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

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



15 March, 2010

Quebec tough on Muslim immigrants

In the struggle to integrate newcomers to Canada, Quebec has distanced itself from other provinces with its hardline stand against religious face coverings, which is likely to earn it a reputation as either a far-sighted pioneer or intolerant loner. Provincial governments in the rest of the country appear leery about setting rules imiting access to public services for people who wear certain forms of religious attire, as Quebec did earlier this week.

Immigration Department officials in the province expelled a Muslim woman from government-sponsored language classes after she refused to remove her niqab, a Muslim face covering that reveals only the eyes. It was the second time the Quebec government confronted the woman, prompting Immigration Minister Yolande James to declare: "If you want to assist at (attend) our classes, if you want to integrate into Quebec society, here are our values." "We want to see your face."

Not so in other parts of the country. Like Quebec, Ontario also sponsors language courses for immigrants. But unlike Quebec, newcomers to Ontario are allowed face coverings, such as a niqab, in their courses. "We are an open Ontario," said Indira Naidoo-Harris, a spokeswoman for Ontario Citizenship and Immigration Minister Eric Hoskins. "We are committed to creating an open society where all Ontarians are respected."

That openness, however, is hypothetical. Naidoo-Harris said her department has never been faced with a case similar to the one in Quebec. The same holds true for British Columbia, which like many other provinces doesn't have a defined policy on face coverings in government-funded language courses.

Outside Quebec, governments seem more hesitant about regulating what people wear. "In Nova Scotia people have a right to express themselves anyway they wish around their faith," said that province's immigration minister, Ramona Jennex.

But inside Quebec, such sartorial matters have political consequences and are understood as part of the long-running debate over how to reasonably accommodate minorities. The issue became so heated that the Liberal government was forced to call a public inquiry on the topic in 2007. Its recommendations were largely ignored, but since the niqab story was revealed, Premier Jean Charest has faced a daily barrage of questions about his government's commitment to protecting Quebec values.

"The issue of reasonable accommodation has been more acute in Quebec because of its history in terms of the francophone majority being a vulnerable minority," said Morton Weinfeld, who holds the chair in Canadian-Ethnic Studies at McGill University. "It is very concerned about its cultural integrity and survival."

Contributing to the issue is Quebec's relative lack of ethnic diversity compared with the rest of Canada's. According to the latest Statistics Canada report, only 16 per cent of Montreal's population was non-white in 2006. That number was actually well below 10 per cent in other population centres, including Quebec City (two per cent) and Saguenay (one per cent). Both Vancouver and Toronto have non-white populations of more than 40 per cent.

"The niqab issue has legs because it is linked to Islamophobia," said Weinfeld. "But such issues are not unique to Quebec."

Given the same Statistics Canada report predicted visible minorities would account for one-third of the country's population by 2031, Quebec's problems could be a harbinger for the rest of Canada, Weinfeld added.

Other provinces declined to comment about the steps taken by Quebec's immigration minister, though provincial government officials in Manitoba acknowledged they were monitoring the situation there. They could be given a taste of their options in the coming weeks, as Charest's government has promised concrete measures to deal with accommodation issues.

It has so far been mum on the details but James provided some clues as to what they might entail. "In Quebec, we receive services with the face uncovered and we give services with the face uncovered," she said in the legislature.

As Canada's minority population continues to grow, other provinces will have to decide whether Quebec's approach is the model they want to follow.

SOURCE



Australia: Call to Send asylum seekers to the back of the queue

Family First Senator Steve Fielding says the Federal Government should consider sending asylum seekers who arrive by boat to refugee camps in other countries because they are "jumping the queue".

The Government has been dealing with an influx of asylum seekers coming to Australia by boat, with the 21st vessel this year being intercepted yesterday. The Christmas Island detention centre has been expanded to cope with the increase, but is nearing capacity.

Senator Fielding says while his proposal is "controversial", people smugglers are exploiting asylum seekers because Australia has become a "soft touch". He says his idea should be considered to stop the "tidal wave" of boats coming to Australia. "I think Australians would like the idea of the process of saying, 'If you're going to try and jump the queue you go to the back of the queue and wait in a refugee camp and wait your turn to come to Australia," he said.

When asked by reporters if his proposal would contravene Australia's obligations under the UN Convention on Refugees, Senator Fielding replied: "I think you can still work with the UNHCR on that issue because if they're fleeing for their lives why wouldn't they want to be waiting in a refugee camp where they're safe and sound?"

A spokesman for Senator Fielding says he is not proposing to send asylum seekers back to their home country. Senator Fielding says Australia could negotiate with countries that have refugee camps to send the asylum seekers there.

Dr Graham Thom, refugee coordinator for Amnesty International Australia says the proposal breaches international law. "It is also completely impractical and unrealistic," he said. "Australia would be trying to return refugees to countries such as Pakistan, Indonesia, and Malaysia who are already completely overburdened with refugees.

And Dr Thom says refugee camps are far from safe. "In the camps on the Syria/Iraqi border which I visited in 2008, the conditions were appalling and extremely unsafe In these camps," he said. "Women had been burnt to death when their tents caught on fire, children had been hit and killed by passing trucks and refugees faced extreme weather conditions with little protection."

A spokesman for Immigration Minister Chris Evans declined to comment on the idea. After coming to power in 2007, the Rudd Government dismantled the Howard government's Pacific Solution and abolished temporary protection visas. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has signalled that a Coalition government would "turn the boats back" and bring back a form of a temporary visa.

SOURCE





14 March, 2010

British judge bans anti-immigration party from taking on any new members

In good Nazi fashion, the Leftist British establishment is using the law to hound an opposing party out of existence

The British National Party was ordered to stop taking new members yesterday after a judge said its rules were loaded against non-whites. Judge Paul Collins said that despite attempts by the far-Right group to clean up its constitution to comply with the law, the rules were still racist. While it is not illegal to hold racist views, it is against the Race Relations Act for a political party's recruitment rules to be based on discrimination, the judge said. Judge Collins instructed the party to close its membership list until the constitution had been re-written.

