Immigration Watch International

The lawyers want a three-judge panel of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, to take up the case on an expedited basis.

At issue is whether US District Judge Susan Bolton was correct when she ruled that major sections of the Arizona law would have impermissibly interfered with the federal government’s authority to decide how best to enforce immigration laws. A stripped down version of the Arizona law took effect Thursday.

In authorizing the appeal, Governor Brewer said the problems prompting the Arizona law were caused by lax enforcement of immigration statutes by the federal government.

“America is not going to sit back and allow the ongoing federal failures to continue,” she said. “We are a nation of laws and we believe they need to be enforced.” Brewer added, “I will not back down.”

On Wednesday, Judge Bolton issued a temporary injunction blocking enforcement of key parts of the new law, including a provision requiring law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone during a routine stop whenever police had reasonable suspicion that the individual was an illegal immigrant.

Critics of the law, including President Obama, said the provision would likely lead to illegal racial profiling. The Justice Department joined other plaintiffs in a lawsuit and urged Bolton to block implementation of the new law.

But rather than press the racial profiling issue, Justice Department lawyers argued that the Arizona law impermissibly intruded into areas of authority (immigration and border security) reserved to the federal government.

State officials countered that the Arizona law was written to complement federal immigration statutes, not supplant them.

Bolton disagreed, ruling that several provisions in the state measure were preempted by conflicting federal laws and the policies of the Obama administration. The judge issued a temporary injunction, meaning that she would temporarily block implementation of parts of the law pending a full trial.

Under normal circumstances, the legal challenges to the Arizona law would now be subject to a trial before Bolton. But because of the importance of the issue, state officials took the somewhat unusual step of asking the appeals court to hear their appeal even before a trial has been held.

“This appeal involves an issue of significant importance – the State of Arizona’s right to implement a law its Legislature enacted to address the irreparable harm Arizona is suffering as a result of unchecked unlawful immigration,” the Arizona lawyers said in their brief to the Ninth Circuit.

They urged the appeals court to speed up its consideration of the case in light of the “serious criminal, environmental, and economic problems Arizona has been suffering as a consequence of illegal immigration and the lack of effective enforcement activity by the federal government.”

The governor’s lawyers asked for the court to embrace a schedule that would call for the state’s opening brief by August 12, a response by the Justice Department by August 26, and a reply by Arizona by September 2. They asked that the court schedule the case for oral argument the week of September 13.

If the Ninth Circuit declines to take up the case, or takes it up and upholds Bolton’s ruling, Arizona could then still file an expedited appeal to the US Supreme Court.

At the center of the case is a dispute over the intersection of federal authority to set immigration policies and enforce immigration law versus state government efforts to protect the health and safety of local residents threatened by a large influx of illegal immigrants by making passing a state law that mirrors several unenforced federal laws.

“If the federal government wants to be in charge of illegal immigration and they want no help from the states, it then needs to do its job,” Brewer said. “Arizona would not be faced with this problem if the federal government honored its responsibilities.”

She added, “Illegal immigration is an ongoing crisis the State of Arizona did not create and the federal government has refused to fix.”

There is no equivalence between Gillard’s proposed regional processing centre in East Timor and Abbott’s proposed centre on Nauru. For a start, the geography is radically different. No one will intentionally sail to Nauru. It’s just too far away.

Secondly, its purpose is designed to prevent people-smugglers from being able to achieve for their clients the ultimate prize: permanent residency in Australia. It is only about solving the Australian problem. Illegal immigrants would be sent there and processed. They would be treated humanely and all their human rights observed. They would be free to go to any country that would have them, or free at any time to go home. Of course there is a small element of semi-bluff. If the boats stopped absolutely, then a future Abbott government might decide, as the Howard government did, to exercise a special act of generosity and allow some of the people to come to Australia. But that would only be after some years, and after the boats had absolutely stopped.

