Fresh from its legislative victory this month on abortion, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops plan next to turn its lobbying attention to comprehensive immigration reform.
The Catholic News Service has a story about the effort, to begin with a postcard campaign in January. Reporter Nancy Frazier O'Brien writes that the bishops want reform that would reunite families, regularize the status of the estimated 12 million foreigners now in this country illegally and restore due process protections for immigrants.
"We want to increase Catholic grass-roots support for immigration reform, but we also want to show members of Congress a strong Catholic voice and strong Catholic numbers in support of immigration reform," Antonio Cube, national manager of the bishops' Justice for Immigrants project, told reporters in a conference call.
The bishops have been successfully vocal on healthcare overhaul, winning new restrictions on federal funding for abortion in the House version of the legislation with a furious lobbying effort earlier this month.
Source:baltimoresun.com
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Immigration appointment service extended
The Immigration Department will extend its appointment booking service to travel-documents collection from tomorrow. Internet submission of Hong Kong SAR passport applications will also be extended to eligible applicants aged 11 to 17 with valid permanent identity cards.
The extension will shorten applicants' waiting time for collecting their new or replacement passport and Document of Identity for visa purposes.
Travel document applicants must choose a collection office when they submit their application. They may make an appointment here or through the 24-hour hotline - 2598 0888 - to choose a time-slot for collection.
Also from tomorrow, the appointment booking service for passport applications will also be extended to cover the Immigration Headquarters' Travel Documents & Nationality (Application) Section, besides the six immigration branch offices. Appointments can be made here or through the hotline.
The appointment booking service for extension of stay will also be extended to the headquarters' Extension Section (except visitors), Foreign Domestic Helpers Section and Quality Migrants & Mainland Residents Section (except people admitted to Hong Kong under training or the Quality Migrant Admission Scheme).
The first appointment date available for booking is December 14. Applicants may make the appointment here or though the hotline.
From tomorrow, applicants for Hong Kong visas, entry permits or verification of eligibility for permanent identity card can click here or call 3160 8663 to ask about the application status if required.
Visit the department website for details and enquiries, or call 2824 6111 or fax to 2877 7711.
Source:news.gov.hk
The extension will shorten applicants' waiting time for collecting their new or replacement passport and Document of Identity for visa purposes.
Travel document applicants must choose a collection office when they submit their application. They may make an appointment here or through the 24-hour hotline - 2598 0888 - to choose a time-slot for collection.
Also from tomorrow, the appointment booking service for passport applications will also be extended to cover the Immigration Headquarters' Travel Documents & Nationality (Application) Section, besides the six immigration branch offices. Appointments can be made here or through the hotline.
The appointment booking service for extension of stay will also be extended to the headquarters' Extension Section (except visitors), Foreign Domestic Helpers Section and Quality Migrants & Mainland Residents Section (except people admitted to Hong Kong under training or the Quality Migrant Admission Scheme).
The first appointment date available for booking is December 14. Applicants may make the appointment here or though the hotline.
From tomorrow, applicants for Hong Kong visas, entry permits or verification of eligibility for permanent identity card can click here or call 3160 8663 to ask about the application status if required.
Visit the department website for details and enquiries, or call 2824 6111 or fax to 2877 7711.
Source:news.gov.hk
The right time for immigration reform
The midterm congressional elections, a disappointed electorate and, most likely, more economic pain are all waiting for the country in 2010. And the Obama administration wants to tackle immigration reform?
We'll see. For now, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has floated a trial balloon, challenging Congress to pass a bill next year. Of course, next year's not soon enough for an issue as crucial and necessary as immigration reform. But the odds of Congress passing any bill next year depend greatly on what Congress manages to get passed this year.
Don't believe us? Just watch. If Congress completes the Herculean task of health care reform this year without making too many compromises, it might - might - have the stomach to take on another big, controversial issue like immigration reform. Then again, it might get bogged down by climate change legislation or the economy.
If Congress doesn't pass health care reform, or makes too many compromises in order to pass any reform at all, it will lose its appetite for anything as divisive as immigration reform. If that happens, we may get a lot of bluster next year, but very little movement.