He told Central London County Court he believed the BNP was 'likely to commit unlawful acts of discrimination... in the terms on which they are prepared to admit persons to membership under the 12th addition of their constitution'.

The ruling and an injunction preventing new members follows a challenge to BNP rules from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). Last month the party abandoned its whites-only policy to try to comply with the law - but Judge Collins said the move was cosmetic. In particular he pointed to new rules which require new members to be vetted by existing members in their homes.

He also referred to a series of newly established core party organisations that appear to have been set up to ensure new ethnic minority members cannot influence BNP policies or leadership. Of the first rule, the judge said: ' Unsurprisingly it was argued on behalf of the commission that the purpose of this provision was to be intimidatory.' On the second, he said that one of the new core groups was able to veto any changes to the constitution.

'This veto may have been inserted as insurance against the possibility that large numbers of non-indigenous British might join the BNP to vote its essential principles out of existence,' the judge said. He warned that any breach of the injunction on members could result in a prison sentence for officials or seizure of BNP assets.

Party leader Nick Griffin, who was jeered by demonstrators at the court, said the judgement 'has given an organ of the state the power to interfere in the aims and objectives of any political party'. Mr Griffin said people who did not agree with the party's principles would not be allowed to join.

Susie Uppal, of the EHRC, said: 'The commission is glad that the judgment confirms our view that both the BNP's 11th constitution and the amended 12th constitution are unlawful. 'Political parties, like any other organisation, are obliged to respect the law and not discriminate against people who wish to become members. 'The BNP will now have to take the necessary steps to ensure that it complies with the Race Relations Act.'

SOURCE



Weasel words about illegal immigrants to Australia

With Christmas Island full to the gunwales, the boatpeople issue is set to re-emerge, and language will play a crucial role in this political debate

In the long-running controversy about people-smuggling, language often has been misused to disguise what is going on. Instead of relaying the facts about people-smuggling, carefully chosen words are creating an entirely false impression. George Orwell would be turning in his grave.

We have long debated the term "illegal arrivals". Unfair labelling was the call, and most people now use the bureaucratic "unauthorised boat arrivals" or the less precise "asylum-seekers" - less precise because there is an important distinction between these asylum-seekers and those camped in, say, Sudan; namely that the former have circumvented normal processes and arrived on our shores without visas.

When people downplay the boat arrivals issue by trumpeting the numbers of asylum-seekers who arrive by plane they neatly skirt around this point: that those arriving by plane arrive legally, with visas in hand. They may illegally overstay those visas and then claim asylum, but the fact remains they arrived legally, with authorities knowing who they were and where they came from.

Orwell believed language should be used to simply and directly convey what we mean. He identified that sloppy use of language could contaminate political debate, and vice versa: "If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought."

And so it is that every few days or so we are alerted to another boat load of asylum-seekers being intercepted by Australian customs or navy patrols. This is a most misleading use of the English language. The skippers of these people-smuggling boats know exactly where they are going and what they want. They head for Australian waters, usually near Ashmore Reef or Christmas Island, and their aim is to be met by an Australian vessel and taken for processing.

Whatever individual Australians think about changes to our border protection regime, rest assured the smugglers and their customers know the new rules: no trip to Nauru; no detention in the desert; no temporary protection visa; three months maximum in the Christmas Island centre; then off to mainland Australia with a visa.

So these boats and their passengers are not intercepted by Australian vessels, they seek them out. To say they are intercepted is to say I was intercepted at the Martin Place station in Sydney yesterday by the train to Central. Lucky I had a ticket ready.

The latest example of this came on Thursday. Home Affairs Minister Brendan O'Connor issued a formulaic media release saying, "Border Protection Command today successfully intercepted a suspected irregular entry vessel." It went on to say that the group of 47 people would be taken to Christmas Island where they: "will undergo security, identity and health checks. Their reasons for travel will also be established."

To save the minister some time, allow me to suggest their reason for travel was to get to Christmas Island and receive visas to live in Australia.

The same formulation was used two days earlier for a group of 57 people, three days earlier for a boat with 47 people on board, four days before that with 13 people, two days with 45, and again just six days earlier for a vessel with 50 on board. Five days before that there was another arrival, but this time the media release trumpeted: "Border Protection Command Rescues 45 people."

This underscores the point. When the boats are not intercepted in good time, they ring for help and arrange a rescue. You will not be surprised that, according to the minister's media release: "The people on board the vessel have indicated they wish to come to Australia and will be taken to Christmas Island." These announcements are farcical.

There is a bit of self-censorship of these arrivals going on in the media, so that quite often the arrivals receive little or no coverage. But, when they do, the government's language is usually repeated by journalists and it gives a false impression. Newspapers, websites and radio bulletins proclaim that "Australian authorities intercepted the boat" or that a boat "has been intercepted".

Whether we agree with the government's policies or not, let's not create the impression that our vessels are out there intercepting unauthorised boats, preventing them coming to Australia. Let's not pretend these rendezvous are not welcomed by the asylum-seekers. Let's not confuse rescues and interceptions with successful deliveries of asylum-seekers into the hands of Australian authorities.

This is not to say the Australian personnel don't have a difficult and dangerous job. As we have seen, confusion and miscommunication can have disastrous consequences, especially when the expectation is a simple tow to Christmas Island.

But let us be clear. The only intercepting that occurs is at Christmas Island if arrivals are found not to be legitimate asylum-seekers.

SOURCE





13 March, 2010

Senators give Obama a "bipartisan" plan on immigration

The president is encouraged, but healthcare politics could jeopardize the proposal

Reporting from Washington - A pair of influential senators presented President Obama with a three-page blueprint for a bipartisan agreement to overhaul the nation's immigration system, but the proposal's viability is threatened by politics surrounding the healthcare debate. Sens. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), in a 45-minute meeting Thursday in the Oval Office, also asked for Obama's help in rounding up enough Republican votes to pass an immigration bill this year.