At the same time, an Abbott government would institute temporary protection visas without family reunion rights. Despite the braying and self-regarding protests of the Malcolm Frasers and Julian Burnsides and others in their camp, TPVs are completely consistent with the 1951 Refugee Convention. According to a recent speech by UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, there are about 16 million refugees today. The vast majority of these will not be resettled anywhere, but will ultimately go home. Temporary protection is the norm.

This is not a question of compassion. This column has always supported a big immigration program, bigger than either of the main parties now supports, including a substantial refugee component. But it also supports an orderly program in which Australia chooses who gets to live here. The government’s soft policies on boatpeople, and its formerly high rate of acceptance of boatpeople as genuine refugees, has encouraged many thousands to get into boats. According to the opposition, perhaps 170 people have drowned in the process. That’s not compassionate.

Gillard’s proposal for a regional processing centre in East Timor is entirely different from Abbott’s proposal for Nauru. Her insistence that the centre has to be located in a country which is a signatory to the 1951 convention is nonsensical. Most of the refugee camps from which Australia took Indochinese refugees in the 1970s and 80s were located in countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia, which were not signatories to the convention. Similarly, many countries that are signatories, such as Singapore, do not take any refugees for resettlement. Another convention signatory, China, has been known to force genuine refugees back to North Korea. Being a signatory to the convention is completely meaningless.

Moreover, any centre established in East Timor would become a plaything in East Timorese domestic politics, and inevitably a point of leverage for any East Timorese government in its relationship with Australia.

But most significantly, as this column has previously pointed out, it would be positive magnet of enormous power, attracting boatpeople from far away. In the joint press conference between Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa and Australia’s Stephen Smith, it was clear the Indonesians have absolutely no enthusiasm for this crazy idea at all. Natalegawa, the most diplomatic and helpful of men, kept stressing that the region should not focus on establishing this centre, and even less should it focus on the putative centre’s location.

The Rudd-Gillard government policies that have resulted in so many boatpeople coming to Australia have been a huge headache for Jakarta. Indonesia was a significant beneficiary of the Howard government stopping the flow of boatpeople.

It is absurd to slander the Australian people for being concerned about this unregulated flow of people, mostly from Afghanistan, the nation with perhaps the broadest and longest tradition of Islamist extremism. Some estimates are that all up 10,000 boatpeople will arrive this year.

Until recently, 95 per cent were being granted, almost automatically, refugee status and permanent residency in Australia. Say next year there are 10,000 Afghan boatpeople and they are all accepted into Australia. With permanent residency there would come family reunion rights. Say then that each brings even three relatives over time. That would be 40,000 Afghans who were never part of a considered immigration program. It is entirely reasonable for the Australian people to be concerned about this.

Given her strong rhetoric but meaningless policies on this issue, Gillard could well get back into government and deliver nothing in the way of stopping the boats. This could set her up for a public reaction, as occurred against Kevin Rudd, that she promised much and delivered nothing. On the other hand, to actually stop the boats she will have to take measures that the bleeding heart section of her party will hate. This issue will run and run.

“During the raid, a U.S. Forest Service K-9 team located Gauldry Almonte-Hernandez, a displaced foreign traveler from Michoacán Mexico, who had tried to flee the area and hide while officers were performing entry into the marijuana garden”

“Displaced foreign traveler”? Makes it sound like he meant to go to Disneyland, got lost, and ended up at a pot plantation in the woods south of Hayfork.

Nearly 100,000 new homes must be built every year just to provide housing for immigrants, ministers disclosed yesterday. Four out of every ten new houses or flats [apartments] built to cope with the rising population will go to a migrant, they said.

Over a 25-year period, immigrants will require 2.5million extra homes unless the Government meets its pledges to bring about a major reduction in numbers arriv­ing to live in Britain.

Communities Department spokesman Andrew Stunell said estimates of housing demand and the expected level of housing required by immigrants were prepared in March 2009, but only now revealed.

