, if the fact that lots of people break a law is a reason to get rid of it, why don't we get rid of the Drug War next? That would be OK with me. But it doesn't seem to be the way they think in Washington.

The problem with the current system -- and with the amnesty proposal -- is that it makes people who obey the law feel like suckers. That's a very destructive thing, socially. Whatever solution is offered is going to have to do better than that, or it's going to have unpleasant long-term consequences, whatever happens to immigration, legal or otherwise.

Source





24 November, 2007

Big day for Australia today

I have just gone and voted in Australia's Federal election. My local polling place was VERY well-staffed and well managed. I was in and out in 10 minutes -- unlike the way many Americans have had to line up for hours in their previous Federal elections. And because all votes are on paper, recounts are fairly easy and disputes about the results are rare.

We have separate ballot papers for the Senate and the lower house and the fact that the two ballot papers are very different in size means that it is almost impossible to get the two mixed up. Nonetheless there was a lady standing by the ballot boxes to see that everybody put their paper in the right box. Very good for absent-minded people like me!

I gave my Senate vote to Pauline, of course. Her policy of restricting Muslim immigration is the only sensible one for any Western nation, in my opinion.



Sixty-four African illegals drown

SIXTY-FOUR African migrants, including three children, drowned in the Gulf of Aden while trying to cross from Somalia to Yemen, it was reported overnight. The bodies were recovered from the sea by fishermen and the Yemeni coastguard after the migrants' boat overturned off the southeastern province of Chabwa, the official Saba news agency said. It said 25 of the would-be illegal immigrants managed to swim to shore. The agency, which did not give the nationality of the victims, said a total of 49 bodies were recovered from the spot where the vessel overturned and 15 others were found washed up on the coast.

At the start of November, 40 Somalis drowned after being forced overboard by people traffickers in the Gulf of Aden. They were part of a group of 120 who set out from the Somali port of Bosasso, the economic capital of Puntland, the semi-autonomous region in the north east of the country.

The UNHCR estimates that more than 20,000 people have made the perilous crossing of the Gulf of Aden to Yemen this year, with more than 439 deaths and another 489 people missing. Many of the migrants who attempt the journey are desperate to flee conflict and persecution in their home regions in Africa. The UN refugee agency announced on October 23 that up to 66 people drowned after being forced overboard in the same area.

Crossing the Gulf of Aden takes two days at best, and is made especially dangerous due to shark-infested waters, strong currents and inhumane conditions on poorly maintained vessels that are open to the elements.

Source



Australian Leftist leader would turn back illegals

It looks like the limpwristed approach to illegals that is common elsewhere will not be coming to Australia

KEVIN Rudd has taken a tough line on border security, warning that a Labor government will turn the boats back and deter asylum-seekers, using the threat of detention and the nation's close ties with Indonesia. In an interview with The Australian, the Opposition Leader advocated a layered approach to border security based on "effective laws, effective detention arrangements, effective deterrent posture vis-a-vis vessels approaching Australian waters".

Mr Rudd also said that a referendum on Aboriginal reconciliation, a separate Aboriginal treaty and a republican referendum would not occur in the first term of a Rudd Labor government, if at all. And he refused to give any commitment to a statutory bill of rights, saying Labor's only promise was to "consult the community" on the issue.

With the campaign closing amid Liberal exploitation of fears about Islam in Sydney's west and the arrival of 16 boatpeople from Indonesia off the West Australian coast, Mr Rudd promised a tough and integrated border-protection policy from Labor. This would mean close co-operation with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the Indonesian Government. Mr Rudd said Labor would take asylum-seekers who had been rescued from leaky boats to Christmas Island, would turn back seaworthy vessels containing such people on the high seas, and would not lift the current [much reduced] intake of African refugees.

"You'd turn them back," he said of boats approaching Australia, emphasising that Labor believed in an "orderly immigration system" enforced by deterrence. "You cannot have anything that is orderly if you allow people who do not have a lawful visa in this country to roam free," he said. "That's why you need a detention system. I know that's politically contentious, but one follows from the other. "Deterrence is effective through the detention system but also your preparedness to take appropriate action as the vessels approach Australian waters on the high seas."

Mr Rudd heads into the final two days of the campaign with an election-winning lead in the polls, although early figures from Newspoll and the latest Galaxy poll in News Limited newspapers give the Coalition some hope. Newspoll is detecting strong gains for the Coalition in Western Australia and a minor recovery in Queensland and Victoria, with full figures to be available in the final poll of the campaign exclusively in The Weekend Australian tomorrow. The Galaxy poll, which surveyed almost 1200 people on Tuesday and Wednesday, had Labor and the Coalition equal on 42.5 per cent of the primary vote. Taking into account preference flows, this gives Labor a lead of 52per cent to 48 per cent - the Government's best result this year. Such a swing, if uniform across the country, would deliver Labor 15 seats, one short of the 16 it needs to form government. An ACNielsen poll in Fairfax newspapers gives Labor a two-party-preferred lead of 57 per cent to 43 per cent, which would deliver a landslide victory.

Source





23 November, 2007

British crackdown

Bradford bosses face hefty fines or jail if they knowingly take on illegal workers in the latest crackdown on rogue employees. Home Office minister Liam Byrne today announced that from February a new system of civil penalties will come into force under which employers who negligently hire illegal workers will face a maximum fine of 10,000 pounds for each illegal worker found at a business. And if employers are found to have knowingly hired illegal workers they could incur an unlimited fine and be sent to prison.

Mr Byrne was speaking only hours after three Bradford restaurants were raided by the Borders and Immigration Agency. One arrest was made at the Saffron restaurant in Leeds Road. Officers also targeted Omar Khan's in Little Horton Lane and Greengates Balti. No illegal workers were found at either premises.

The Government's announcement comes after a consultation with business across the country and forms the biggest shake-up in immigration for 40 years. Mr Byrne said: "Our attack on illegal working therefore attacks the root cause of illegal immigration into Britain." A national advertising campaign will be mounted to ensure everyone is aware of the new rules.

But Omar Khan, owner of Omar Khan's restaurant, criticised the way immigration officers carried out the raid on his premises. He said: "I do not have any issues with immigration checking businesses for illegal workers but there must be a better way of doing it. "They stormed into the restaurant, barricaded the doors filming with video cameras. My staff were made to feel like common criminals. It certainly doesn't look good to my customers when uniformed officers storm in and drag all my staff out of the kitchen and off the floor area. "One poor chap was lucky he had a copy of his passport on him because they did not seem to believe him - it was very intimidating. The whole place looked like a murder scene or something with all the officers there and the cameras. "I have no problem with them coming to my restaurant but there must be better, more discreet ways of dealing with the situation."

Chris Hudson, regional director of the Border and Immigration Agency, said teams would continue to visit businesses across the region to make sure they are not breaking the law.

Source



S.F. to issue ID cards to illegal immigrants

San Francisco will begin issuing municipal identification cards to illegal immigrants next year, becoming the second city in the country to create such a program in the wake of stalled immigration reform efforts in Washington. The board of supervisors Tuesday gave the final OK needed to create the ID card program, effectively legitimizing the city's estimated 40,000 illegal immigrants. The cards will be available to anyone living in the city next August and used as proof of identity when it comes to most facets of city business, from library service to police stops. Although immigrants are the prime target for the ID program, the cards will be available to anyone who wants them.

The program becomes the most significant piece in San Francisco's efforts to offer a safe haven for illegal immigrants, which includes prohibiting city employees and police from asking anyone about their immigration status. Many other cities in the Bay Area, including San Jose, offer some of those safe-haven protections to immigrants.

