Immigration Watch International

The flow of migrants from Eastern Europe seeking work in Britain rose last year, with more than 20,000 a month registering for the first time with the Government. Figures published yesterday show huge numbers of young migrants are continuing to head for Britain, more than two years after eight former Soviet bloc states joined the EU. A total of 232,000 initial applications for work were made last year – more than 20,000 up on 2005.

The continuing surge in the number of jobseekers is also highlighted by initial applications in October and November last year being 3,000 higher than in June and July. Yet in previous years the numbers fluctuated, with more applicants in summer than winter. Overall, more than 579,000 people have registered with the Government since May 2004, when Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland joined the EU. Almost two thirds of the total – 360,000 – were Poles, followed by Lithuanians and Slovaks, who made up 11 per cent and 10 per cent of applicants respectively. The figures do not include the self-employed, estimated at 200,000.

Although Liam Byrne, the Immigration Minister, insists that the large migrant work-force is benefiting Britain, the continuing increase will cause disquiet among Labour back-bench MPs who are concerned at the scale of migration. Local councils have also expressed concern about the impact of such large-scale migration on public services. John Reid, the Home Secretary, has reacted to their alarm by imposing strict curbs on Bulgarians and Romanians, the latest new EU entrants who can come to work in Britain.

Mr Byrne said the latest figures showed that migrant workers were filling skill and labour gaps that could not be met by the native population. He added: “We need to maintain progress on our immigration reforms and understand the transitional impacts from the accession in 2004 before we take the next step.” Initially, research [i.e. politically-inspired guesswork] for the Home Office estimated that up to 13,000 migrants would seek work in the first year after accession. David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, said: “These figures completely blow that estimate out of the water. Immigration can be of real benefit to the country but only if it is properly controlled, taking into account its impact on the economy, public services and social cohesion. This is demonstrably not the case.”

The article below is from a nationalist site but makes a good point. Why is London a world headquarters of TB? The demographics give a clear answer: Immigrants are only a small proportion of the overall British population but are a massive proportion of the TB sufferers. And since the immigrants concerned undoubtedly live at close quarters with others of similar ethnic origins, that some of those others become infected in no way detracts from the immigrant origin of the problem. Many of the “British born” TB sufferers mentioned would no doubt be relatives of immigrants. The fact that many sufferers lived in Britain for 2 years before presenting to a doctor is also of course meaningless, given the slow progress of TB. I presume that Britain, like any other advanced country, has some health screening for legal immigrants so the problem undoubtedly is a direct consequence of Britain’s large illegal immigration problem

What a radical idea!

Arizona and Phoenix police officers will be trained so they can assist with the enforcement of immigration law, under a soon-to-be-announced agreement that changes the state’s approach to fighting illegal immigration.

More here

The UK Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) ruled Monday that a convicted terrorist from Jordan must return to his home country despite his arguments that he risks being tortured upon returning to Jordan. SIAC chairman Justice Ouseley said there was no real threat of persecution for Islamic cleric Abu Qatada, basing the commission’s decision on a 2005 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the UK and Jordan that guarantees deportees will not face abuse upon their return. While many argue that the MOUs are meaningless agreements, UK Home Secretary John Reid praised the commission’s decision to recognize the pact since it would allow the UK to continue deporting security threats.

The UK has come under criticism for its reliance on memorandums of understanding countries also including Libya and Libya. In 2005, Manfred Nowak, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture said the agreements circumvent the absolute prohibition in the Convention against Torture against the forcible return of detainees to countries where there is a risk of torture or ill-treatment. Source

Post excerpted from American Thinker

Geo-Political Decline

Europe’s demographic situation is in stark contrast to that of the United States, where the population officially passed the 300 million mark in October 2006. The United States is now the third most populous country in the world, behind China and India. Moreover, the United States is growing faster than any other industrialized nation… in fact, it is virtually the only developed country expected to grow this century. All analysts agree that America’s demographic dynamism will have major geo-political implications, especially for Europe.

 Some Europeans are beginning to acknowledge this reality. The Paris-based EU Institute for Security Studies predicts that by 2025, Europe will represent only six percent of the world’s population and that its relative share of global wealth and trade will have shrunk. It says that

‘the ongoing debate on the future of Europe suffers from a lack of perspective on the global developments that are changing the context of European integration itself…the risk is that the Union and its Member States will be increasingly subject to, rather than agents of, change.’