He said in a Commons written answer: ‘It is estimated that net international migration could account, on average, for 40 per cent of the net growth of households in England over the projection period from 2006 to 2031.’

The housing projections from the Commu­nities Department say that at current birth­rates and expected rates of immigration, 252,000 new homes a year will be needed each year until 2031.

Of these, 36,000 will be needed because there will be more people living alone and fewer couples and families, and 116,000 because of rising birthrates. The remaining 100,000 will be needed to house migrants, based on 2006 population figures.

At present the Office for National Statistics estimates that net immigration will run at 180,000 a year for the foreseeable future.

A federal judge on Wednesday blocked some of the toughest provisions in the Arizona illegal immigration law, putting on hold the state’s attempt to have local police enforce federal immigration policy.

Though the rest of the law is still set to go into effect Thursday, the partial injunction on SB 1070 means Arizona, for the time being, will not be able to require police officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton also struck down the section of law that makes it a crime not to carry immigration registration papers and the provision that makes it a crime for an illegal immigrant to seek or perform work.

“The bottom line is we’ve known all along that it is the responsibility of the feds,” Brewer told The Associated Press. “They haven’t done their job so we were going to help them do that.”

The Mexican government praised the judge’s decision. Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa told reporters that the injunction was a “first step in the right direction.”

In all, Bolton struck down four sections of the law, the ones that opponents called the most controversial. Bolton said she was putting those sections on hold until the courts resolve the issues.

The ruling said the Obama administration, which sought the injunction, is likely to “succeed on the merits” in showing the above provisions are preempted by federal law.

“The court by no means disregards Arizona’s interests in controlling illegal immigration and addressing the concurrent problems with crime including the trafficking of humans, drugs, guns, and money,” the ruling said. “Even though Arizona’s interests may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws.”

A number of provisions will still go into effect as the case is litigated. Arizona will be able to block state officials from so-called “sanctuary city” policies limiting enforcement of federal law; require that state officials work with federal officials on illegal immigration; allow civil suits over sanctuary cities; and make it a crime to pick up day laborers.

The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations to speak out against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.

Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said the court “ruled correctly” with its decision Wednesday.

“While we understand the frustration of Arizonans with the broken immigration system, a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement and would ultimately be counterproductive,” August said.

The Department of Homeland Security released a statement saying the decision “affirms the federal government’s responsibilities” to enforce immigration law. The department claimed “unprecedented resources” have been devoted to that effort.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., one of the most vocal advocates on immigration issues on Capitol Hill, applauded the decision. “Arresting people based on their appearance and holding them until you can investigate their immigration status is patently un-American and unconstitutional,” he said.

But supporters of the policy slammed the court’s decision. “This fight is far from over. In fact, it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens,” Brewer said.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., called the ruling “misguided.”

“The federal government has a right and a responsibility to enforce existing laws, but when they fail to meet that responsibility, we should not stand in the way of the states that take action to respond to the very real threat of border violence, drug cartels and human smuggling,” he said in a written statement. “There’s nowhere in the Constitution that says a state is limited to what it absolutely won’t do and can be stopped for what it might do and to exercise a judgment against a state that has passed a law that is consistent with existing federal law is beyond absurd.”

The volume of the protests will likely be turned down a few notches because of the ruling by Bolton, a Clinton appointee who suddenly became a crucial figure in the immigration debate when she was assigned the seven lawsuits filed against the Arizona law.

Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona — the busiest illegal gateway into the country — to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants.

Opponents argued the law will lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.

Localities inside Arizona were already preparing to interpret the law in different ways. The Tucson Unified School District’s Governing Board approved by a 5-0 vote a policy Tuesday that maintains the district’s stance of not enforcing immigration laws in the district’s schools.

The hardest-line approach was expected in the Phoenix area, where Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio plans his 17th crime and immigration sweep. He planned to hold the sweep regardless of the ruling.