Developing the program took on new urgency for San Francisco leaders this summer after Congress' inability to enact immigration reform and as the Bush administration made moves to more stringently enforce current immigration laws. "This will recognize contributions of people who are part of the community," said Supervisor Tom Ammiano, who led the push for the cards. The full extent of how the cards can be used remains to be hashed out, but San Francisco leaders are trying to develop a plan that would incorporate both an identification card and public transportation pass. The cards - complete with cardholders' addresses and photos - would cost $15 for adults and $5 for youths. Discounts will be offered to those considered low-income.

Ammiano estimates the program will cost San Francisco about $500,000, most of that expected during the program's first year. But some officials predict it could cost as much as $3 million. "If people have to live in the shadows, it affects you, me and everyone," Ammiano said, adding leaders are also working with banks so the IDs could be used to open checking and savings accounts. He said the cards also will offer some solace to illegal immigrants who have shied away from reporting crimes committed against them for fear of being found out.

The move didn't surprise Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Washington D.C.-based Federation for American Immigration Reform, an organization calling for tighter border enforcement. "It's San Francisco being San Francisco," said Mehlman, noting that the move is far different from a controversial - and now-scrapped - plan by New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer to offer driver's license to illegal immigrants. Mehlman likened San Francisco's cards to "high school identification cards" that can't be used outside of the city and "it seems like an act of defiance" because supervisors "don't support stepped-up enforcement."

Ammiano got the idea for the cards from New Haven, Conn., where leaders began to talk about a city ID card for residents - specifically illegal immigrants - around summer 2005. At the time, the city of roughly 127,000 was experiencing some growing pains as its illegal immigrant population grew to about 15,000.

Robbers called illegal immigrants, who routinely carry cash because they don't have bank accounts, "walking ATMs," said Kica Matos, New Haven's community services director. New Haven began issuing cards July 24 with a $236,000 grant, expecting to hand out 5,000 cards during the first 12 months. But in less than four months, leaders have nearly surpassed their estimates, issuing 4,670 cards as of Monday, Matos said.

Ammiano said his plan doesn't only acknowledge illegal immigrants, but gives them a voice to speak up. When it comes to basic human rights, he said, "it's not a good idea to keep your head in the sand."

Source





22 November, 2007

Britain: New wave of immigration blamed for doubling of hepatitis B cases

Soaring rates of infection by hepatitis B, fuelled by large-scale immigration, pose a serious health threat that is not being addressed properly, a report has said. The Hepatitis B Foundation estimates that the numbers infected by the disease in Britain have almost doubled in the past five years, to 326,000. More than half of these people are immigrants from Africa, Asia, Russia and the new EU nations. Hepatitis B has few symptoms. If untreated it can lead to serious liver disease including liver cancer, and death, decades after infection. World-wide, 500,000 to 700,000 people die every year as a result of infection by the virus.

Britain, unlike 85 per cent of countries, does not have the universal vaccination against hepatitis B that is recommended by the World Health Organisation. Instead, the policy is to vaccinate selectively, attempting to prevent the spread of the disease from mothers to children, for example.

The report cautions that growing levels of undetected infections are a health time bomb that needs to be defused urgently. It calls on the Government to develop a strategy for dealing with the problem. "Much more needs to be done," the report says. "There is a serious risk that in the future, while chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection declines in countries which have implemented universal vaccination, the UK - that great pioneer of public health - will continue to harbour an ever-increas-ing pool of chronic HBV infection."

Damian Green, the Conservative immigration spokesman, said: "This is an alarming report and it is reasonable to expect from the Government an urgent response about testing those people coming into the country."

Hepatitis B is transmitted in many of the same ways as HIV - through sex, shared needles, blood, from mother to baby at birth, or from person to person by contact with skin grazes. The difference is that hepatitis B is ten times as easy to transmit as HIV.

David Mutimer, a reader in medicine at the University of Birmingham, who treats liver disease at Queen Elizabeth Hospital in the city, said: "It's pretty obvious that the number of patients is increasing exponentially year on year and it is quite clear the effect that migration is having on the numbers. The report doesn't come to definite conclusions about what needs to be done, but my opinion is that universal vaccination is the best answer."

Since most cases of infection are unknown, even to the individuals concerned, the report by the Hepatitis B Foundation, a charity that raises awareness of the disease, estimates the numbers by using the prevalence rate in each country and multiplying that by the numbers of people from that country now living in Britain. By working through all the national groups, the report comes up with a total of 326,000 cases in Britain, almost double the 180,000 estimated by Sir Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer, in his 2002 report Getting Ahead of the Curve.

The 326,000 figure is almost certainly an underestimate because only countries that have contributed more than 60,000 people to the population were included. The numbers originating from each country came from the Labour Force Survey and are themselves probably underestimates.

Eddie Chan, the director of the Chinese National Healthy Living Centre, said: "With a surge of migration from countries with a high HBV prevalence rate we are not surprised by these figures. Britain needs migrant workers and in return Britain must set in place the infrastructure to deal with the changing health demographics."

The report calls for a public education campaign, a reappraisal of the vaccination policy, action to identify and treat those who are infected and a mapping exercise to find how services for HBV infection are distributed across the country.

The Department of Health responded to the report by saying that Britain had one of the lowest prevalence rates of hepatitis B in the world and that the incidence of acute infection remained relatively stable and low. A range of measures was in place to control it. - A report in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported last month that since immunisation against HBV was introduced in the US in the 1980s, cases had fallen by 80.1 per cent and deaths by 80.2 per cent.

Source



Giuliani tough on illegal immigration

The Rudy Giuliani campaign is distributing this endorsement from a fellow New Yorker, Republican Congressman Peter King:

"As Chairman for the Homeland Security Committee in the last Congress and as Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Committee in this Congress it's obvious to me that immigration, illegal immigration, is not just a social issue or an economic issue, it's a national security issue, it's a homeland security issue and I strongly agree that Rudy Giuliani is the best man for that job.

"In fact, I intended today's news conference to be about Rudy and why I think he is the best for the job, but having seen some of the statements put out, I guess just last night and today by Governor Romney, to me his statements are so off the mark and are not backed up by facts.

"For instance, when he talks about how he authorized the state troopers to work with the federal government to stop illegal immigration, the fact is that plan never even went into effect. And if we're going to confront illegal immigration we need more than having plans that are never implemented and that are actually withdrawn before they ever get started.

"Again, the fact that there were the sanctuary cities in Massachusetts that . actually received increased aid when Governor Romney was the governor of Massachusetts , again speaks volumes. And this is all after September 11th, this is well after we realized the inherent problems that go with illegal immigration as they relate to homeland security.

"So clearly Governor Romney's record not only doesn't match what he's claiming, in many ways it's the opposite. And of course we go back to the whole issue of having . workers at his home being illegal immigrants.

"I am convinced that Rudy Giuliani has the plan, has the guts to stop illegal immigration. It would be from day one of his administration, a major, major priority. "As soon as the whole issue with the driver's licenses, for instance, for illegal immigrants broke Rudy was on the phone with me. I've introduced legislation - he's a huge supporter of it - to prevent states from doing that. And that's just one recent example.

"But there's no doubt in my mind at all that where it requires fencing along the border, where it requires increased border patrol agents, more detention facilities, going after employers who hire illegal immigrants, across the board Rudy Giuliani is going to stop illegal immigration.

"And for those who say it can't be done, I was there in New York when people said . back in 1992 and 1993 that nobody could turn crime around, nobody could turn the City around.

"The fact is murders went down dramatically, overall crime rate went down dramatically. New York City is in many ways a totally new city because of the leadership that Rudy Giuliani gave. He did the impossible there, he's also going to do that as far as stopping illegal immigration when he becomes President. And it's unfortunate that Governor Romney, rather than discuss the relative merits of each other's plans, has chosen to misrepresent his own record in an attempt to tarnish Rudy's record."

Source





21 November, 2007

Britain: Failed asylum seekers 'not being deported'

The number of failed asylum seekers being removed from the country has fallen to a five-year low, new figures have shown. Despite promises to clear a backlog of up to 285,000 foreign nationals, fewer than 1,000 were deported in September. At the same time, the number of asylum seekers arriving in the country was double that figure. In the three months to September, there were 3,120 removals - an 18 per cent fall on last year and the lowest number since the second quarter of 2002.