The False Promise of Immigration

How did the United States, which turned 230 years old in July 2006, get so big so fast? American growth has been fuelled by a combination of economic stability, high birth rates and immigration. Indeed, the United States is the largest immigrant-receiving country in the world. Some 50 percent of the 100 million newest Americans are recent immigrants or their descendents.

Europe, however, is also a magnet for immigration: It will attract up to 1 million newcomers this year. But the European experience with immigration is quite different from that of America. Part of the reason is that many immigrants to Europe end up on welfare, while in the United States, almost all immigrants take one or more entry-level jobs and work their way up the economic ladder. Welfare is simply not the American way.

Islamic Conquest of Europe?

Moreover, most immigrants to the United States are fully integrated into American society by the second generation, regardless of their country of origin. By contrast, most immigrants to Europe are Muslims who refuse to assimilate and instead tend to cluster in marginalized ghettos on the outskirts of cities across the continent.

Here, too, the American experience is quite different. The best available estimates show that there are between 1.9 million and 2.8 million Muslims in the United States. And unlike their European counterparts, American Muslims generally do not feel marginalized or isolated from political participation. According to a 2004 Zogby Poll, American Muslims are more educated and affluent than the national average, with 59 percent of them holding at least an undergraduate college degree. Moreover, the majority of American Muslims are employed in professional fields, with one in three having an income over $75,000 a year.

But back to Europe: The Muslim population of Europe has more than doubled since 1980, and according to some estimates, there are some 25 million Muslims living on the continent today. Demographers predict that this figure may double by 2015, and that the number of Muslims could outnumber non-Muslims in all of Western Europe by mid-century. This prompted Princeton University’s Bernard Lewis to tell the German newspaper Die Welt that ‘Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century.’

This reality is already influencing European foreign policymaking and does not auger well for the future of transatlantic relations. Indeed, many analysts believe that the steady weakening of Europe is the underlying cause for the widespread anti-American and anti-Israel bigotry found among Europe’s elites, many of whom are bowing to pressure from Muslim residents as a way to buy a fake peace with radical Islamists. Says Fouad Ajami, a well-known authority of the Arab world: ‘In ways both intended and subliminal, the escape into anti-Americanism is an attempt at false bonding with the peoples of Islam.’

French far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen presented his election program today, vowing to halt immigration and integration with Europe, which he said was leading France to disaster. Making his fifth and probably last bid for the presidency, the 78-year-old told a convention of his National Front Party he would cut off social benefits to immigrants and “restore France’s borders”.

Amid cheers and chants of “Le Pen, president!”, the far-right leader said France was crumbling under poverty, unemployment, the dislocation of factories and “massive immigration”. “We cannot hide the fact that the situation today is catastrophic,” Mr Le Pen told more than 2000 supporters gathered in the northern city of Lille for the two-day convention. He accused his rivals of “sacrificing French products at the altar of Europe” and said the next president must heed the “no” verdict of the 2005 referendum in which a majority of French voters rejected an EU constitution.

During his one-hour speech, Mr Le Pen described immigration as “the major cause of the overall impoverishment” of the French and called for “strict immigration controls and the return of illegals to their countries”. “We will reserve all of the social benefits for the French people”, Mr Le Pen said, describing the measure as an application of his policy of national preference.

With two months to go before the first round of voting, Mr Le Pen is in fourth position in the polls, behind centrist Francois Bayrou, Socialist Segolene Royal and Nicolas Sarkozy, the candidate of the governing rightwing party.

The former Foreign Legion paratrooper stunned the nation when he qualified for the second round of voting against Jacques Chirac in the 2002 election with nearly 17 per cent of votes, beating Socialist candidate Lionel Jospin.

The National Front convention intended to step up Mr Le Pen’s campaign was overshadowed by a dispute over the collection of signatures from locally elected politicians that are needed to qualify as a candidate. Mr Le Pen accused unnamed politicians of waging a campaign of intimidation against mayors who had agreed to back his candidacy for the April-May vote. “A certain number of mayors who have signed (endorsement forms) are receiving phone calls from people who are trying to dissuade them from signing,” he said. Under the procedure, mayors and other elected officials fill out a form officially endorsing a candidate that is sent to the constitutional council, the body that decides on the eligibility of the contenders.