Arpaio, known for his tough stance against illegal immigration, plans to send out about 200 deputies and volunteers who will be looking for traffic violators, people wanted on criminal warrants and others. He has used that tactic before to arrest dozens of people, many of them illegal immigrants. “We don’t wait. We just do it,” he said. “If there’s a new law out, we’re going to enforce it.”

Elsewhere in the state, police officials were busy wrapping up training sessions this week. Many of the state’s 15,000 police officers have been watching a DVD released this month that signs that might indicate a person is an illegal immigrant are speaking poor English, looking nervous or traveling in an overcrowded vehicle. It warned that race and ethnicity do not.

Some agencies added extra materials, including a test, a role-playing exercise or a question-and-answer session with prosecutors.

UP to 60 asylum-seeker children will be enrolled in Darwin schools in a move that has angered some parents who claim they weren’t consulted.

The Immigration Department yesterday confirmed it was in discussions with Northern Territory education officials about getting the children, most of them Afghans, a proper education. A spokesman said it was important for their development that the children attend school.

But some parents have reacted angrily to the move, saying they were not consulted and that school resources were diverted to make way for the influx. One parent told ABC radio he only heard about the plan after receiving an email addressed to the Anula school council.

“We found out through the back door,” he said. “We were told nothing. The school council organised a meeting the previous Monday. The department never came to us to explain anything. No one’s consulted anyone.”

While the Immigration spokesman said it was too early to say which schools would be involved, NT Education Union’s Adam Lampe said he was advised last week that Anula Primary School and Sanderson Middle School had been selected to receive the children.

Anula principal Karen Modoo declined to discuss the proposal and directed calls to NT Education where the executive director of school education, Alan Green, said there would be community consultation and that only schools with room and dedicated English programs would be considered. “There’s no question of us cramping kids into Anula or any other school,” Mr Green said. “They’ll only go there if they fit.”

Mr Lampe said educating the asylum-seeker children was a “great initiative”. “These kids need to be taken care of,” Mr Lampe said. “It’s being federally funded so there are no negatives here.”

But while both Anula and Sanderson have an intensive English unit that each caters to about 100 students, Mr Lampe said more teachers would have to be recruited from interstate.

A spokeswoman for NT Education Minister Chris Burns rejected suggestions the move would put Territory schools under strain.

Asylum-seeker children have previously received schooling on Christmas Island and in the remote West Australian town of Leonora, where officials say they have settled in well.

It is understood the government was told, before it announced its freeze on new asylum claims, that Australia’s success rate for claims was “out of whack” with the rest of the world and was encouraging people-smugglers.

In the early part of this year, the “recognition rate”, or success rate, for Afghan asylum-seekers was above 90 per cent. Senior government sources have told The Australian that the warning was contained in a document sent to the Rudd government prior to April 9, when it froze new Afghan and Sri Lankan asylum claims.

“It said our recognition rates were completely out of whack and this was a major pull factor,” a senior government source familiar with the advice told The Australian.

Both Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott have vowed to get tough on border security, with both promising to open offshore processing centres in third countries if they win the election.

Since the boats began arriving in late 2008, the government has consistently blamed instability abroad as the main cause of the surge. In October, Kevin Rudd blamed “huge push factors” in Afghanistan and Sri Lanka for the rush of boats. “Countries around the world are dealing with the same challenge,” Mr Rudd said.

But the warning is the clearest evidence yet that domestic policies have been a major factor in pulling boats to Australia’s shores.

It also suggests that for months, government agencies have been working at cross purposes, with the Immigration Department contributing to the very problem other agencies, such as the Australian Federal Police and the Customs Service and Border Protection Command, have been working to curtail.

The document compared Australia’s recognition rate, or success rate for new refugee claims, with those of the US, Canada and particularly Europe.

It concluded Australia was running an exceptionally generous refugee program that was acting as a magnet for boatpeople. “A lot of work was done on (the document),” the government source told The Australian.