David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: "This is another sign that the Government's tough talk on immigration and asylum is not matched by effective action. "The fall in the number of removals means the Government is failing completely to make inroads into the backlog of half a million people who have no right to be in this country."

The Government claimed the reason for the drop was that officials were concentrating on deporting foreign criminals and illegal workers. Liam Byrne, the Immigration Minister, said overall deportations were running at around 45,000 for the year. But two years ago, ministers said they would remove more failed asylum seekers than there were unfounded new applications. This so-called ''tipping point" target has now effectively been abandoned, despite being a priority for Tony Blair, the previous prime minister.

Mr Byrne said: ''The first people we should send home are those who break British laws. ''We're removing record numbers of foreign criminals including illegal workers who risk undercutting UK wages." The Government says it will deport 4,000 foreign national prisoners this year.

Overall asylum applications are running at the lowest level for at least a decade, though they went up in the third quarter of this year. The total is expected to be around 20,000 by the end of the year - the lowest since the early 1990s.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch, said: "Removals are the lowest they have been for years and fall far short of the Government's target. "The pool of failed asylum seekers, already about a quarter of a million, will have grown by about 2,500 so far this year." He added: "This failure to remove undermines the integrity of the whole system."

Separate figures showed that east Europeans continue to pour into the country looking for jobs. Since May 2004 when eight former Soviet bloc countries joined the EU, three quarters of a million people have registered to work. Many thousands more who do not need to register, such as the self-employed, have almost certainly pushed the total above one million. But it is impossible to say how many have remained in the country for any length of time. Most of the east Europeans say they are only coming for a short period, such as three months. But a growing number are claiming child benefit and receiving tax credits. Nearly 80,000 have been approved for child benefit payments and 45,000 for tax credits. This is three times the number at the end of 2006 and is an indication that many east Europeans - mainly Poles - are staying on.

Once an EU migrant has been working here for 12 months, they are entitled to the same level of support as any British citizen. Child benefit is worth 18.10 pounds a week for the oldest child and 12.10 each of the others. British taxpayers are spending more than 1million a month in child benefit to the families of youngsters who live in the former Soviet bloc countries. Tax credits - which are effectively a benefit as well - are also generous. A worker with two children earning 165 pounds for a 30 hour week can claim credits worth many thousands of pounds a year. These benefits are paid to a worker in Britain even if his family stays at home, provided he has paid taxes.

Source



Official slur on immigration control group

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ from Las Vegas writes:

A number of calls and e-mails poured in last week about what purports to be Question 57 on the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department application form, asking "Have you, your spouse, any members of your family, or any members of your spouse's family ever been associated with gangs or subversive groups (Minutemen, Aryan Brotherhood, etc.)?"

The concern, of course, is that Jim Gilchrist's Minutemen have taken considerable pains to debunk the claims of radical immigration scofflaws that the Minutemen are a bunch of trigger-happy slope-brows, anxious to run down to the border and shoot themselves a Mexican. The Minutemen would like to see our immigration laws enforced, and argue that they accomplish this by calling in appropriate law enforcement authorities when they see the law being broken.

If Metro were refusing to hire people who cooperate with law enforcement agents and pitch in to help enforce the immigration laws -- lumping them in with racist prison gangs -- yet had no compunctions about hiring members of any number of radical "Aztlan" groups with long Hispanic names that actually oppose enforcement of the immigration laws, that would be a concern.

In fact, Metro spokesmen called me back Wednesday to assure me that -- although that question once appeared on a document Metro calls a "personal history questionnaire" -- the language naming those specific groups was removed in 2005, and was accessible on the department's Web site only because a link to the out-of-date form was mistakenly left active.

As late as Friday, a Metro spokesman could not confirm whether the "Minuteman" group referred to in the pre-2005 form was Jim Gilchrist's current group, or some earlier outfit with the same name.

"Our position as an agency is we don't target any group, any individual organization," says Metro personnel Lt. Charles Hank. "We evaluate everyone on their background and their merit; if they've done something illegal -- no matter whether they represented themselves by their name or by their organization -- they may not qualify" to work for Metro

Source





20 November, 2007

Worldwide disquiet about immigration

In the past three years, as Britain has experienced the largest wave of immigrants in its history, opinion polls have shown a big increase in the number of people who are alarmed about immigration. The Conservative Party accordingly pledges to cut migrant numbers. Rattled, the Labour Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, talks of "British jobs for British workers" - a slogan once linked to the far-right British National Party. The parties look to be vying with each other to build Fortress Britain. Yet it has not happened. Brown promises tighter migration quotas and better border control to reduce illegal immigration, but neither will dramatically affect numbers. The Conservatives struggle to specify what categories of immigrants they would cut.

It is not just Britain. Three in four Americans say they want more controls on immigration, the latest Pew Global Attitudes Survey shows. Yet neither main party in the US plans to seriously wind back legal immigration: the US continues to take a million migrants a year.

The Pew Research Centre polled 45,000 people in 47 rich and poor countries and found that in 44 of them, majorities believed "we should restrict and control entry of people into our country more than we do now".

Nevertheless, Spain, where 77 per cent of people want more controls, is running a huge immigration program, with 4 million newcomers since 1996. Immigration to Italy is even larger - 700,000 a year - and 87 per cent of people want more controls. Yet the Prime Minister, Romano Prodi, has urged Italians to embrace the first mass immigration in their history.

What is going on? Are politicians out of step with the public, and is a reversal of policy just a matter of time? Perhaps, but I doubt it. Immigration is a fact of modern life and, despite periods of public unease, almost certain to remain so. That unease is hardly new. Arthur Calwell, the architect of Australia's postwar immigration program, was terrified of a backlash to his policy. Polls in the 1960s regularly showed that eight in 10 Britons thought too many black people were entering the country.

If governments have dared defy public opinion, it is not out of brotherly love for foreigners, but for hard-nosed economic reasons: to run factories and farms, get streets swept. Since the factories closed in the 1970s and '80s, Europe has struggled to integrate a mass of unskilled migrant workers and their children, but even as it debates the perceived failures of integration the clamour for new workers in new industries resumes.

Romanians, whose 500,000-strong presence in Italy is provoking huge hostility, are vital to the country's agriculture and aged-care sectors. Without foreign doctors and nurses, the former prime minister Tony Blair once said, the National Health Service could not run.

Could this new mobility of global workers be stopped? Yes, but probably not while the economy is good. Many European countries are also experiencing high levels of emigration. Last year Holland took 100,000 people but lost 130,000, while 200,000 Britons left last year, the highest figure in its postwar history. Many of the leavers are skilled and must be replaced. Yet they are far less likely than earlier migrants to stay in their adopted countries. At least half the 400,000 Poles who have come to Britain in recent years are expected to go home.

It would be wrong to be utopian. Immigration comes with costs, most of all to immigrants, but also to the poorer communities among whom many settle. There is evidence immigration is driving down low-skilled wages in Britain. Working-class concerns that it frays old social bonds should not be simply dismissed as racism.

Understandably, governments will want to manage migration in hard economic times or to ease public concern. They also have the right to make demands of migrants, such as language learning, which most want to do anyway. As the Dutch sociologist Paul Scheffer says, if you demand nothing of migrants, "the veiled message is: you will never be part of this society". However, "when you make demands of newcomers, the receiving society also undertakes an obligation".

Source



Imigration a crucial issue for candidates

America's rugged, porous southern border has come to symbolize a broken immigration system, spawning a political debate especially fraught with perils. Nowhere is that more evident than in the presidential primary races. The highly charged immigration issues have tripped up veteran politicians such as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who recently appeared to waffle on whether to grant noncitizens driver's licenses, and Sen. John McCain, who's backed away from a long legislative history advocating a path to citizenship for the estimated 12 million to 15 million people who've slipped over the border or overstayed their visas.