Although details of their blueprint were not released, Graham said the elements included tougher border security, a program to admit temporary immigrant workers and a biometric Social Security card that would prevent people here illegally from getting jobs. Graham also said the proposal included "a rational plan to deal with the millions of illegal immigrants already in the United States." He did not elaborate on what the plan would be. But in a recent interview, he suggested that onerous measures were unrealistic. "We're not going to mass-deport people and put them in jail, nor should we," Graham said. "But we need a system so they don't get an advantage over others for citizenship."

In a statement after the Obama meeting, Graham predicted that their effort would collapse if Senate Democrats proceeded with a strategy to pass a healthcare bill through a simple majority vote -- a process known as "reconciliation." Senate leaders say they are committed to doing just that. "I expressed, in no uncertain terms, my belief that immigration reform could come to a halt for the year if healthcare reconciliation goes forward," said Graham, who portrayed the document handed to Obama as "a work in progress." Graham added: "For more than a year, healthcare has sucked most of the energy out of the room. Using reconciliation to push healthcare through will make it much harder for Congress to come together on a topic as important as immigration."

In their own statements, Obama and Schumer sounded more upbeat.

The president said: "Today I met with Sens. Schumer and Graham and was pleased to learn of their progress in forging a proposal to fix our broken immigration system. I look forward to reviewing their promising framework, and every American should applaud their efforts to reach across party lines and find common sense answers to one of our most vexing problems."

Immigration has gotten scant attention of late. Obama had initially promised to address the issue in his first year, but the deadline slipped as he struggled to pass a healthcare bill. Latino voters, who were a crucial piece of Obama's winning coalition in the 2008 campaign, have grown impatient. Some advocates of an immigration overhaul warn that Latino voters will stay home in the November mid-term elections if the issue is delayed again.

In an attempt to defuse the anger, Obama met with a group of 14 immigration advocates in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, hours before his meeting with the two senators. Afterward, some of the guests described the atmosphere in the room as tense. They said they told Obama that families were being severed by widespread deportations. In the fiscal year that ended in September, the U.S. deported 388,000 illegal immigrants, according to the Department of Homeland Security -- up from 369,000 the year before. "I don't think the president liked hearing that the immigration system is tearing apart families. But that's our reality," said Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, who attended the meeting.

Obama agreed to have them meet with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to discuss deportation policies, the White House said.

Even without the healthcare obstacle, passing an immigration bill would be difficult. Schumer has been trying to line up additional Republican co-sponsors in hopes of broadening the bill's bipartisan support. None has signed up. Those who attended the meeting said that Obama committed to helping find Republican votes. But he also conceded that in a polarized Senate, that was a difficult mission. "He was very frank about the challenge of moving this or anything else in the U.S. Congress," said John Wilhelm, president of the labor union Unite Here.

Source



The only politician with the guts to speak out about immigration: Frank Field reveals his candid opinion on the future of Britain

Surprisingly, it's not just ambitious Tory MPs with dreams of ministerial office who will be waiting by their phones the day after the General Election if David Cameron becomes Prime Minister. The maverick Labour MP Frank Field, who has had turbulent relations with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, may also receive a call.

During Mr Field's 30 years as an MP, hundreds of ministers have come and gone - few are remembered. Field himself was a minister for only 18 months in Tony Blair's first government. But far from being an also-ran, he is now - at the age of 67 - at the peak of his powers. More pertinently, he is one of only a handful of politicians in Britain with the courage to break the cross-party silence on immigration and propel it to the centre of the political stage.

With a rock- solid Merseyside seat, and a thick skin after three decades in public life, he doesn't care who knows that he thinks Mr Brown is a disaster who should never have been Chancellor, let alone Prime Minister. They repeatedly clashed when he was the minister charged by Mr Blair with 'thinking the unthinkable' on welfare reform back in the days of the first New Labour government.

So, with no chance of a return to office under Labour, what about serving David Cameron, who has pledged to mend 'Broken Britain' by radically overhauling the benefits system? 'If the Tories want to talk to me about a job, I will be happy to,' says Field. 'My door is open to any party to develop ideas. Tory, Liberal, or my own. I will always put the interests of my country and constituents before my party. I have never refused to speak to people on the other side.'

Pressed on whether he would take a ministerial job, he says: 'I would love to be asked by the Prime Minister, especially my own, to take on a role to help convince the world we are serious about our debts, getting immigration under control, and reforming welfare. I am up for that challenge.' So why not talk to our current PM? 'I would love to talk to him,' says Field, 'but he won't speak to me.'

Mr Field tips the scales at barely 11 stone, the same weight as when he was first elected, yet he never goes to the gym. He eats too much, and likes red wine. He rarely watches TV or goes to the theatre. He prefers to relax by reading political tomes such as the latest biography on Churchill. He represents one of Labour's safest seats, Birkenhead.

Even 20 years after the fall of Margaret Thatcher, she is still a hate figure among swathes of his electorate. Yet long before Mr Brown also professed his admiration for her, Field was hugely impressed by the woman he thinks was the most radical British leader since Clement Attlee's post-war government, which created the NHS. 'I have a good relationship with her. She has become much nicer as she has got older. In fact, I'm having coffee with her tomorrow.' His late father, a building labourer, and mother, a classroom assistant, would approve. They voted Tory.

Mr Field makes no apologies for being willing to talk to the Tories. His mission has been to create a Labour Party that speaks to ordinary working people, gets the poor off benefits, reduces state spending, and has full employment as a goal - admirable objectives, which his party has failed to achieve. So if the Tories can achieve them, he will engage with them....

It's inflammatory stuff for a Labour MP. But by his own admission, Field is a serial rebel in the Commons. 'On issues I really know about, I sadly usually disagree with the Government. For that reason, I try not to find out about the other issues so I can put in a reasonable number of votes on behalf of my party.' ...