It is understood that, while the document warned about the high approval levels, it did not explicitly recommend a cut to the rate. “Essentially, what it was about was that we need to address this by providing to decision-makers better advice, more accurate advice,” the source said.

Up until six months ago the success rate for Afghan asylum-seekers, who have made up more than half the total number of unauthorised boat arrivals since late 2008, was 95 per cent. It has since fallen to 30 per cent. The drop has left most Afghanistan country experts baffled as they say it has not been matched by a corresponding improvement in security.

The source said official government estimates had predicted between 5000 and 10,000 unauthorised boat arrivals this year. So far, 4067 asylum-seekers and crew have arrived in Australia by boat this year. On current trends, 2010 will set a new record for boat arrivals, eclipsing the 5516 asylum-seekers who arrived in 2001, the year of the Tampa crisis.

The government advice appears to have been acted on, with the success rate falling rapidly since the beginning of the year.

A spokesman for Immigration Minister Chris Evans said the Howard government also recognised Afghan asylum claims at rates of around 95 per cent from 1998-99 to 2000-01.

But he said last month the Afghan refusal rate exceeded 70 per cent. “If upheld at review, this increasing rate of refusals will result in many more people being returned to their homeland,” the spokesman said.

The Department of Foreign Affairs declined to comment on the document, saying it did not discuss advice sent to ministers. And last night a spokesman for the Immigration Department said it would not discuss “advice or interdepartmental information-sharing”. “Having said that, this in no way confirms the claims made or that such a document exists,” a spokesman said.

However, The Australian has been told high recognition rates have been an issue within government for some time, with those responsible for border security arguing they are acting as a magnet.

The plummeting refugee success rate has coincided with the government’s announcement in April that it was freezing new asylum claims in order to assess evolving circumstances in Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. But the extent of the drop, as well as its timing, has given rise to wider questions about the integrity of what is supposed to be an objective refugee selection process.

Refugee Council president John Gibson told The Australian last week there was no way the current success rate reflected the current conditions in Afghanistan. “In terms of Afghans, there is a question mark over the integrity of the process,” Mr Gibson said.

Some sources in the refugee sector have suggested the government was approving refugee claims at high rates to avoid a bottleneck in the Christmas Island detention centre.

In April, the Rudd government belatedly announced it would be forced to transfer people to centres on the mainland, because of chronic overcrowding on Christmas Island, which had been expanded from its original capacity of 400 people to about 2500.

In comments sent to The Australian last week, Immigration Department secretary Andrew Metcalfe “categorically denied” claims the high success rate was driven by a desire to move people quickly through the Christmas Island detention centre, or that it was subject to political interference.

“Any such suggestions are baseless and totally without foundation,” Mr Metcalfe said.

He said new country information for Afghanistan had been prepared in February. But the department has refused to release the updated country information it is using as the basis of the tougher assessments, despite promising to do so in April.

The Department maintains it will release its guidance notes for Afghanistan when they have been “finalised”. Afghans are easily the largest category of asylum-seekers to arrive in Australia. Immigration Department figures show more than 3797 Afghans have arrived since the current surge in boat arrivals began in late 2008.

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency expects to deport about 400,000 people this fiscal year, nearly 10 percent above the Bush administration’s 2008 total and 25 percent more than were deported in 2007. The pace of company audits has roughly quadrupled since President George W. Bush’s final year in office.

The effort is part of President Obama’s larger project “to make our national laws actually work,” as he put it in a speech this month at American University. Partly designed to entice Republicans to support comprehensive immigration reform, the mission is proving difficult and politically perilous.

Obama is drawing flak from those who contend the administration is weak on border security and from those who are disappointed he has not done more to fulfill his campaign promise to help the country’s estimated 11 million illegal residents. Trying to thread a needle, the president contends enforcement — including the deployment of fresh troops to the Mexico border — is a necessary but insufficient solution.