Pundits dub the immigration issue "a minefield," "a new third rail," as well as a "megaissue" because of its complexity and the strong emotions it evokes. Even the language used - "undocumented worker" versus "illegal immigrant" - has become a potentially volatile touchstone. While immigration still comes in behind the war in Iraq, the economy, and healthcare issues when voters are polled about their concerns, it now beats out terrorism. "Even more important, it's the high-intensity issue on both sides, and in this [primary race], high-intensity minorities are more important than majorities," says John Zogby, president and CEO of Zogby International, a polling firm. "It's also the ultimate wedge issue, because it's a zero-sum game."

In general, the Democrats support shoring up the border, having tougher enforcement in the workplace, and creating a way for "undocumented workers" to earn citizenship. Their mantra is "comprehensive reform." For Republicans, it's "tough enforcement": All support more border security and tough workplace enforcement, and most are adamantly opposed to creating any kind of "amnesty" for "illegal aliens." The exception is Senator McCain. While he has backed off stands openly advocating a path to citizenship, he still says it's important to "recognize the importance of assimilation of our immigrant population," according to his website.

Fault lines for each party

Within those fairly clear stances, there are political fault lines for both parties. For Republicans, the biggest problem lies in alienating the fast-growing block of Hispanic voters. That presents a serious challenge not just to the candidates, but to the long-term prospects of the GOP, most political analysts say.

The reason is that more Hispanics are voting. In 1992, Hispanics made up 4 percent of voters in the presidential election, according to an analysis of the data by Mr. Zogby. In 1996, it was 5 percent; in 2000, 6 percent. By 2004, Latinos made up 8-1/2 percent of voters. And many of them are in swing states such as Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and Florida that President Bush won - some just barely - in 2004. "The Republicans are losing one of the great swing votes in American politics - Hispanics and Latinos," says Larry Sabato, a political analyst at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. "They're taking great offense at the Tom Tancredos of the world."

The presidential platform of Representative Tancredo (R) of Colorado says, "I am 100 percent opposed to amnesty.. I will secure our borders so illegal aliens do not come and I will eliminate benefits and job prospects so they do not stay." He also routinely ties the broken immigration system to the terrorist threat.

For many Hispanic voters, such adamant opposition to illegal immigration translates into opposition to Latinos in general. That became clear to them in the spring of 2006: Many Republicans abandoned Mr. Bush's efforts at comprehensive reform, and the House instead passed a bill that made it a felony to be an illegal immigrant and a felony to help one. That prompted mass demonstrations by legal and illegal immigrants and played a key role in that fall's election, which gave control of Congress to the Democrats. A recent report called "Hispanics Rising" done by NDN, a progressive Democrat-leaning think tank, notes there was "a dramatic reversal" of Hispanic voting patterns as a result. In 2004, 40 percent of Hispanics voted Republican, according to exit polls cited by NDN. In 2006, only 30 percent pulled the lever for the GOP. "This has been a catastrophic issue for the Republican Party because they've made a massive investment in something that's gotten them nothing," says Simon Rosenberg of NDN.

That trend also has some Republicans worried. "Republicans have given Democrats a way to take a free ride: Too many people in my party have chosen to demagogue on immigration, and that makes it easy for Democrats to say, 'We'd like to do better,' " says Tamar Jacoby, a political analyst at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank.

Supporters of taking a tough stance on illegal immigration disagree. Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a Washington-based advocacy group, argues that Hispanics still make up a relatively small percentage of the voting population. There are enough moderates angered by illegal immigration in both parties to offset the Hispanic vote, he says.

For proof, he points to New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's proposal to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. With 72 percent of New Yorkers opposed, he withdrew the idea last week - but not before it tripped up Senator Clinton on the campaign trail when she, in Mr. Mehlman's words, "tried to dance" around the issue by saying that it was a "sound idea" but that she opposed it. "It's a tougher issue for Democrats because to get the nomination you have to go farther out to the left," says Mehlman. "That's probably the only sector of the American public that doesn't want to see meaningful enforcement."

Therein likes the immigration pitfall for Democrats. Many Democrat voters, including blue-collar workers and some African-Americans, blame illegal immigration for driving down wages and increasing worker exploitation. They, too, want to see strict workplace enforcement and tighter border security. "Republicans are ready to pounce on Democrats for being soft and weak on illegals," says Zogby.

Polls show the majority of Americans support finding a way to allow the estimated 12 million to 15 million illegal immigrants to earn citizenship. But those poll outcomes depend very much on how the question is asked. "If you put the stress on the fact that these people are here illegally, that colors everything else. People say, 'They've already broken the law; they can't be rewarded for that,' " says Mr. Sabato, the University of Virginia political analyst. "But if you start out by saying, 'Should we create a path for citizenship for those that are here trying to build better lives for themselves and their families?' Then that brings out the compassionate side of the American public."

Since this is such an emotional, hot-button issue, voters can expect most of the main presidential candidates to stick very close to their scripted positions - and avoid getting entangled in specifics. "That's the dance we're going to see all the way through 2008," says Tom Patterson, a political analyst at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government in Cambridge, Mass. "If a Democrat does get elected, there will be a serious effort to come back to something that, ironically, won't be too different from what President Bush proposed [in 2006]."

Source





19 November, 2007

Japan cracks down

Given the famous safety of life in Japan, a desire to look carefully at people from less law-abiding countries would be perfectly rational

Japan has tried hard in recent years to shake its image as an overly insular society and offer a warmer welcome to foreign investors and tourists. But the country is about to impose strict immigration controls that many fear could deter visitors and discourage businesses from locating here. On Tuesday, Japan will put in place one of the toughest systems in the developed world for monitoring foreign visitors. Modeled on the United States' controversial U.S.-Visit program, it will require foreign citizens to be fingerprinted, photographed and questioned every time they enter Japan.

The screening will extend even to Japan's 2.1 million foreign residents, many of whom fear they will soon face clogged immigration lines whenever they enter the country. People exempted from the checks include children under 16, diplomats and "special permanent residents," a euphemism for Koreans and other Asians brought to Japan as slave laborers during World War II and their descendants.

The authorities say such thorough screening is needed to protect Japan from attacks by foreign terrorists, which many fear here because of Japan's support for the United States in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the measures, part of an immigration law enacted last year, have been criticized by civil rights groups and foreign residents' associations as too sweeping and unnecessarily burdensome to foreigners. They note that the only significant terrorist attack in Japan in recent decades was carried out by a domestic religious sect, which released sarin nerve gas in the Tokyo subway in 1995, killing 12 people.

Some of the most vocal critics have been among foreign business leaders, who say the screening could hurt Japan's standing as an Asian business center, especially if it is inefficiently carried out, leading to long waits at airports. Business groups here warn that such delays could make Japan less attractive than rival commercial hubs like Hong Kong and Singapore, where entry procedures are much easier.

The business groups also contend that the screening runs counter to recent efforts by the government to attract more foreign investment and tourism. "If businessmen based here have to line up for two hours every time they come back from traveling, it will be a disaster," said Jakob Edberg, policy director in the Tokyo office of the European Business Council. "This will affect real business decisions, like whether to base here."...

However, some civil rights groups worry that the government is using terrorism to mask a deeper, xenophobic motive behind the new measures. They say that within Japan, the government has justified the screening as an anticrime measure, playing to widely held fears that an influx of foreigners is threatening Japan's safe streets. These groups also note that fingerprinting of foreigners is not new here. Until fairly recently, all foreign residents were routinely fingerprinted. That practice was phased out after years of protest by foreign residents and civil rights groups.

"Terrorism looks like an excuse to revive to the old system for monitoring foreigners," said Sonoko Kawakami at Amnesty International in Japan. "We worry that the real point of these measures is just to keep foreigners out of Japan." ....