But it was his decision to set up Balanced Migration, a cross-party political group to campaign against mass immigration, which has thrust him to the fore once more. According to government statistics, one immigrant arrives every minute, and a new British passport is issued every three. In the past ten years, almost 750,000 British people have left the country, and 2.5 million immigrants have arrived. The rate of inflow is 25 times higher than any previous period of immigration since the Norman Conquest.

Last month it emerged, under the Freedom of Information Act, that far from being unexpected, this massive increase was sanctioned by the Blair Cabinet - not least to ensure a strong backing for Labour from the new immigrants at successive elections. 'You can count on less than two hands the number of brave Labour MPs who have said we have to stop growing our population by immigration,' Field says. 'For his part, David Cameron has proposed a cap on immigration. He must put a figure on that.' Field proposes cutting it to 30,000 a year from 90,000. 'When people who have worked all their lives are unemployed because of the recession, we can't continue to have free movement from the countries that have recently become a part of the European Union. We have to withdraw temporarily from that.'

He warns that unless British people are put first, the Government risks serious outbreaks of civil unrest on a scale similar to the inner- city race riots that took place under Thatcher's first administration. 'It's like a drought. The tinder is very dry across Britain, particularly in areas which are most up against it. Despite what politicians say, the NHS and education budgets will all be cut. 'Yet schools will have to find new classrooms and teachers because we continue to grow our population through immigration.

'Parents know their children are not achieving what they might, despite unimaginable increases in the education budget, because teachers are disproportionately trying to make sure the new arrivals catch up with everyone else.'

The flashpoints could come in cities such as Bradford and in East London where the BNP is seeking to capitalise on simmering unrest among workingclass whites. 'The migrants come here and then people get nasty because they have created their own local villages in the inner cities. The charge sheets for this should be laid against the political elite who allowed this. 'The headlines will be dominated in the next few years by how we survive financially. Yet we won't survive longer term unless we put down the foundations for a new citizenship. 'And that must start with the fundamental truth that until you fulfil duties as a citizen there can never be anything such as rights. You should only get rights to benefits, for instance, if you have paid your contributions.

'We should ensure that the people who come here to work don't then have 300 members of their families who want to come, too. I don't think the British voters are going to put up with this for much longer. 'There is a risk of civil unrest. We have to turn off the immigration tap, so we can say to people: "You haven't trusted us in the past, but we are at least not going to make it any worse.'' '

As the polls point to the closest election fight since 1992, Mr Field is clear that although he might consider an approach from a Cameron government, he wants Labour to win. Even under Gordon Brown? 'I am looking forward to the election of a Labour government,' he says. Yes, but what about Mr Brown personally? 'I want to see Labour win,' he repeats. With Mr Brown at the helm? 'I want to see a Labour PM.'

His point is clear. Indeed, not only will he not endorse Mr Brown as PM, he has already identified his favoured candidate if there is a change of leader after polling day. 'If we have to look for a safe pair of hands, Alistair Darling has quietly put himself into the ring. He is quietly authoritative and has stood up to Brown.'

Frank Field predicts that the country is about to enter its stormiest waters since postwar reconstruction in 1945. 'I am not sure the country will necessarily be OK. But a country that was able to stand alone and beat the Nazis must have enormous inner reserves. We're going to need them.'

Source





12 March, 2010

Indonesia to jail people-smugglers for five years

People-smugglers caught in Indonesia will face five years' jail under tough anti-trafficking measures unveiled yesterday during a historic speech to federal parliament by visiting President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. In the first speech by an Indonesian leader to Australia's parliament, Dr Yudhoyono announced that a new law would make people-smuggling a crime in Indonesia - a move designed to discourage the Indonesian fishermen who have carried thousands of asylum-seekers into Australian waters.

The President's announcement followed a day of high drama in which Indonesian counter-terrorism police confirmed the death of the country's most wanted terrorist, Bali bombing mastermind Dulmatin, on Tuesday during a raid targeting a militant hideout in Jakarta.

Dr Yudhoyono was reading an earlier speech to a state luncheon in the Great Hall at Parliament House in Canberra when a military aide passed him a note. "I have great news to announce to you," the President told guests. "After a successful police raid against a terrorist hideout in Jakarta, we can confirm that one of those killed was Mr Dulmatin, one of the top Southeast Asian terrorists that we've been looking for," he said through an interpreter.

At 2.30pm, the President was escorted into a House of Representatives chamber packed with MPs from both houses, where he was introduced by the Speaker, Harry Jenkins.

Praising the Australia-Indonesia relationship as "solid and strong", Dr Yudhoyono warned of new "non-traditional" threats posed by terrorism, people-smuggling, drugs and natural disasters, for which Canberra and Jakarta should be prepared. He said both governments acknowledged that the vexed issue of people-smuggling was a regional problem, requiring a regional solution. "And to strengthen our legal instruments, the Indonesian government will soon introduce to parliament a law that will criminalise those involved in people-smuggling - those found guilty will be sent to prison for five years," Dr Yudhoyono pledged to loud applause.

His promise came as Australia's Border Protection Command confirmed the interception of the 21st asylum-seeker boat this year.

The Australian understands Indonesian authorities are preparing to deal with another situation - the 248 Australia-bound Sri Lankan Tamils refusing to get off their boat in the Indonesian port of Merak after a four-month standoff. This newspaper has been told Indonesia is preparing to remove the Sri Lankans by force if necessary, and send them to Tanjung Pinang immigration detention centre for processing by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. "These people will be transferred to another location in West Java soon," a senior Indonesian official said. Dr Yudhoyono described a "love-hate relationship" between two countries, which he said had evolved into a model partnership - not without its challenges, but one that was drawing world envy.

He said government-to-government ties between Jakarta and Canberra had never been better. But Dr Yudhoyono warned against complacency. He said he was personally concerned about ill-informed perceptions of Indonesian society by Australians, and vice-versa. "There are Australians who still see Indonesia as an authoritarian country or a military dictatorship or as a hotbed of Islamic extremism, or even as an expansionist power," the President said.