Founded 35 years ago, the National Front has seven MPs in the European parliament in Strasbourg and 150 regional councillors, but it has no representation in the National Assembly.

Source

1. Op-eds: Week-long debate between Mark Krikorian and Tamar Jacoby in the L.A. Times
2. Backgrounder: ‘Immigration, Intergroup Conflict, and the Erosion of African American Political Power in the 21st Century’
3. Backgrounder: ‘Becoming American: The Hidden Core of the Immigration Debate’
4. Testimony: ‘Preventing Illegal Employment: Federal ‘Basic Pilot’ Program is an Effective and Business-Friendly Tool’
5. Panel discussion transcript: ‘The State of Politics, Law, and Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Immigration Policy’

– Mark Krikorian

1.
Dust-Up
Late, great, immigration debate: What action on immigration can we expect out of the new Congress leading up to a presidential election? All this week, Mark Krikorian and Tamar Jacoby debate immigration.
LATimes.com, February 19-23, 2007

Secure Fence Act

Immigration economics

Amnesty

Workplace immigration raids

Politics of immigration

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

2.
Immigration, Intergroup Conflict, and the Erosion of African American Political Power in the 21st Century
by Frank Morris and James G. Gimpel

Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, February 2007

Excerpt: * While social scientists continue to debate the impact of large-scale immigration on low-skilled American natives, these same Americans certainly believe that high levels of immigration threaten their economic well-being. Current research shows that these fears are as much alive among African Americans as Caucasians.

* Conflict between African Americans and Latina/os for group position, status, and political power is increasing as most immigrants of Hispanic ancestry settle in areas proximate to African American populations in the nation’s largest cities.

* African American gains in office-holding appear to be leveling off at higher levels of office, while Latino gains are rapidly rising. These gains are coming at the expense of non-Hispanic white office-holders and African Americans, though African Americans are more threatened given their smaller overall numbers.

* Steadily rising immigrant populations will continue to change the racial complexion of U.S. House representation in a number of California, Texas, and New York congressional districts within the next 20 years.

* With the 2010 census redistricting, just a few years away, as many as six seats currently held by members of the Congressional Black Caucus could be given up to Latino candidates.

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

3.
Becoming American: The Hidden Core of the Immigration Debate
by Stanley Renshon
Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, January 2007

Excerpt: ‘The central question of American immigration policy is how this country can help facilitate the emotional attachments of immigrants and citizens alike to the American national community. Given the centrifugal pulls of multiculturalism and international cosmopolitans this is easier said than done. Multiculturalists want to substitute racial and ethnic identities for an American identity, while cosmopolitans think that emotional connections to this country are too parochial and nationalistic and urge our citizens to look abroad for their primary attachments.

‘This paper argues that our current laissez faire policy regarding the incorporation of citizens and immigrants alike, our failures to enforce immigration laws, and the doublespeak that characterizes our responses to illegal immigration are deeply corrosive to the fabric of the American national community.

‘This country faces catastrophic dangers from abroad and major policy issues at home. In such circumstances, pervasive public feelings that reflect instrumental, shallow, or ambivalent emotional national attachments are not only undesirable, but also dangerous. But what can be done? Feelings of attachment cannot be mandated by legislation or instilled by clarion calls to patriotism.

‘This paper spells out a set of proposals to help facilitate and deepen the attachment of immigrants and Americans alike to our national community.’

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

4.
Preventing Illegal Employment: Federal ‘Basic Pilot’ Program is an Effective and Business-Friendly Tool

Statement of Jessica M. Vaughan before the Colorado Senate’s State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee, January 31, 2007

Excerpt: ‘This legislation is a reasonable approach to a difficult problem, and is consistent with the direction many states are moving, and eventually federal government, I believe. The state of Georgia has already enacted a law making participation in Basic Pilot near-mandatory. The Arizona and Rhode Island legislatures will be considering full mandatory participation this year, and a similar Indiana bill passed a committee vote on January 18, 2007.