Only the Tokyo area's main international airport at Narita has agreed to set aside lines for foreign residents. Others, including the nation's second-largest airport, Kansai International near Osaka, will force these residents to line up with other foreigners, who even before the new screening often waited an hour or more to pass through immigration.

Source



Driver's licenses for migrants? Not in Mexico

The question of whether to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants ignited a national debate in the United States. But in Mexico, the largest source of U.S. immigrants, there's no question: Here, you must be a legal resident to get a driver's license. All of Mexico's 31 states, along with Mexico City, require foreigners to present a valid visa if they want a driver's license, according to a survey of states by The Arizona Republic. "When it comes to foreigners, we're a little more strict here," said Alejandro Ru¡z, director of education at the Mexican Automobile Association

Immigrant drivers zoomed into the national spotlight after presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton said a move by the New York governor to give licenses to illegal immigrants "makes a lot of sense" during an Oct. 30 debate. On Wednesday, Clinton backed off that plan. Proponents said the plan would have made the roads safer by ensuring that drivers are trained and insured, but the ensuing public outcry forced Gov. Eliot Spitzer to abandon the effort Wednesday. U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., planned to file a bill this week that would bar states from any future attempts to give licenses to illegal immigrants.

Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington allow drivers to get licenses without proving they are legal residents, according to the National Immigration Law Center. Most other states, including Arizona, require applicants to prove they are citizens or legal residents. Mexicans make up the bulk of illegal immigrants in the United States, accounting for an estimated 6 million of the 11.5 million undocumented residents as of March 2005, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

Mexico's Foreign Relations Secretariat declined to comment on the controversy this week, but the Mexican government has fought U.S. restrictions on licenses in the past. In 2004, the former Mexican consul in New York, Arturo Sarukhan, called such rules "a policy without a purpose" during a hearing in the New York State Assembly. Sarukhan is now the Mexican ambassador in Washington.

Yet, licensing offices in all of Mexico's 31 states, along with the Federal District, where Mexico City is located, said they require applicants to prove their citizenship, preferably by showing a federal voter-registration card issued by the Federal Elections Institute. Of those, 28 states and the Federal District said they would issue licenses to foreigners only if they present valid FM-2 or FM-3 residency visas. The central Mexican states of Morelos, Puebla and Guerrero are more lenient. Foreigners there can get a driver's license with a valid tourist visa, or FMT. Tourist visas are issued by federal immigration agents at airports and border crossing points. Foreign tourists who are in Mexico temporarily can also drive using their foreign licenses, states said. Most U.S. states, including Arizona, have a similar exemption for temporary visitors.

Mexican officials said the application rules are strictly enforced, especially in southern states that have a problem with illegal immigrants from Central America. "Last week a man came here (with a tourist visa) and said he was working as a deliveryman," said Denia Gurgua, manager of the driver's license office in Tuxtla Guti‚rrez, the capital of the southern state of Chiapas. She said she denied him a license because he did not have a visa to work in Mexico. "Our constitution has certain restrictions for foreigners," she said.

U.S. proponents of tougher restrictions worry that having a driver's license helps legitimize illegal immigrants, making it harder to detect and remove them. "The fact that all 31 states in Mexico would have such a common-sense position . . . shows to me a certain hypocrisy on the part of the Mexican government, because they are constantly criticizing those of us in Congress who want immigration laws to be tougher up here," said King of New York.

But immigrant advocates says the two countries don't compare. U.S. states are trying to protect other motorists from millions of illegal immigrants who are already driving, said Tyler Moran, an expert on driver's licenses at the National Immigration Law Center. Mexico's pool of foreign residents is much smaller, about 492,000 people in a country of 105 million, according to the 2000 census. "It may be a bit like comparing apples and oranges," Moran said. "The (U.S. states) are dealing in reality, and it's better public policy to have people actually have licenses, have identification, have insurance than not."

Source





18 November, 2007

New Zealand doesn't want fatties

A British woman planning to start a new life with her husband in New Zealand has been banned from entering the country - because she is too fat. Rowan Trezise, 33, has been left behind in England while her husband Richie, 35, has already made the move down under leaving her desperately trying to lose weight. When the couple first tried to gain entry to the country they were told that they were both overweight and were a potential burden on the health care system.



Mr Trezise managed to shed two inches from his sizeable waistline to fulfil criteria set out as part of his visa application to work as a technician in the country. His wife however has had no such luck and faces a desperate battle to shed the pounds before Christmas, at which point the couple say they will abandon their overseas plans. New Zealand officials assess people's weight using Body Mass Index which measures fat by comparing the height and weight of an individual.

Mr Trezise, a submarine cable specialist and former member of the army said his BMI was measured at 42 making him well over the limit of 25 which is regarded as overweight. "My doctor laughed at me. He said he'd never seen anything more ridiculous in his whole life," he said. "He said not every overweight person is unhealthy or unfit. The idea was that we were going to change our lifestyle totally and get outdoors and on mountain bikes and all sorts of activities."

Robyn Toomath, a spokesman for New Zealand's Fight the Obesity Epidemic and an endocrinologist said that obese people should not be victimised, but agreed with the restrictions. "The immigration department can't afford to import people who are going to be a significant drain on our health resources. "You can see the logic in assessing if there is a significant health cost associated with this individual and that would be a reason for them not coming in."

While the New Zealand Immigration Service could not say how many people had been refused entry on similar grounds, the Emigrate New Zealand website revealed that many people had been banned for being obese.

Source



Employer-sanctions law faces federal test today

As Arizona's employer-sanctions law goes under the legal microscope today, it is attracting a national spotlight for its potential effects on jobs, workers and policies nationwide. "If it passes federal muster here, it'll be coming to a state legislature near you," said Farrell Quinlan, who represents a coalition of business groups working to make sure the law gets stopped in court. The hearing begins at 10:30 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Neil Wake in the downtown Phoenix federal courthouse. Late Tuesday, court officials scheduled the hearing for a larger courtroom to accommodate what is expected to be a big crowd.

A key issue in the case is whether Arizona is within its constitutional limits to use the state's business licenses as the way to punish any employer found to have knowingly hired illegal workers. Arizona is in the vanguard of states trying to curb illegal immigration by shutting off the job magnet they believe entices millions to enter the country illegally. Georgia and Oklahoma have similar laws targeting employers.

Arizona's law is slated to take effect Jan. 1. It calls for up to a 10-day suspension of a business' state-issued licenses for the first violation of having "knowingly" hired an illegal worker. A second offense would require revocation of those licenses.

The case is being closely watched by groups such as the National Conference of State Legislatures, which has added a discussion of the sanctions law to the agenda of its fall meeting to be held later this month in Phoenix.

Today's proceedings should give panelists plenty to talk about. "States are trying to test their boundaries because this is a gray area between federal and state law," said Ann Morse, a program director at the legislative group. "The immigration issue has just skyrocketed. The number of bills introduced (in legislatures) this year has doubled, and that had doubled over the year before."

A report compiled by the legislatures group found that immigration legislation was introduced in each of the 50 states this year, for a total of 1,404 bills. Of them, 182 survived to become law, including Arizona's House Bill 2779. Most business groups opposed to the law make the same argument that underpins their lawsuit against the state: The law is unconstitutional because it calls for the state to intrude into employment law, which is a federal responsibility. State attorneys have argued in briefs filed in advance of today's hearing that federal law clearly gives states authority to regulate businesses through the licensing process.

The outcome, expected next month, is likely to touch off national repercussions. If the law is upheld, it could set off a wave of similar bills in other states. It could even get a divided Congress to act, said Hector Chichoni, an immigration and employment attorney who practices out of Miami, Fla., and objects to the Arizona law. "I think Congress will hurry up and enact some law to stop pandemonium in other states," he said. If the law is struck down, there would be "relief" among many employers and immigrant groups, he predicted. But whatever the outcome, it's likely to be appealed by the losing party, leading to the prospect of a protracted legal battle and continued debate here and nationally over how to cut illegal immigration.