This is because the political climate around immigration reform hasn't changed enough, despite Napolitano's insistence that it has. Yes, Lou Dobbs finally had to shut down his poisonous brand of anti-immigrant entertainment on CNN. Yes, America's bad economy has slowed illegal immigration to a trickle, and yes, both the Bush and Obama administrations have made high-profile moves to enforce immigration laws at the workplace and at the border. These are all positive changes. But they aren't enough.
Two years after the last disastrous attempt at immigration reform, most Americans remain unconvinced that immigrants do, indeed, contribute positively to our economy and our society. And while immigrants certainly can't be blamed for last year's financial crisis, this year's recession and next year's still-high unemployment figures, Congress is going to find it very hard to ask Americans to be generous to those who entered this country illegally at a time when so many Americans are facing hard times themselves.
If Congress can pass health care reform, and many Americans feel better and more secure about their coverage, the country might find immigration reform to be more palatable. But either way, we need reform, and we need it now.
That's probably why Napolitano is talking about essentially the same reforms as former President George W. Bush: a "tough but fair" path to legalization for the illegal immigrants already here, ways to encourage immigrants to choose the legal option and stricter punishments.
The first reform is the only pragmatic way of coping with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants we already have. They're here, and they're not leaving. It would be impossible, not to mention odious, to hunt them all down and deport them. So why not offer a path to legalization - one that acknowledges the seriousness of illegal entry but still allows hard-working people to join the mainstream, and the tax rolls, of American society?
Reform would also give Congress the opportunity to make some badly needed changes to our legal immigration system. One of the major reasons people continue to stay in this country illegally is that the legal process for immigration is so difficult and time-consuming. Simplifying and streamlining the system we already have would be an easy way to reduce illegal immigration going into the future.
There's never going to be a good time for immigration reform in a political sense. It will always encounter disruptive resistance from Americans opposed to anything - no matter how humane or practical - that offers a reprieve to people who entered this country illegally. But it is clearly in this nation's interest to align immigration laws with both reality and its economic and national security interests. The Obama administration is right to push for reform in 2010.
Source:sfgate.com
We'll see. For now, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has floated a trial balloon, challenging Congress to pass a bill next year. Of course, next year's not soon enough for an issue as crucial and necessary as immigration reform. But the odds of Congress passing any bill next year depend greatly on what Congress manages to get passed this year.
Don't believe us? Just watch. If Congress completes the Herculean task of health care reform this year without making too many compromises, it might - might - have the stomach to take on another big, controversial issue like immigration reform. Then again, it might get bogged down by climate change legislation or the economy.
If Congress doesn't pass health care reform, or makes too many compromises in order to pass any reform at all, it will lose its appetite for anything as divisive as immigration reform. If that happens, we may get a lot of bluster next year, but very little movement.
This is because the political climate around immigration reform hasn't changed enough, despite Napolitano's insistence that it has. Yes, Lou Dobbs finally had to shut down his poisonous brand of anti-immigrant entertainment on CNN. Yes, America's bad economy has slowed illegal immigration to a trickle, and yes, both the Bush and Obama administrations have made high-profile moves to enforce immigration laws at the workplace and at the border. These are all positive changes. But they aren't enough.
Two years after the last disastrous attempt at immigration reform, most Americans remain unconvinced that immigrants do, indeed, contribute positively to our economy and our society. And while immigrants certainly can't be blamed for last year's financial crisis, this year's recession and next year's still-high unemployment figures, Congress is going to find it very hard to ask Americans to be generous to those who entered this country illegally at a time when so many Americans are facing hard times themselves.
If Congress can pass health care reform, and many Americans feel better and more secure about their coverage, the country might find immigration reform to be more palatable. But either way, we need reform, and we need it now.
That's probably why Napolitano is talking about essentially the same reforms as former President George W. Bush: a "tough but fair" path to legalization for the illegal immigrants already here, ways to encourage immigrants to choose the legal option and stricter punishments.
The first reform is the only pragmatic way of coping with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants we already have. They're here, and they're not leaving. It would be impossible, not to mention odious, to hunt them all down and deport them. So why not offer a path to legalization - one that acknowledges the seriousness of illegal entry but still allows hard-working people to join the mainstream, and the tax rolls, of American society?