‘Mandatory verification of immigration status for new employment is not a silver bullet. Rather, it should be considered as one key part of a larger strategy to address illegal immigration that relies on partnerships between federal and state authorities, and between government agencies. This strategy acknowledges that the population of more than 12 million illegal immigrants realistically cannot be apprehended and deported one by one. Nor is the federal government likely to enact a mass amnesty to legalize this population. Instead, lawmakers should rely on an array of policies to increase the day-to-day enforcement of immigration laws, prevent employment, and encourage voluntary compliance with immigration laws. Other proven tools include electronic status verification for public benefits, immigration law training for state and local law enforcement and public agency employees, strict standards for drivers’ licensing, and rigorous identification standards for financial institutions. Adoption of these policies will convince a large number of illegal aliens that they would be better off returning home on their own, thereby easing the burden on local communities, and enabling federal authorities to concentrate their resources on the most problematic cases.’

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

5.
The State of Politics, Law, and Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Immigration Policy

Panel discussion transcript, January 18, 2007

********

Mutual obligation is to become the Howard Government’s new mantra on immigration, with migrants expected to learn English after they arrive in Australia. Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration Teresa Gambaro will use a speech tonight to unveil a major shift in the Government’s approach to migrants, saying that Australia always helps those in need but expects “those receiving assistance to contribute in return”.

“The principle of the ‘fair go’ is a uniquely Australian value. A ‘fair go’, however, expects fair effort,” Ms Gambaro will tell a symposium run by the Islamic Council of Victoria and the federal Government. “The Government will continue to support all migrants by ensuring they have access to education, employment and involvement with mainstream community activities. “In return, the Government expects migrants to make the effort to learn the language and the culture.”

It is unclear at this stage how the Government plans to enforce the program. The shift to mutual obligation will bring settlement services in line with the Government’s approach to social security over the past decade, where responsibilities are imposed on welfare recipients. It follows moves by the Howard Government to emphasise integration over diversity as part of a broader shift away from multiculturalism.

Ms Gambaro says there are already many common values between Muslim and non-Muslim Australians and that “there is no incompatibility between a commitment to Islam and being Australian”. “For Australia’s Muslims, there is no conflict between veils and Vegemite,” she says. Mutual obligation would also help Australia’s non-Muslim population better understand Islam, the Queensland MP says.

The speech by Ms Gambaro is her first in the new portfolio and maps out a significant new direction for settlement services. Ms Gambaro says the term multiculturalism has become “redundant”. She says: “Multiculturalism, as a term, can be interpreted in any number of ways … in my view, its very imprecision is a critical weakness. “It doesn’t tell us what we share in common, it doesn’t tell us who we are, it doesn’t tell us what our values are.”

Ms Gambaro says that while individual backgrounds should be celebrated, “we cannot afford to be confined by them”. “Australia cannot be a nation of islands within an island,” she says. “Instead we should celebrate our cultural diversity and commitment to shared Australian values and a great method of doing this is by ensuring we can all speak to one another – in English.”

Ms Gambaro, whose Italian parents came to Australia with scant English skills, says she can empathise with migrants. “Learning English can be difficult – I know this from personal experience – but it is not an insurmountable hurdle, nor is it an unreasonable expectation. This is because English language ability is a passport to participation, a passport to prosperity.”

Source

Australia is striking a deal with Indonesia for an even more radical version of John Howard’s Pacific Solution – sending 85 Sri Lankan asylum seekers home via Indonesia in possible breach of international refugee conventions. The asylum seekers, who were intercepted by the navy near Christmas Island on Wednesday, are set to be taken to Indonesia and then sent back to Sri Lanka after secret talks between the three countries in Jakarta yesterday. This means they would be sent home via Indonesia, which is not a signatory to the United Nations Refugee Convention. Australia would be free of any responsibility towards them, and the asylum seekers would almost certainly be robbed of any chance to lodge an asylum claim under international law.

Sri Lanka’s ambassador to Indonesia, Janaka Perera, confirmed last night that Australian and Indonesian officials had told him the 83 men would be returned to Jakarta, then sent home. He expected the men to arrive in Sri Lanka within days. “Sri Lanka’s position is that they have travelled illegally to another country and they should be returned to Sri Lanka.” Both Australia and Indonesia had said they would assist with the repatriation, he said.