The bill's prime sponsor, state Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, tried for years to enact sanctions legislation. It passed easily this year amid growing public frustration with illegal immigration, although some lawmakers have since said they regret their votes in favor of it. Gov. Janet Napolitano signed the bill into law on July 2, even as she expressed reservations about some of its provisions. Business groups sued 11 days later.

Wake, appointed to the federal bench by President Bush, has promised a ruling on the case before the law's Jan. 1 effective date. The case may mark the first time the merits of a sanctions law has been taken before a federal court, said Mark Kirkorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Policy, which backs a strong enforcement-first approach to the nation's immigration problems. And a verdict in the case could break through the sound barrier that often blocks Washington, D.C., from paying attention to what's happening west of the Potomac, he said. In his view, the legal debate over sanctions laws hasn't drawn much attention. For example, earlier this month a federal judge in Oklahoma rejected a request for an injunction against that state's immigration law, which includes employer sanctions. The action drew little notice in Washington, he said. Oklahoma's law took effect on Nov. 1, although the challenge to the law's merits - brought by Latino groups and clergy - is continuing.

Source





17 November, 2007

Republicans winning new citizens for 2008 vote

Minutes after taking the Pledge of Allegiance, new American citizens are urged to register as voters by Democratic activists who see them as natural party supporters who could hold the key to the 2008 election. But with increasing illegal immigration threatening the economy and security of the United States, many legal immigrants anxious to uphold the laws of their adopted country are moving towards the more hard-line immigration stance of Republicans.

Even in California's Democratic-controlled San Diego, sizeable numbers of America's newly-minted potential voters said that illegal immigrants should be penalised rather than given an easy route to citizenship as most Democrats advocate. "For a long time, immigration was OK," said Sarah Wright, 49, a seamstress from Mexico who arrived in the US legally in 1986. "But now, no more. A lot of really bad people come from Mexico and commit crimes. "People are coming in and having two, three, four babies and going on welfare. Some are making money here and spending it back in Mexico. "That's not right. They should go back to Mexico and get a permit."

Mrs Wright, whose American-born husband Ed served in the US Navy, was one of 1,591 people from 89 countries who became citizens at a ceremony in San Diego's Golden Hall on Tuesday. Nearly two thirds of them were from Mexico, whose border is just 17 miles from the city. During the 40-minute ceremony, performed by a judge, the new citizens waved American flags, sang "America the Beautiful" and raised their rights hands as they repeated the oath to "abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty" of another nation.

More here



Italy, Denmark, Switzerland . . . all around us we are having to deal with the consequences of immigration

Below is about as far as a British mainstream newspaper can go at the moment. It's improving!

I pity the poor immigrant," wrote Bob Dylan, "Who wishes he would have stayed home/ Who uses all his power to do evil/ But in the end is always left so alone." The minstrel-poet from Minnesota was chronicling attitudes a generation ago, but his words seem especially apposite today.

Immigration is toxic now in most of the developed world. In Britain, Gordon Brown's Government seems eager to test to destruction its insistence that tolerance is the essential facet of what it means to be British. The incomparable bungling that resulted in illegal immigrants being hired among other things to police border security would surely be parody if it were not prosaic reality. It certainly suggested a rather new take on Mr Brown's famous promise of "British jobs for British workers" a couple of months back.

In Italy, Romanians are in the cross-hairs, after one of them was charged with beating and sexually assaulting a teacher. Last week the Danish Government won re-election only with the continued support of the anti-immigrant People's Party. Last month the Swiss party that goes by the same name got more votes than any party in that country since 1919, with the help of a campaign that included imagery such as a flock of white sheep kicking a black sheep off a Swiss flag. Anti-immigrant sentiment continues to boil in France and the Netherlands.

This week its saliency was underlined when Eliot Spitzer, the Governor of New York, was forced to withdraw an ill-conceived proposal to give driving licences to illegal immigrants. This was the issue that got Hillary Clinton into so much trouble recently when in the last Democratic presidential debate, she gave a classic non-committal, nuanced, focus-grouped answer.

With 12 million or more illegal immigrants in the country, voters are in no mood for overt displays of generosity. Populist anger defeated efforts to give them amnesty a few months ago, and the issue looks set to become perhaps the biggest issue of the presidential election campaign - especially if, as it is currently, progress in Iraq takes the war off the front pages.

Our political, intellectual and media elites ponder this turn of events with a disdainful eye. They shake their heads at the irredeemable bigotry of the masses and wring their hands at the primitive ignorance that drives the popular mood. But our leaders should instead be looking hard at their own role in helping to create this rising backlash against immigration. It comes after 50 years in which, against their own will and better judgment, the masses have been directed to shed anachronistic and dangerous notions of national identity. In Europe especially, the multicultural worldview insisted that we should look with benign neutrality on global cultural diversity, to think of other cultures as no worse than our own, and in many respects quite a bit better. Patriotism equalled racism. National identity was incompatible with global peace.

So what happens when you spend decades suppressing national identity? Do you actually succeed in pouring us all into a great big melting pot? Or do you, in fact, simply nurture a subterranean sense of national selfhood; steadily curdling it over the years so that, when it reasserts itself, it is angry, illiberal and ugly? In Europe we see the consequences everywhere. The current mood, of course, is partly economic - the cheap immigrant stealing our jobs. It partly reflects heightened insecurity, especially the very specific threat posed by Islamists, the vipers in the bosoms of too many Muslim communities. But, as the Italian-Romanian incident shows, it goes much farther, and can take the unprepossessing form of raw and ancient hatreds.

America has, to its great fortune, been spared the worst excesses of multiculturalism. But it has not been completely immune. The current antipathy towards illegal immigrants is apparently about economics, but it isn't really. The US continues to enjoy solid growth, low unemployment and rising incomes for most Americans. As in Europe, the current sentiment is partly about security concerns. It is partly about a simple sense of fairness that asks: why should millions of people be able to break the law with impunity? But it also reflects a rising worry that the new wave of immigrants - mostly from Mexico - are not like previous waves of immigrants who made this country. Those earlier generations may have proudly asserted their ancient heritage, but they quickly integrated as Americans. There is an unsettling impression that many of the new immigrants are not following this model.

A small minority are actively separatist, trying to create little outposts of Mexico in the heartland. But even in its milder form - the refusal to learn English, for example - this modern immigrant mentality is troublingly different.

So now we have one hell of a mess. We - all of us - need immigration. We can't close our doors. In Europe, mountainous demographic challenges mean the only plausible supply of labour is from overseas. But even America cannot afford to be autarkic. It needs strong and steady flows of immigrants to power the world's most dynamic capitalist system. Neither should we regard immigrants as merely a source of cheap labour. They can and do enrich our societies, feeding a diversity that broadens and deepens us all.

But our clumsy efforts to create deracinated "global communities" have badly backfired. In the end, we should not forget that immigrants are immigrants. That means they have come to us, not we to them, because of the opportunities and intrinsic appeal of our own societies. Only by insisting that our own national identity and sovereignty is non-negotiable will we be able to continue both to welcome new immigrants and to maintain our chance at prosperity, and even survival, in a competitive and dangerous world.

Source





16 November, 2007

Emigration soars as Britons desert the UK

Britain is experiencing the greatest exodus of its own nationals in recent history while immigration is at unprecedented levels, new figures show. Last year, 207,000 British citizens - one every three minutes - left the country while 510,000 foreigners arrived to stay for a year or more. The British made up more than half of the 400,000 moving abroad - yet only 14 per cent of immigrants were UK nationals coming home. The figures do not include hundreds of thousands of east Europeans who have come to work in Britain in the past two years. This is because most are coming for less than 12 months and do not show up on the statistics.