Reform would also give Congress the opportunity to make some badly needed changes to our legal immigration system. One of the major reasons people continue to stay in this country illegally is that the legal process for immigration is so difficult and time-consuming. Simplifying and streamlining the system we already have would be an easy way to reduce illegal immigration going into the future.
There's never going to be a good time for immigration reform in a political sense. It will always encounter disruptive resistance from Americans opposed to anything - no matter how humane or practical - that offers a reprieve to people who entered this country illegally. But it is clearly in this nation's interest to align immigration laws with both reality and its economic and national security interests. The Obama administration is right to push for reform in 2010.
Source:sfgate.com
Immigration clear to not use time-limit defence
The Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) will not invoke the statute of limitations in compensation claims following the Malu Sara tragedy more than four years ago.
The Department has finally received approval from the Federal Attorney-General’s office not to raise the statute of limitations as a defence.
DIAC has indicated previously it would not proceed with the limitation process, but final approval had to be provided by the Attorney-General. This has now been forthcoming.
Under the legislation, the statute-of-limitations could apply three years after the incident at the heart of the claim; that was October last year.
However, Coroner Michael Barnes did not hand down his findings until about six months after the expiration of the three-years’ deadline, effectively delaying any legal action until he had done so.
The Immigration Department boat sank in the waters of the Torres Strait while travelling between Saibai and Badu in October, 2005.
A coronial inquest blamed the incompetence of an immigration official and a state police officer.
Five people, including a five-year-old girl, died when their distress calls were virtually ignored by departmental staff and Queensland police.
Ms Laura Neill, from Maurice Blackburn Lawyers (for John Saub and Fred Joe), welcomed the decision.
“That’s good news; I would have been surprised if they had raised that defence; but it is good news, especially with the mediation coming up.”
The department has received two notices of claim for civil compensation relating to individuals who were on board the Malu Sara, and is “currently considering the notices”.
One claim was received on July 27 (from John Saub) and the other on October 20 (from Fred Joe), with mediation for one of the claims (John Saub) scheduled in the coming weeks.
The Torres News understands mediation on Mr Saub’s claim will start on Monday, November 30, in Cairns.
A legal expert told the Torres News: “It should take one day, but these things are hard to tell.”
DIAC, as well as the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) which incorporates Australian Search and Rescue (AusSAR), will also take part in the mediation hearing.
The department says it has provided the families of the deceased employees with information on the process for claiming compensation and the Comcare forms (which applies to to the families of DIAC employees, the Late Wilfred Baira and Ted Harry).
The department has also offered assistance to the families for completing and lodging the forms.
Other defendants are the State Government – Queensland Police and Maritime Services - and boat-builders SubSee.
The State says it is not in a position to attend the mediation.
Source:torresnews.com.au
The Department has finally received approval from the Federal Attorney-General’s office not to raise the statute of limitations as a defence.
DIAC has indicated previously it would not proceed with the limitation process, but final approval had to be provided by the Attorney-General. This has now been forthcoming.
Under the legislation, the statute-of-limitations could apply three years after the incident at the heart of the claim; that was October last year.
However, Coroner Michael Barnes did not hand down his findings until about six months after the expiration of the three-years’ deadline, effectively delaying any legal action until he had done so.
The Immigration Department boat sank in the waters of the Torres Strait while travelling between Saibai and Badu in October, 2005.
A coronial inquest blamed the incompetence of an immigration official and a state police officer.
Five people, including a five-year-old girl, died when their distress calls were virtually ignored by departmental staff and Queensland police.
Ms Laura Neill, from Maurice Blackburn Lawyers (for John Saub and Fred Joe), welcomed the decision.
“That’s good news; I would have been surprised if they had raised that defence; but it is good news, especially with the mediation coming up.”
The department has received two notices of claim for civil compensation relating to individuals who were on board the Malu Sara, and is “currently considering the notices”.
One claim was received on July 27 (from John Saub) and the other on October 20 (from Fred Joe), with mediation for one of the claims (John Saub) scheduled in the coming weeks.
The Torres News understands mediation on Mr Saub’s claim will start on Monday, November 30, in Cairns.