On the other hand, there were Indonesians afflicted by what he called "Australia-phobia - those who believe that the notion of White Australia still persists, that Australia harbours ill-intention towards Indonesia," he said. "We must expunge these preposterous mental caricatures if we are to achieve a more resilient partnership."

Earlier, Mr Rudd heaped lavish praise on Indonesia's achievements following the end of the Suharto regime in 1998. "The people of Indonesia enjoy a free media, an open society and religious tolerance," Mr Rudd said. "They live in a multi-party democracy in which transitions to power take place according to law. "In Indonesia, democracy now has strong foundations."

During talks earlier yesterday morning, Mr Rudd and Dr Yudhoyono agreed to further strengthen relations with an annual leaders' retreat and a meeting of foreign and defence ministers.

Tony Abbott said he supported Mr Rudd's remarks but used his speech in parliament to criticise Labor's policy on border protection.

In a three-hour meeting yesterday morning, Dr Yudhoyono and the Prime Minister discussed the three Australian drug smugglers facing the death penalty in Indonesia. "He indicated to the President that should any member of the group seek clemency, he would support the request directly with the President," a spokeswoman for the Prime Minister said last night.

Work will soon start on a prisoner exchange agreement between Indonesia and Australia.

Both leaders also discussed the 1975 killings of the Balibo Five journalists and expressed sympathy for those bereaved by the tragedy.

The Indonesian leader flew out of Canberra last night to Sydney for talks with business leaders aimed at boosting trade links.

SOURCE



Immigration & the SPLC

Panel: Stopping 'Hate' Is Really about Stopping Debate

After the collapse of the Senate amnesty bill in 2007, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) joined with the National Council of La Raza and others to launch a campaign to smear the three largest mainstream groups making a case for tighter enforcement and lower immigration. At the center of this campaign was the designation of the Federation for American Immigration Reform as a 'hate group' and the spread of that taint to Numbers USA and the Center for Immigration Studies. The announced goal was to pressure journalists and policymakers not to meet or speak with these organizations. Touted as an effort to 'stop the hate,' it was a thinly disguised move to stifle debate.

CIS will release a report next week examining the SPLC and its role in this campaign. “Immigration and the SPLC: How the Southern Poverty Law Center Invented a Smear, Served La Raza, Manipulated the Press, and Duped its Donors,” authored by Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Jerry Kammer, will be released at a panel discussion on Thursday, March 18, at 9:30 a.m. at the Murrow Room of the National Press Club, 14th & F streets NW. The report will be online at www.cis.org.

The panel will include:

* Jerry Kammer, author of “Immigration and the SPLC” and Senior Research Fellow at CIS. Prior to joining CIS, he was awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 2006 for his work in helping uncover the Duke Cunningham congressional bribery scandal. He received the Robert F. Kennedy Award for humanitarian journalism for his work in Mexico for the Arizona Republic.

* Ken Silverstein, Washington Editor for Harper's Magazine and author of “The Church of Morris Dees” in the November 2000 issue of the magazine.

* Carol Swain, Professor of Political Science and Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University and author of The New White Nationalism in America (Cambridge University Press, 2002) and editor of Debating Immigration (Cambridge University Press, 2007).

* Moderator: Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of CIS.

RSVP for the panel to press@cis.org. For information about the report, contact Jerry Kammer, 202-466-8185, gjk@cis.org

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





11 March, 2010

Search for GOP Backing Delays Senate Immigration Bill

Democratic Sen. Charles E. Schumer said Wednesday he and Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham are “getting real close” to a deal on a comprehensive immigration overhaul.

Schumer said the two major unresolved issues are finding a second Republican sponsor and getting unions and business “on the same side” regarding how to handle the future flow of low-skill workers.

Schumer said finding more than one Republican to sponsor the bill — something Graham has insisted on — has been difficult. He said there are “four or five prospects we’re working on,” including John Cornyn of Texas. “We will not pass an immigration bill unless it’s bipartisan,” said, D-N.Y.

Graham, R-S.C., sounded less optimistic about the bill’s prospects. “There’s not a whole lot of appetite for immigration reform right now” among moderate Democrats and Republicans, Graham said. He added: “the president is going to have get more involved.”

Schumer and Graham are scheduled to meet Thursday with President Obama at the White House regarding the immigration bill.

Democrats face increasing pressure for signs of progress from immigration advocacy and Latino groups, who say a legislative blueprint should be made public prior to a March 21 rally to be held on the Capitol grounds. A coalition of grassroots immigration advocacy groups warned at a March 8 press conference at the National Press Club that Latino voters are growing frustrated.

“Millions of citizens and new Americans voted for change, and what they got, as far as immigration is concerned, is more, much more, of the same,” said Angelica Salas, executive director of Humane Immigration Rights of Los Angeles.

SOURCE



The Democrat advantage on immigration reform is fading

Immigration reform advocates have been abuzz with the news that President Obama is to meet with Republican senator Lindsey Graham and Democratic senator Charles Schumer at the White House later this week. But insiders say the closed door meeting, which the president requested, is largely for show. Officially, Graham and Schumer say they need two more GOP co-sponsors for their bill, which includes a sweeping legalisation programme for undocumented immigrants, and stepped up border and workplace enforcement. But with mid-term elections just eight months away, and the campaign season likely to start in early May, there's not much time left to make legislative headway.

Republicans have been racking up one election victory after another and would rather deal with immigration from a position of strength, with their own party leaders chairing judiciary and other key congressional committees (which they will, if the GOP takes back one or both chambers). And for GOP nativists, further delay, followed by a Republican consolidation of power, is their best hope for derailing the Democrats' dreaded "amnesty" programme. In fact, neither party has the luxury of waiting much longer to address the nation's most contentious policy issue after healthcare. Obama's Latino support – he beat John McCain 2-1, reversing the GOP inroads made with Latinos under Bush – is shrinking. And not just because he has continually delayed action on immigration reform.