It is understood that Australian and Indonesian law enforcement and immigration officials discussed the plan in Jakarta yesterday.The Herald understands the meeting was told Australia feared it would face a flood of asylum seekers if tough action was not taken against the new arrivals. The boat carried the largest single load of asylum seekers to approach Australia since 2001, the year of the Tampa crisis that spawned the Pacific Solution, under which asylum seekers were refused access to the Australian mainland. Under that process, boat people were still given the opportunity to lodge asylum claims at offshore detention camps such as Nauru.

Before the deal was revealed to the Herald in Jakarta, the Prime Minister, John Howard, had insisted the 85 would not be brought to the Australian mainland. He said the boat’s arrival was an opportunity to tell people smugglers that “they needn’t think for a moment that our policy has changed”. Australia still had “a very strong, effective border protection policy”.

In November 2001, after trailing badly in the polls for months, Mr Howard stormed to victory in the federal election in the wake of the Tampa crisis. During the campaign, he declared: “We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.”

The new boatload departed Indonesia, with two Indonesian crewmen on board, intelligence sources confirmed. Yesterday’s meeting discussed either directly shipping the asylum seekers back to Java, or flying them to Jakarta. Returning them on their boat was rejected for safety reasons. Indonesia could justify returning them to Sri Lanka as they had arrived in Indonesia illegally, Australian officials told the meeting. They also said the Sri Lankans should be returned as quickly as possible to prevent them lodging asylum claims or staging protests. Australian and Indonesian officials also agreed to co-operate to apprehend the people smugglers behind the operation. It is understood Australian intelligence has already identified two suspects. Australian Foreign Affairs officials refused to make any comment.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees senior officer responsible for asylum seekers in Indonesia, Shinji Kubo, said his organisation had not been informed of the moves. “We are very keen to know what will happen to them,” he said. Other international officials, speaking anonymously, said it would be legally dubious for Australia not to deal with the refugees itself or to return them to Indonesia, and could create an international test case. The case was complicated by an obligation to rescue lives in danger at sea. Refugee advocacy groups had called on the Government to bring the asylum seekers to mainland Australia or provide access to lawyers for advice on their rights.

The Immigration Minister, Kevin Andrews, denied reports that the navy had tried to turn the vessel back to sea when HMAS Success intercepted it. But he said the Government wanted to ensure the asylum seekers did not reach the mainland. “[We] do not want to encourage this sort of behaviour – of people being put on unseaworthy vessels out in the middle of the Indian Ocean – and the tragedy that can come from that. “I think it is quite irresponsible to be sending a boatload of people on a small vessel, which is proven one way or the other to be unseaworthy.”

Asylum seekers who land on the mainland have more extensive legal rights than those held on external territories such as Christmas Island. Mr Andrews said crew from HMAS Success had repaired engine damage on the men’s boat on Tuesday when they first intercepted it, but they found it had stopped moving shortly afterwards. Navy crew invited the men aboard on Wednesday when they discovered the vessel had been further damaged to the point that it was unseaworthy. Mr Andrews did not know whether the navy would tow or sink the vessel. “This is Australian Government policy in practice,” he said.

Source

Dual citizens who work to divide Australia rather than unite it should be stripped of their Australian citizenship, Treasurer Peter Costello said today. “If somebody is an Australian citizen and also, let’s say, an Egyptian citizen and that person doesn’t support what this country stands for… I think we’d be within our rights to say to that person, well, Australia’s not for you,” Mr Costello told Macquarie Radio.

The comments come after the uproar started by Australia’s Islamic leader Sheik Taj al-Din al-Hilali who compared Australian women to uncovered meat and also claimed Muslim Australians had more right to live in Australia than Anglo-Saxons, the majority of which are descendants of convicts. “You get into a difficult situation if they’re not dual citizens, because at that point, if you take away Australian citizenship they’re not a citizen of anywhere, they’ve got nowhere to go.”

But Mr Costello said burning the Australian flag should not be outlawed. “I hate people burning the Australian flag,” Mr Costello told Macquarie Radio. “It makes me sick in my stomach but then you think to yourself, these people are disaffected people, some of them are just plain bad people, I wouldn’t want to make them martyrs.”

Source