A legal expert told the Torres News: “It should take one day, but these things are hard to tell.”
DIAC, as well as the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) which incorporates Australian Search and Rescue (AusSAR), will also take part in the mediation hearing.
The department says it has provided the families of the deceased employees with information on the process for claiming compensation and the Comcare forms (which applies to to the families of DIAC employees, the Late Wilfred Baira and Ted Harry).
The department has also offered assistance to the families for completing and lodging the forms.
Other defendants are the State Government – Queensland Police and Maritime Services - and boat-builders SubSee.
The State says it is not in a position to attend the mediation.
Source:torresnews.com.au
Dance about immigration
Left to right, performers Jennie Cockrell, Kala Hildebrand, Jaime Scott, Robin Scott and Karen George are part of "Travelogue: Stories of our Migration,” produced by the Asheville Contemporary Dance Theatre and White Dog ProjectX International. (Photo by Susan Collard/Special to the Citizen-Time)
He was 8 when he experienced his first big move. In 1968, he was plucked out of his home in a Cambodian village by French government officials and sent to live in France.
Raymond's father was French and his mother was Vietnamese, and because of his nationality, he was one of about 40 children from his village with French nationality who were moved to France.
“It's a journey from between birthday and death day,” he said. “This is why I became interested in moving … moving means that we have to accept change and accept where we are now, where we were before the movement and who we were during the change.”
Raymond contributed “Nomad,” a piece about his ancestry and immigration, to “Travelogue: Stories of our Migration,” produced by the Asheville Contemporary Dance Theatre and White Dog ProjectX International. The dance concert will be at 8 p.m. Friday and Saturday at The Diana Wortham Theatre.
After the theater company premieres the work at Diana Wortham, it will be performed at the international Oc-Ohtic modern dance festival in Merida, Yucatan.
“Immigration, we feel, is a challenging subject right now because of all the limitations involved,” said ACDT director Susan Collard, who helped choreograph the show. “Art has always been the voice for politics and the discussion for issues in the world that are sometimes too difficult to discuss verbally.”
“Travelogue” will feature a variety of immigration narratives, all of which were inspired by the choreographers' and dancers' backgrounds. There are pieces about Jewish immigrants escaping the Holocaust and a story of a woman leaving behind her family and fiancé to come to America.
“I hope that people will start to think about our own immigration story,” Collard said. “I'm hoping that other people will get interested in the positive side of immigration … I think we need to think carefully about the past and how beneficial it is.”
Nelson Reyes, who came to Asheville from his native Cuba, produced a piece with fellow Cuban dancer Diana Cabrera Stepanova.
“The hardest part for us when we immigrated was how we are going to integrate into a new culture,” he said.
Ultimately, he aimed to explore the complexity of the immigration experience, examining the loss and opportunity, the sadness and the humor of this human experience, he said.
“That's the reality of immigrants,” he said.
Source:citizen-times.com
Immigration charges dropped in slaughterhouse case
IOWA CITY, Iowa — A federal judge dismissed dozens of immigration charges Thursday against the former manager of a kosher slaughterhouse, at the request of prosecutors who had already won a conviction on multiple counts of financial fraud.
U.S. District Court Judge Linda Reade dismissed the 72 immigration charges just hours after the government made its request. In its motion, prosecutors said a conviction in that case would not affect the term Sholom Rubashkin serves because he was convicted of the charges with the longest sentences.
"Dismissal will avoid an extended and expensive trial, conserve limited judicial and prosecutorial resources, and lessen the inconvenience to witnesses," Assistant U.S. Attorney Peter Deegan wrote in the motion. U.S. Attorney's Office spokesman Bob Teig declined to comment.
Both cases stemmed from a massive immigration raid at the Agriprocessors Inc. plant in Postville in May 2008 — at the time the largest single-site raid in U.S. history. Investigators found 389 illegal immigrants working at the plant, which employed nearly 1,000 people.
The plant cut production before falling into bankruptcy and being sold. Kosher meat production in the U.S. dropped off considerably, sending prices soaring. Postville watched its largest employer — and Rubashkin, one of the town's biggest property owners — enter bankruptcy, while the town's population plunged because of the lack of work.