Latinos, in fact, are moderate voters, and they typically split their political preferences among Democrats (35-40%), Republicans (20-25%), and Independents (35-40%). That means Latinos are falling away from Obama for the same reason other swing voters are: disenchantment with his handling of healthcare, rising deficit, and joblessness. But they are not falling away as fast or as hard because Latinos still see Democrats as their friends on immigration, and most Republicans, as adversaries.

But that perception could soon change, depending on how Republicans act. GOP gubernatorial candidates who won in Virginia and New Jersey, and more recently Scott Brown in Massachusetts, were able to capture an enormous share of the independent vote because they not only emphasised bread and butter issues, but also soft-pedalled their opposition to abortion and illegal immigration, and reached out to ethnic minorities. In pre-election polls, Bob McDonnell, the GOP candidate in Virginia, ran virtually neck-and-neck with Democratic candidate Creigh Deeds among Latinos – an astounding turnaround from Obama's drubbing of McCain two years ago.

Republicans at the national level are also taking note of the need for a new approach to immigration, lest the party lose Latinos for an entire generation, or longer. To capitalise on recent Republican gains, GOP chairman Michael Steele is urging his party to include Hispanics as an integral part of GOP campaign planning. And even Sarah Palin is getting in on the act, telling a TV interviewer last month that immigration was part of America's "legacy" and the GOP needed to get back to "welcoming" immigrants, rather than "excluding" them. Alas, for the Democrats, the days when Republicans could be counted on to try to use immigration as a "wedge" issue – only to have it blow up in their face – may finally be over.

But for the GOP, turning their immigrant-friendly posturing into party-wide support for immigration reform is still a work in progress. It's certainly news to the Tea Party, the grassroots conservative movement that Palin, among others, is assiduously courting to attract new GOP voters. Tea Partiers are staunch critics of immigration policies that, in their view, favour liberal pressure groups at the expense of "mainstream" America. That's why Hispanic Marco Rubio, who is running for the Florida Senate seat vacated by fellow Cuban-American Mel Martinez, is not just a bright light for the Tea Party, and for the GOP, but also a potential challenge. He's a patriotic American, and a staunch defender of private enterprise and smaller government. But his parents were dirt poor peasants who migrated to America thanks to a fast-track legalisation programme that treats the Cuban-born as an elite class of immigrant exempt from "normal" entry rules.

Many Cubans Rubio's age periodically try to make the perilous journey to America aboard makeshift rafts. Mexican "illegals" that lack the Cuban privilege make just as perilous a journey by land to reach America safely. There's not much difference there. That's why Rubio's Cuban-American counterparts in the House, all staunch Republicans, have long supported immigration reform. Assuming Rubio wins this November, he'll be hard pressed to resist reform of some kind, and so will the GOP.

The Democrats, meanwhile, are beginning to make the same mistake they made in the pre-Bush years when they took the Latino vote for granted. Latino leaders are furious that the White House enlisted them in the healthcare reform debate, then stabbed them in the back by agreeing to GOP demands that illegal immigrants be barred from receiving healthcare benefits. The White House tried to mollify the leadership by promising to push immigration reform, which would allow illegal immigrants to get healthcare once they became legal residents. But the administration, still bogged down on healthcare, and unable to reverse the nation's jobless rate, hasn't lived up to its side of the bargain.

Hence, this week's White House showpiece meeting with Schumer and Graham. It's meant to say to Latinos and to immigration advocates, "I am still with you". But for Latinos, long accustomed to being courted, then shunted to the side, all it really says is: "Mañana."

SOURCE





10 March, 2010

The Corrosive Effects of Illegal Immigration

Most Americans realize that our federal government's deliberate refusal to control the influx of illegal aliens, primarily from Mexico, has had a deleterious effect on our nation's economy. Scores of California hospitals have had to close their doors because of a tsunami of illegals seeking "free" health care -- and receiving it.

Schools across the country are being forced to deal with the children of those here illegally, with many states now fighting over whether to offer these children in-state tuition to attend state colleges and universities.

Two of the largest business associations in the country are at odds over this issue. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which sees cheap, illegal labor as a boon for big business, favors a program that keeps our southern border open. But the National Federation of Independent Business, which represents small business owners, says its members frequently see illegals as competition with legitimate enterprise.

We even see sharp divisions in our politics over this issue, as challengers such as former Arizona Congressman J.D. Hayworth take on former Republican presidential candidate John McCain in that state's primary election this year for the GOP nomination for McCain's Senate seat.

But these are only the most obvious consequences of a misguided policy that has overburdened the most prosperous society on earth, and now the corrosive effects of not enforcing our immigration laws is taking a toll on our body politic at a whole new level.

In my home state of Nebraska, Republican Gov. Dave Heineman currently enjoys sky-high approval ratings from constituents, thanks in large part to his stubborn resistance to tax increases, his principled opposition to Democrat Sen. Ben Nelson's "Cornhusker Kickback," and his veto of a bill that would have provided in-state college tuition for the children of illegals -- a stand that helped him beat back a 2006 primary challenge from former congressman and Nebraska football deity Tom Osborne. Now Heineman has taken another courageous position on behalf of taxpayers by threatening to veto a bill in the Legislature that would provide state-funded prenatal care for illegal immigrants.

Unfortunately, Nebraska's Catholic Bishops have come out in favor of the legislation, thereby causing a powerful, Catholic-dominated pro-life group, Nebraska Right-to-Life, to issue an ultimatum: candidates opposing the bill will not receive their endorsement in the upcoming fall election campaign. "We want to assure that innocent, unborn children will receive prenatal services," says Brenda Eller, president of the group. The group's board voted unanimously to support the bill. "This is the right thing to do from a pro-life position, regardless of the immigration status," Eller declares.

But Gov. Heineman is standing firm. "After a careful and thoughtful review of the various aspects of this issue, we are opposed to illegal immigrants receiving taxpayer-funded benefits," the governor said in a letter read at a public hearing on the prenatal care plan. This once again stands him in good stead with Nebraskans.