The figures from the Office for National Statistics suggest that only one sixth of the immigrants in 2006 were from the states that joined the EU in 2004. The biggest influx was from the New Commonwealth - India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka - with more than 200,000.

Since Labour came to power in 1997, 1.8m British people have left but only 979,000 have returned, Over the same period, 3.9m foreign nationals have come to Britain while 1.6m have left. More than 50 per cent of the British emigrants moved to just four countries in 2006 - Australia, New Zealand, France and Spain. Eight in every 100 went to the USA.

The ONS said that overall last year there were 591,000 immigrants to the UK and 400,000 emigrants, both the highest figures ever recorded. Net immigration - the difference between those leaving and arriving - was 191,000.

The departure of so many Britons is exacerbating the demographic and cultural changes caused by high levels of immigration. Recent figures showed that despite high levels of emigration and a low birth rate, the population is still growing rapidly because of immigration. It is growing by the equivalent to a city the size of Bristol every year. Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch, said: "Two thirds of yet another record level of arrivals come from outside the EU. They could and should be subject to much tighter controls." He added: ''This gives the lie to claims that nothing effective can be done about immigration because of our membership of the EU."

Damian Green, the Conservative spokesman, said: "These figures prove that immigration is still running at unsustainably high levels. "This is the direct result of the Government's 'open door' approach which has totally failed to consider the impact of immigration on public services, housing and community cohesion." Sir Simon Milton, chairman of the Local Government Association, said the Government had no clear idea of where all the immigrants were going and their impact on services. "No-one has a real grasp of where or for how long migrants are settling so much-needed funding for local services isn't getting to the right places," he said. "The speed and scale of migration combined with the shortcomings of official population figures is placing pressure on funding for services like children's services and housing. ''This can even lead to unnecessary tension and conflict."

While immigration is the highest in the country's history, the emigration of UK nationals is running at its greatest level since before the First World War. Little research has been done into the reasons for the exodus of Britons, though it appears more are going abroad to retire though many younger people are leaving to work. A study last year by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) suggested that one in 12 UK nationals may now be living abroad. There are 250,000 second homes owned by British nationals in France alone. Surveys indicate that another one million are set to pack their bags for good over the next five years and a further 500,000 live abroad for part of the year.

Danny Sriskandarajah, of the IPPR, said: "The UK is seeing revolving turnstiles and not over-run floodgates. "More people are on the move than ever before, with a million emigrants and immigrants crossing our borders last year." He added: "It is also clear that immigration is an economic phenomenon, with almost half of those immigrating and emigrating doing so for work-related reasons."

More British live abroad than any other nationality. There are 41 countries with more than 10,000 British living there and another 71 countries with more than 1,000. The levels of emigration are now back to those last seen in the late-1950s and early 1960s, when the "10 pound Poms" left in their droves for Australia, enticed by subsidised travel and settlement.

The last exodus on a similar scale was before 1914, when the outflow was running at 300,000 per annum and more young men were leaving the country every year than died on the battlefields of Europe. Between 1853 and 1913, more than 13 million British citizens left, mainly for North America, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. Some came back; but cumulative net emigration was equivalent to 13 per cent of the population, mostly those aged between 18 and 45. However, there was little immigration then: the population grew because of a high birth rate.

The difference of around three million between the emigration of British nationals and immigration of foreigners represents a five per cent turnover of the entire population in ten years. Previous immigrations did not exceed one per cent over fifty years. This turnaround in population has inevitably changed its ethnic composition. Over the last 20 years, the white British population has decreased slightly while the number of ethnic minority Britons has doubled. Looking ahead to the next 10 years, the white ethnic group will remain static while the number of Asian non-dependents alone will increase from 1.5 to 2.5 million

Source



ID Cards for all Residents Pass a Vote in San Francisco

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors has given preliminary approval to an ordinance allowing municipal identification cards to be issued to anyone living in the city, regardless of their legal status. The proposal passed the first of two required votes on Tuesday night, putting San Francisco, with a population of 725,000, on track to become the largest city in the nation to issue identification cards to anyone who requests one and proves residence. In June, New Haven, Conn., passed a similar measure, believed to be the first in the nation. Since then, several other cities, including New York, have floated the idea.

In San Francisco, supporters said that the ordinance was intended to make life easier for the large number of illegal immigrants working in the city, many of whom cannot get access to services because they have no formal identification. The city already has a "sanctuary" policy forbidding local law enforcement or other officials to assist with immigration enforcement. "I think it's admitting the reality of the situation that we depend on, our tourist and hotel industry depends on, a labor force that's supplied by, for lack of a better term, undocumented residents," said Tom Ammiano, the supervisor who sponsored the bill. Mr. Ammiano described the measure as "a passport of sorts," to "take the kid to the library or open a bank account, or report a crime without being deported."

Supporters and opponents of such measures said states and cities were more likely to take up issues like this one since Congress rejected a comprehensive immigration bill this year. "The brass ring collapsed in Congress, so the people on the ground are still trying to think of things that are going to help this issue down the road," said Steven A. Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, which advocates stronger enforcement of current laws.

And while Mr. Camarota said the card's uses would be largely symbolic, he said passage of the ordinance might force Democratic presidential candidates to talk more about immigration, an issue that public opinion polls show is of concern to many voters and has already been part of the Republican campaign. "It keeps the issue on the front burner," he said.

Supporters of the ordinance say it has more practical effects, including crime prevention. John Trasvina, the president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund in Los Angeles, said he had recently received several reports of so-called SOM, or Sock on Mexican, attacks in the Los Angeles area, crimes he hoped might be reduced if victims came forward. "The victims are living in a cash economy, and they are reluctant to go to the police," Mr. Trasvina said. "Having an ID card addresses both of those issues: it reduces the reliance on cash, because it opens up the opportunities for banking, and it takes away a barrier between community and police."

Mr. Ammiano said the card would also be useful to other groups without government-issued identification, including the elderly, students and transgendered people, who have long found a sympathetic home here.

The bill, which passed the first vote by 10 to 1, will be taken up by the board again before going to Mayor Gavin Newsom, who has indicated his general support. If the experience in New Haven is any indication, the demand for the card here could be strong. More than 4,800 cards have been handed out since late July, said Kica Matos, the New Haven community services administrator, with a "significant number" going to illegal immigrants. "The second day there was a line halfway down the block, and by the third it was all the way down," Ms. Matos said.

Source





15 November, 2007

British scandal gets worse

10,000 in security industry could be illegal, says Smith

Jacqui Smith, facing her first political crisis as home secretary, was forced to admit yesterday that as many as 10,000 non-EU nationals licensed to work in the security industry may be illegal immigrants and that one of them had been responsible for overseeing then-prime minister Tony Blair's car while it was being repaired.

Smith, well supported by backbenchers and cabinet colleagues after being forced to come to the Commons, appeared to have survived, after Downing Street privately said she had not made a mistake in failing to tell Gordon Brown of the news as soon as she discovered the security lapse in the summer. The row was sparked by the leak of Home Office internal emails showing that Smith had accepted Home Office press office advice in August not to disclose the number of illegal immigrants cleared to work in the security industry, on the basis that "the lines to take" would not be good enough for the public and media.

Smith denied Conservative accusations of "blunder, panic and cover-up", insisting: "My approach was that the responsible thing to do was to establish the full nature and scale of the problem, taking appropriate action to deal with it, rather than immediately to put incomplete and potentially misleading information in the public domain. There was no fiasco, there was no blunder, there was strengthened and improved action."

The shadow home secretary, David Davis, owner of many previous Home Office ministerial scalps, attacked Smith, saying she had put avoiding political embarrassment ahead of solving the problem and informing the public.

In an attempt to show that her notoriously malfunctioning department was on top of the problem, Smith disclosed that an initial inquiry by the Security Industry Authority between April 2005 and December 2006 of 3,000 non-EU nationals working in the industry showed that only 41 were illegal workers.