Rubashkin, a former top manager at the slaughterhouse, initially faced 163 counts in an indictment that followed the raid. Reade divided the trial into 91 counts of financial fraud and 72 counts of immigration violations.
Last week, a jury in Sioux Falls, S.D., found Rubashkin guilty on 86 of the financial fraud charges. Reade has not announced a sentencing date.
Rubashkin has claimed he is innocent and intends to appeal the convictions. His attorney, Guy Cook, welcomed the dismissal of the immigration charges.
"It should have been done a long time ago," Cook said. "In spite of how the government has characterized this motion, we view this as a clear win for Mr. Rubashkin."
In his second trial, Rubashkin had faced charges of harboring illegal immigrants for profit, conspiracy to commit document fraud and aiding and abetting document fraud.
His attorneys had protested the government's introduction of alleged immigration violations during the financial trial. In the motion filed Thursday, prosecutors acknowledge that several of the financial charges were based on the assumption that Rubashkin harbored illegal immigrants.
"The jury's verdicts on several of the fraud and false statement counts were premised, at least in part, upon defendant knowingly making false statements to the bank with regard to the harboring of undocumented aliens at Agriprocessors," Deegan wrote.
Cook, however, said the government's language "overstates the jury's verdict on financial charges."
The government asked that the immigration charges be dismissed without prejudice, meaning it can file them again if circumstances change. Deegan wrote in the motion that "evidence of immigration violations would be relevant conduct" that Reade can examine when Rubashkin is sentenced on the financial fraud charges.
Source:http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jMfmue_HkGVs_xOxsMilUlThrH4wD9C2QD501
U.S. District Court Judge Linda Reade dismissed the 72 immigration charges just hours after the government made its request. In its motion, prosecutors said a conviction in that case would not affect the term Sholom Rubashkin serves because he was convicted of the charges with the longest sentences.
"Dismissal will avoid an extended and expensive trial, conserve limited judicial and prosecutorial resources, and lessen the inconvenience to witnesses," Assistant U.S. Attorney Peter Deegan wrote in the motion. U.S. Attorney's Office spokesman Bob Teig declined to comment.
Both cases stemmed from a massive immigration raid at the Agriprocessors Inc. plant in Postville in May 2008 — at the time the largest single-site raid in U.S. history. Investigators found 389 illegal immigrants working at the plant, which employed nearly 1,000 people.
The plant cut production before falling into bankruptcy and being sold. Kosher meat production in the U.S. dropped off considerably, sending prices soaring. Postville watched its largest employer — and Rubashkin, one of the town's biggest property owners — enter bankruptcy, while the town's population plunged because of the lack of work.
Rubashkin, a former top manager at the slaughterhouse, initially faced 163 counts in an indictment that followed the raid. Reade divided the trial into 91 counts of financial fraud and 72 counts of immigration violations.
Last week, a jury in Sioux Falls, S.D., found Rubashkin guilty on 86 of the financial fraud charges. Reade has not announced a sentencing date.
Rubashkin has claimed he is innocent and intends to appeal the convictions. His attorney, Guy Cook, welcomed the dismissal of the immigration charges.
"It should have been done a long time ago," Cook said. "In spite of how the government has characterized this motion, we view this as a clear win for Mr. Rubashkin."
In his second trial, Rubashkin had faced charges of harboring illegal immigrants for profit, conspiracy to commit document fraud and aiding and abetting document fraud.
His attorneys had protested the government's introduction of alleged immigration violations during the financial trial. In the motion filed Thursday, prosecutors acknowledge that several of the financial charges were based on the assumption that Rubashkin harbored illegal immigrants.
"The jury's verdicts on several of the fraud and false statement counts were premised, at least in part, upon defendant knowingly making false statements to the bank with regard to the harboring of undocumented aliens at Agriprocessors," Deegan wrote.
Cook, however, said the government's language "overstates the jury's verdict on financial charges."
The government asked that the immigration charges be dismissed without prejudice, meaning it can file them again if circumstances change. Deegan wrote in the motion that "evidence of immigration violations would be relevant conduct" that Reade can examine when Rubashkin is sentenced on the financial fraud charges.