"The idea that society is responsible for people who are breaking the law is completely ridiculous and completely false," says Dimitri Krynsky, who emigrated legally from Czechoslovakia thirty years ago. "What the state should do is make sure these people do not find work here, do not find apartments here," he says. "Nebraska should create an environment that will send them home."

Krynsky speaks for the overwhelming majority of Nebraskans, including the many legal immigrants who resent the fact that illegals are being granted all the rights of citizenship without having complied with the law. Since immigration is a federal issue, and it has become obvious that bureaucrats at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), have no intention of enforcing the law, state officials have two choices. They can capitulate to the pro-illegal cause or defend the law. Gov. Heineman is one leader who has chosen to do the latter.

SOURCE



Activists tell Obama to protect illegals

Immigrant rights groups on Monday demanded that President Obama impose a full moratorium on deportations of illegal immigrants, arguing that his policies have been worse for their cause than those of his Republican predecessor.

Saying they've been "betrayed" by and lost patience with Mr. Obama, the advocates suggested that the president could regain their support by leading a fight on Capitol Hill for a bill to legalize illegal immigrants. Mr. Obama took the first step toward legalization during a meeting Monday at the White House with two lawmakers working on a bill.

But a bill could take months to pass. In the meantime, the immigrant rights groups say, Mr. Obama must end deportations altogether. "We demand an immediate stop to all deportations, because each one of these deportations, each one of these numbers, equals a life destroyed and a family devastated," Angelica Sala, executive director of the Coalition for Human Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, said at a news conference in Washington.

The government reported 387,790 deportations in fiscal 2009, which spanned the last few months of the George W. Bush administration and more than eight months of the Obama administration. That marked a small increase over fiscal 2008, when deportations totaled 369,221.

The Obama administration insists that its enforcement policies target unscrupulous employers and stop abusive practices that target illegal immigrants. "This administration is focused on smart, effective immigration enforcement that focuses first on those dangerous criminal aliens who present the greatest risk to the security of our communities, not sweeps or raids to target undocumented immigrants indiscriminately," said Homeland Security Department spokesman Matt Chandler.

Legalization versus enforcement has driven tense debate for years. After his immigration proposal died in the Senate in 2007, Mr. Bush stepped up enforcement and deportations. He said Americans would not accept legalization because they did not trust the government to enforce the laws. Last year, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said enforcement was sufficient and that the focus should turn back to legalization.

Immigrant rights advocates are planning a major march on Washington on March 21 to pressure Congress to pass a legalization bill. "It is showdown time," said Emma Lozano, executive director of Centro Sin Fronteras (Center Without Borders), a Chicago-based rights group. Several participants said they are raising money to transport people to the march from across the country. One woman said children from Chicago churches are performing in the streets to raise money for some of the thousands of buses that organizers there are planning.

It's unclear whether Congress is ready for another battle on the politically volatile immigration issue. The 2007 effort failed when a majority of senators joined a filibuster to block a legalization bill.

Immigrant rights groups were furious when Mr. Obama dedicated just a few seconds of his State of the Union address in late January to the issue. The White House insists that it is taking action behind the scenes, including Mr. Obama's meeting Monday with Sens. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, and Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, who are working on a bipartisan immigration bill.

Ahead of the meeting, White House spokesman Nick Shapiro reiterated Mr. Obama's principles: "He believes we must resolve the status of the 12 million people who are here illegally, that they should have to register, pay a penalty for breaking the law and meet other obligations of legal immigrants, such as learning English and paying taxes, or leave the country."

The news conference Monday highlighted a split on the issue of immigration enforcement. The immigrant rights groups said they had thought Mr. Obama would reduce, not increase, enforcement. They warned Democrats that Hispanic and immigrant voters, who supported Mr. Obama and other Democrats by wide margins in the 2008 elections, might search for new champions. Many of the biggest immigration rights coalitions were absent from the news conference, signaling that they are focusing their efforts on legislation rather than publicly criticizing the administration.

Ms. Napolitano told Congress in recent weeks that her department had racked up "massive amounts" of audits of businesses and that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had set a record for deportations. "We have deported more criminal aliens this year than ever before. We have removed more aliens from this country than ever before. Our numbers at ICE are unbelievable," she told a Senate hearing Feb. 24.

Homeland Security officials say they have curtailed, though not ended, raids on businesses, but have tried to force employers to let illegal immigrants go. They also have restructured agreements that allow state and local police to enforce immigration laws.

Immigrant rights advocates said they knew Mr. Obama would want to prove that he can enforce immigration laws before embarking on a major reform but expected a stronger push for an immigration bill in Congress. "The Obama administration intentionally set out to show he was tougher than Bush," said Brent Wilkes, executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens.

SOURCE





9 March, 2010

CIS roundup

1. White House Meeting Today on Immigration Reform

Excerpt: President Obama is due to meet today with the two senators who have been trying to plot a legislative course to an immigration reform bill, and the National Council of La Raza is impatient for clear signs of movement.

'If the meeting is just to 'hear more,' it's not going to cut it,' Clarissa Martinez of La Raza said in Huffington Post. Martinez wants a clear sign of movement from Obama's meeting with Sens. Charles Schumer and Lindsey Graham.

********

2. Social Security, Verify Thyself! The IG Inspects the E-Verifiers

Excerpt: The Social Security Administration, along with the Department of Homeland Security, operates the E-Verify screening program to identify potential illegal alien workers.

But, according to the SSA's own Inspector General, in a recent report the SSA, as a large employer, did not fully use the E-Verify system to screen it own employees.

********

3. Why Should Private, For-Profit Language Schools Authorize Visas?

Excerpt: Today's New York Times carries a story about a private-for-profit language school in Florida that 'was a front for the sale of fraudulent applications for student visas.'

A total of 80 people, including the managers of the Florida Language Institute in Miami, were arrested, the Times reported.