A June 30 memorandum from ICE director John Morton instructed officers to focus their “principal attention” on felons and repeat lawbreakers. The policy, influenced by a series of sometimes-heated White House meetings, also targets repeat border crossers and declares that parents caring for children or the infirm should be detained only in unusual cases.

“We’re trying to put our money where our mouth is,” Morton said in an interview, describing the goal as a “rational” immigration policy. “You’ve got to have aggressive enforcement against criminal offenders. You have to have a secure border. You have to have some integrity in the system.”

Morton said the 400,000 people expected to be deported this year — either physically removed or allowed to leave on their own power — represent the maximum the overburdened processing, detention and immigration court system can handle.

The Obama administration has been moving away from using work-site raids to target employers. Just 765 undocumented workers have been arrested at their jobs this fiscal year, compared with 5,100 in 2008, according to Department of Homeland Security figures. Instead, officers have increased employer audits, studying the employee documentation of 2,875 companies suspected of hiring illegal workers and assessing $6.4 million in fines.

On the ground, a program known as Secure Communities uses the fingerprints of people in custody for other reasons to identify deportable immigrants. Morton predicts it will “overhaul the face of immigration.” The administration has expanded the system to 437 jails and prisons from 14 and aims to extend it to “every law enforcement jurisdiction” by 2013.

The Secure Communities project has identified 240,000 illegal immigrants convicted of crimes, according to DHS figures. Of those, about 30,000 have been deported, including 8,600 convicted of what the agency calls “the most egregious offenses.”

Thousands of marriage visas were granted to Pakistanis last year without proper checks, a damning report reveals today.

Immigration officials ignored possible evidence of fraud in nearly a third of applications which resulted in visas being granted, inspectors said.

John Vine, Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency, said the lack of proper scrutiny amounted to a failure to protect Britain’s borders.

Figures from last year showed 6,750 Pakistanis were granted marriage visas – allowing them to come to live with their husband or wife in this country – meaning more than 2,000 visas may have been wrongly granted in just 12 months.

The revelation is the latest in a string of damaging blows for UKBA. Last year MPs branded the agency ‘not fit for purpose’ after officials admitted losing track of 40,000 people who arrived on visas which have since expired.

Only last week it emerged the giant £1.2billion e-Borders scheme – designed to track illegal immigrants, terrorists and foreign criminals – was more than a year behind schedule.

Rules dictate that for a marriage visa to be awarded, both husband and wife must show they have enough money to support themselves. This can include references from employers as proof of employment or bank account statements to show evidence of savings.

But inspectors found that in 31 per cent of cases in which visas were granted, officials failed to scrutinise evidence that applicants might be lying. They found ‘unexplained cash deposits’ in accounts, or references from employers which contained obvious spelling mistakes – suggesting they could be fake.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of MigrationWatch UK, called for a ‘thorough investigation’ into the revelations. He said: ‘This is very serious indeed. Thousands are being granted not just access to “Lack of scrutiny” Britain but a meal ticket for life on bogus applications.’

In one case uncovered by inspectors, a visa was granted despite the resident husband receiving council tax benefits and lying about his job. Further checks revealed the reference letter from his employer was fake and he was claiming a raft of other benefits and tax credits.

Each visa grants the holder the right to live here for two years, and after that they can apply to remain indefinitely.

Mr Vine attacked ‘serious organisational failings’ and a ‘lack of rigorous scrutiny’ in the cases inspectors examined.

The chaos came after processing was moved from Pakistan to Croydon and Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates, he said. Of the 49 cases inspectors looked at, 15 showed visas were granted without proper checks. Of those, nine needed further checks on financial support and six of references containing mistakes suggesting they were fake.

Immigration minister Damian Green said he was ‘very concerned’ about the findings. He said: ‘This report covers a period when the Agency had to make significant changes to the Pakistan visa operations due to the bombing of the Marriott Hotel and the deteriorating security situation in the country. ‘I am determined to drive up standards and ensure that UK border controls are robust.’