However, ministers were first told in April 2007 that a Border and Immigration Agency operation had found 44 illegal migrants working for the police as security guards, including one at a site where the prime minister's car had been repaired. The home secretary confirmed that she had been told about the problem on July 2, days after she had taken over the job of home secretary, when SIA licences were changed to include a check on immigration status. The full-scale exercise to determine exactly how many illegal migrants there are among the 40,000 foreign nationals licensed to work as security guards before July will not be completed until next month.

Smith's Commons statement left open the possibility that up to 10,000 illegal migrant workers may have been licensed to work in the private security industry either as guards or "close protection" personnel - twice as many as the Conservatives claimed yesterday.

MPs were told that preliminary checks on 6,000 out of the 40,000 workers licensed before July 2007 had shown that only 77% of them had the right to work in Britain. A further 10.5% had been established to be illegal migrants. In a further 12.5% of cases further checks were still being made, raising the possibility that up to 23% could be illegal migrants. As about 40,000 non-European workers have been licensed, the number of illegal workers could be as many as 10,000.

Nick Clegg, of the Liberal Democrats, said Smith seemed to have learned nothing from the failure of her predecessors: "Perhaps if the Home Office was more worried about getting things right and less worried about spinning, these mistakes would not happen at all."

Source



Spitzer backdown

New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer has decided to abandon a plan to issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, officials familiar with the decision told The Associated Press Tuesday night. The governor is due to meet Wednesday morning with New York's congressional delegation, many of whom openly oppose the program. Debate over the issue also has spilled into New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign. The governor's office signaled to New York lawmakers Tuesday that Spitzer will say at the meeting that he is shelving the plan and that immigration is a federal issue to be handled by Washington, according to congressional aides who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because no formal announcement had been made.

Last month, Spitzer sought to salvage the license effort by striking a deal with the Department of Homeland Security to create three distinct types of state driver's licenses: one "enhanced" that will be as secure as a passport; a second-tier license good for boarding airplanes; and a third marked not valid for federal purposes that would be available to illegal immigrants and others.

Clinton has been criticized by her Democratic and Republican rivals for her noncommittal answers on the subject. She has said she sympathizes with governors like Spitzer who are forced to confront the issue of immigration because the federal government has not enacted immigration reform. She has not taken a position on the actual plan offered by Spitzer.

A Spitzer spokeswoman did not immediately reply to an e-mail seeking comment. The governor introduced the plan with the goal of increased security, safer roads and an opportunity to bring immigrants "out of the shadows." Opponents charged Spitzer would make it easier for would-be terrorists to get identification, and make the country less safe. Many New Yorkers agreed with them.

About 70 percent of New Yorkers oppose the license plan, according to a Siena College poll of 625 registered state voters released Tuesday. The poll, conducted Nov. 5-8, had a sampling margin of 3.9 percentage points.

"As I've said on numerous occasions, this is a tough issue," Spitzer said Tuesday in New York City. "And it's one where we're continuing to try to talk to the public, explain why we took the position that I have thus far, and explain what issues we're trying to address. But I understand - you don't need to see the most recent poll to understand that this is an issue that has touched a nerve in the public and we're trying to address that in a thoughtful, modulated way, and then we'll see where we go."

Source





14 November, 2007

Even illegals can pass security vetting in Britain!

The Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, has been accused of covering up the fact that thousands of illegal immigrants were given clearance to work for the government in sensitive security posts. A report in the Daily Mail has quoted emails which show Ms Smith was aware of the error in July, however only admitted the fact to reporters on Sunday in answer to questions. The scandal is centred around the revelation that the Security Industry Authority, a Home Office body, gave security clearance to 5,000 illegal immigrants to work as government security guards.

Opposition Leader David Cameron called on Ms Smith to explain. "I think there are some really big questions for the Home Secretary to answer and she needs to come to the House of Commons today and give a statement and answer those questions," he said. "In particular, I think the real problem for the Government here is that it looks like they put the convenience of when they wanted to announce things to the press and Government spin ahead of public safety and telling the public what was happening." He added, "Until we have a proper Home Secretary announcement and the chance to ask her questions in the House of Commons, it is difficult to get to the truth."

The Home Secretary is to make a statement to the House of Commons later today.

Source



Costly immigrants in Britain

Town halls will have to raise council tax or cut services to pay for the care of thousands of child asylum-seekers, which costs up to 45,000 pounds a year per child, council leaders say today. Nine councils will introduce a report at Westminster showing that they are losing out on 35 million a year, because the Home Office and the Department for Education are not providing the cash.

More than 3,200 unaccompanied asylum-seekers under 18 entered Britain last year, some as young as 4 or 5. Many are orphans or have been smuggled out from their home countries in an act of desperation and councils have a legal duty to look after them. The councils for Birmingham, Hounslow, Hillingdon, Hammmersmith and Fulham, Kent, Manchester, Oxfordshire, Solihull and West Sussex, claim that foster care can cost as much as 900 pounds a week, and that older teenagers often have to be put up in bed and breakfast accommodation. Paul Carter, leader of Kent County Council, said: "In Kent alone we have accumulated 7.5 million to 8 million in debts in care for unaccompanied minors."

Source





13 November, 2007

Dems look for ways to fool voters on immigration

Top Democratic elected officials and strategists are engaged in an internal debate over toughening the party's image on illegal immigration, with some worried that Democrats' relatively welcoming stance makes them vulnerable to GOP attacks in the 2008 election.

Advocates of such a change cite local and state election results last week in Virginia and New York, where Democrats used sharper language and get-tough proposals to stave off Republican efforts to paint the party as weak on the issue. In Virginia, for instance, where Democrats took control of the state Senate, one high- profile victory came in the Washington suburbs, where the winner distributed mailings in the campaign's closing days proclaiming his opposition to in-state college tuition for illegal immigrants.

The party's calibration could also be seen in New York, where a number of Democrats won local elections in part by opposing a plan by Democratic Gov. Eliot Spitzer to issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, and in the presidential campaign, in which party front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has struggled to explain whether she supports the Spitzer plan or not.

In Congress, a group of conservative Democrats, led by freshman Rep. Heath Shuler of North Carolina, introduced legislation last week calling for more Border Patrol agents, heightened surveillance and additional requirements that employers verify the legal status of workers. The proposal does not include measures to create a path to citizenship for millions of illegal workers, measures that recently had been supported by Democrats nationally.

With polls showing broad discontent with the government's handling of immigration, some Democrats argue that the party can toughen its image without moving too far away from its traditionally pro-immigration leanings -- for example, by supporting heightened security at the Mexico border, opposing benefits for illegal immigrants, and pushing for harsher penalties against businesses that hire illegal workers.

"If Democrats turn a blind eye to the public concerns about immigration, it would be a mistake," said Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Texas), who won reelection last year in his conservative district by taking a hard line against illegal immigration while backing what he said were "practical" ideas for dealing with the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. "If Democrats are seen as strongly supporting the protection of our borders and not supporting a vast array of welfare benefits for people here illegally, and combine that with a responsible approach toward earned citizenship for those who have been in our country for a number of years, then it can be a winning issue for Democrats."

The internal debate has grown emotional in recent days, boiling over on Friday during a tense encounter on the House floor between Rep. Joe Baca (D-Rialto), chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.). The caucus was upset because some House Democrats had backed a Republican measure protecting employers that impose certain English-only rules -- the latest in what Baca called a series of frustrations with the party leadership's approach to immigration. "We're tired of people trying to scapegoat the immigrants or Hispanics as a platform," Baca said. "Republicans have done it, and Democrats have followed . . . because they're afraid they're going to lose their elections. But we got elected to represent all communities, not to vote based on whether we're going to get reelected."

The party's dilemma comes in the wake of the Senate's defeat this summer of a major immigration overhaul that would have created a path to citizenship for i