********

4. Hurtt Not So Good

Excerpt: Sources inside and outside ICE are reporting that the agency leadership intends to install an embattled ex-police chief known for his obstruction of immigration law enforcement as its liaison to the local law enforcement community. Former Houston police chief Harold Hurtt is reportedly the top candidate to lead the agency’s Office of State and Local Coordination. That office’s main responsibility is the 287(g) program, of which Hurtt has been outspokenly critical.

********

5. Health Reform Push

Excerpt: President Obama and Democratic congressional leaders are working hard to line up enough votes and plot a path to get their version of health reform across the goal line. Though immigration hasn't been raised as much as other bubbling controversies like abortion, this issue remains alive.

********

6. A Rave Review for a Justice Dept. Report on Immigration Decisions

Excerpt: The report deals with two administrative appeals agencies central to the implementation of immigration policy; EOIR has the nationwide set of several hundred immigration judges, who handle about a third of a million deportation (now called removal) and other cases each year. EOIR also houses the Board of Immigration Appeals, an entity that handles appeals from the immigration judges and from some USCIS decisions.

********

7. Calderon's Latin American Initiative: A Few Concerns

Excerpt: Last month, as Mexican President Felipe Calderon hosted a meeting where Latin American and Caribbean leaders agreed to form a new regional organization that will include Cuba while excluding the United States and Canada, the initiative received little attention in the U.S.

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





8 March, 2010

Scotland: Fashion guru urges Tories to get 'selfish' on immigration



The Conservative Party's latest high profile supporter has claimed that Britain needs to start being "more selfish" over immigration policy. Tessa Hartmann, the woman behind Scottish Fashion Week, was unveiled by the Tories yesterday as the latest influential figure to back the party north of the Border. The mother-of-four was also the writer and producer of Scotland's first 3D CGI film Sir Billi, and attracted the blockbuster talents of Sir Sean Connery, Dame Shirley Bassey and Alan Cumming.

Yesterday she entered the political sphere for the first time, declaring herself a Conservative supporter because of fears she has over the economy. She said as far as the Labour government was concerned "enough is enough", and that she agreed with the apocalyptic assessment made by the Tory leadership last week that Britain would be bankrupted with five more years of Gordon Brown in Downing Street. Ms Hartmann said: "Just look at what happened to the pound last week when we had the prospect of a Labour government again. That shows you what the rest of the world thinks of this current government."

She added: "We simply can't afford another five years of this Labour government – just look at how the value of the pound slumped when the polls gave Labour a chance. For too long they have taken the Scottish vote for granted. That must come to an end."

However, in an interview with The Scotsman she appeared to conform to the "mean" stereotype the Conservative Party's opponents have been trying to use to portray them.

Despite Mr Cameron having pledged that the foreign aid budget would remain untouched from cuts expected to bring down the national debt of over £1 trillion, Ms Hartmann suggested this was one area which should be looked at. She added that more needed to be done about controlling immigration. "We should be looking after ourselves at home to start with," she said. "We need to start being a bit more selfish."

Her comments were seized on by the Labour Party as portraying the real face of the Tories. A spokesman for Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy said: "This just shows how out of touch the Conservatives still are. Their values are at odds with the generosity of Scots. They are a risk that Scotland cannot afford to take."

Ms Hartmann's support follows the switch last year of leading Scottish QC Paul McBride from Labour to the Conservatives. The Tories hope that high-profile backing will help them in a push for 11 Scottish target seats where they need to make gains. There are fears that if once they return just one seat again north of the Border then Scottish nationalism will be given a boost with a Conservative government in Westminster.

But, Ms Hartmann said that the problem the Conservatives had was people voting traditionally in Scotland and not thinking about what the parties stand for. "Often it is a case of voting for who your grandparents and parents voted for," she said. And she also raised concerns that many would not bother to vote at all, adding: "We have got to get over the message that a Conservative vote is not a wasted vote and that it is the party that can deliver change in the UK."

SOURCE



Asylum-seekers 'on the beaches', Australian conservatives claim

"Asylum-seekers" could soon breach Australia's borders and arrive "on our beaches" if the latest boat arrival off the coast of Western Australia is any guide, the opposition claimed yesterday. Two boat arrivals in 24 hours, with more than 100 passengers on board, have prompted concerns that the government's offshore processing centre at Christmas Island could soon reach capacity. The latest boat arrived 25 nautical miles northwest of Adele Island, which is about 100km off the Kimberley coast, carrying 28 passengers and two crew.

"This boat was intercepted only a stone's throw from Western Australia's coast," opposition border and customs spokesman Michael Keenan said yesterday. "How much longer will it be before they begin to arrive on our beaches? "The public deserves an explanation as to how this latest arrival was allowed to get within 100km of Western Australia."

Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said the Rudd government was on track for record boat arrivals following the watering down of the Coalition's border control policies since the election -- a claim the government dismissed yesterday as using selective data. There are 1914 asylum-seekers and 28 crew being held on Christmas Island, which has a current capacity of 2040. Those numbers do not include the 31 passengers and crew picked up yesterday near Adele Island.

The government remains committed to offshore processing on Christmas Island because this allows the commonwealth to restrict the legal avenues asylum-seekers have to appeal against rejected claims for refugee status.

But West Australian Premier Colin Barnett warned yesterday that the government's policies were "falling short", and said boatpeople were being sent the wrong message. "Australia may well need to look at another detention area," Mr Barnett said. "I would prefer not on the mainland. Once people get on to the Australian mainland they automatically get a further set of rights, and this is putting huge cost to the Australian community," the Premier said.

The Department of Immigration and Citizenship is already using tents to ease Christmas Island's accommodation shortage and hopes to buy more land to build staff accommodation. If the department can build new accommodation, asylum-seeker family groups could be moved out of a cramped construction camp and into some of the department-owned accommodation where 288 immigration workers now live.

Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard said yesterday the conflicts in Asia were responsible for the surge in asylum-seekers. "We are expanding capacity at Christmas Island to meet anticipated needs," Ms Gillard said.

SOURCE








Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.


The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: You usually CAN buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.