A Home Office spokesman said: ‘It is completely wrong to draw global conclusions from this very small sample.’

Meanwhile English language tests will become compulsory for immigrants wanting to join their husband or wife in Britain from November, ministers confirmed yesterday.

Migrants from outside the EU who are married or engaged to a Briton will have to prove they have ‘conversational’ English before they can settle in the country.

Fake finances of Indian students

Indian police have smashed a scam in which hundreds of immigrants were illegally awarded UK student visas. Three people have been charged with providing forged bank statements needed to gain a visa. One member of the gang, said to be the bank manager, is still at large.

Officers say they have evidence that up to 100 applications were falsified, but they believe this is only the tip of the iceberg.

Police moved after the British High Commission in New Dehli said too many applicants from the Punjab state were submitting documents issued by one branch of Canara, a state-owned bank.

Police spokesman Rakesh Aggarwal said: ‘Three accused, including mastermind Aruin Kumar Kumar and his accomplices, Satish Kumar and Jasbir Singh, have been arrested. We are still looking for the bank manager, Rajiv Ranjan.’

He added that police were planning to conduct more raids in the region. The gang swindled thousands of pounds from applicants who wanted to study in Britain but did not have adequate funds and needed bank statements to show they were financially sound to support their education in the country.

They charged £1,300 a student for the fake documents. Police have seized allegedly forged letterheads, stamps and other documents.

Officials said there had also been complaints from the neighbouring Nawanshahr district regarding allegedly fake bank statements being provided to applicants seeking visas for other countries.

According a new computer model, a total of nearly seven million additional Mexicans could emigrate to the U.S. by 2080 as a result of reduced crop yields brought about by a hotter, drier climate—assuming other factors influencing immigration remain unchanged.

“The model shows that climate-driven refugees could be a big deal in the future,” said study co-author Michael Oppenheimer, an atmospheric scientist at Princeton University in New Jersey.

Using data on Mexican emigration as well as climate and crop yields in 30 Mexican states between 1995 and 2005, Oppenheimer and colleagues created the computer model to predict the effect of climate change on the rate of people crossing the border.

In that ten-year period, 2 percent of the Mexican population emigrated to the U.S. for every 10 percent reduction in crop yield.

Using the model to extrapolate this real-world figure over the next 70 years, the researchers calculated that 1.4 to 6.7 million adult Mexicans—a number roughly equal to 10 percent of Mexico’s current adult population—could migrate to the U.S. by 2080.

The research is one of the first attempts by scientists to put hard numbers on how climate change can affect human migration patterns.

“Our study is the first to build a model that can be used for projecting the effects on migration of future climate change,” Oppenheimer said.

Global Warming Study “a Simplification”

Though the new global warming study is “original and very interesting,” it shouldn’t be interpreted as a forecast of what will happen, economist Ian Goldin, who wasn’t involved in the project, said via email.

“The [end of the] time range—2080—is a very long time off, and there are many other factors [besides climate change] which may lead to a very different outcome,” said Goldin, director of the University of Oxford’s James Martin 21st Century School.

Barry Smit, a climate-impact scientist at the University of Guelph in Canada, agreed.

“I wouldn’t take these numbers to the bank,” said Smit, who also wasn’t involved in the research, which is published in this week’s issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

To reach their conclusions, the authors had to make some “heroic assumptions,” Smit said, such as that the current economic and political situations of the U.S. and Mexico won’t change for decades.

Study co-author Oppenheimer acknowledged there are many uncertainties in his team’s model. But it’s important for scientists to investigate climate change-induced migration quantitatively, he said.

“This is the first time anybody’s built a model to do this,” Oppenheimer said. “It’s a simplification, and there are a lot of assumptions, but it’s the start of a learning process. As we learn more, the model will improve, and the numbers will get more reliable.”