Source:http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jMfmue_HkGVs_xOxsMilUlThrH4wD9C2QD501
The warring mind-sets on U.S. immigration
NEW YORK — Over dinner with a consultant friend recently, our conversation drifted to U.S. immigration when she said, "I'm worried about our future."
We did not go any further on the subject, but the late-afternoon news flash had said the Obama administration would take up immigration reform next year, and when it comes to immigration reform, the matter has to do with "illegal aliens," who are mostly Hispanics.
According to the Pew Hispanic Center, the number of "unauthorized" immigrants in the United States in 2008 was 11.9 million, of which 76 percent were Hispanics. Over the years, though, estimates have varied, the highest being the one put forth by Bear Stearns — yes, the highflying money-changer that touched off the current financial crisis — in its 2005 study: 20 million. At that level, the size of "undocumented" immigrants, to use another word for "illegal," comes close to that of the population of New York State.
How has this come about? The primary answer, as far as laws and regulations are concerned, is the Immigration Act of 1965. It abolished quotas by nationality and removed limits on visas for family reunification, thereby discarding the preference for Caucasians — which had been U.S. policy since its first immigration law. The Naturalization Act of 1790 had simply stated: "an alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to be a citizen of the United States."
One of the main promoters of the 1965 law was the recently deceased Ted Kennedy. The then young senator, along with the more accomplished Sen. Philip Hart, pushed those radical changes in immigration law for humanitarian reasons, insisting that it would not alter the demographic contour of the U.S. They were wrong on the demography.
So, until the first half of the 20th century, immigrants from Europe and Canada dominated. In the decade of the 1950s, for example, people from those two regions made up 70 percent of the total of "persons obtaining legal permanent resident status," as the U.S. Office of Immigration Statistics puts it. As a result of the 1965 law, though, they were down to 23 percent by the last decade of the 20th century. In contrast, people from "America" (excluding Canada), who were just 11 percent of total immigrants in the decade of the 1950s, made up 51 percent five decades later, those from Mexico alone accounting for 27 percent.
Changes in the "foreign-born population" category have been even starker. In 1970, Italy was the top country, with 1 million U.S. residents saying they were born there, followed by Germany with 833,000 and Canada with 812,000. Mexico was the fourth, with 760,000 people.
By 2008, the picture was very different. Mexico was at the top by far, with 11.4 million identifying that country as their place of birth. That is 15 times the 1970 number. In contrast, those who said they were born in Italy were 393,000, or 60 percent down from 1970. Germany had a smaller reduction, but at 641,000 in 2008 the figure was still down by 23 percent.
For that matter, no less remarkable are the increases of people from Asia. Barely on the map in the mid-20th century, by 2008, China (including Taiwan), the Philippines, India, Vietnam and Korea, in that order, were among the top countries identified by U.S. residents as their place of birth, although they were still far behind Mexico.
Despite all this, and even though this country has accepted more than a million legal immigrants every year while granting citizenship to another million for much of this decade, Americans are of two minds, as they always have been. They are not loath to recognize the history of their nation but are not entirely at ease with it.
About 140 years ago, the so-called Iwakura Embassy that toured the U.S. and Europe to learn things of the West recognized this. The American hosts explained to them that the U.S. became what it was thanks to the inflow of immigrants that enabled their "thinly populated" country to increase its population sevenfold since its independence a century earlier: "The matter of governance depends on attracting immigrants."
The embassy also learned that hostility was quickly rising against Chinese immigrants on the West Coast, even as many American entrepreneurs resorted to shanghaiing Chinese from Canton and Fujian. They needed dirt-cheap labor and the Chinese were willing to provide it. Indeed, around 1870, people from China made up one-third of the population of San Francisco.
Alas, hostility won the day over the need. In 1882, 10 years after the Japanese embassy left the U.S., the Chinese Exclusion Act was enacted. The situation is not much different today. America needs a great many people willing to do hard menial work on the cheap, and Mexico and other countries are willing to supply them. With this reality, condemning a large number of people doing the dirty work as "illegal" surely does not seem right.
Nativo Lopez, president of the Mexican American Political Association, has called for boycotting the upcoming decennial census for the first time in his organization's 50-year history. He has done this simply to plead for "a federal statute called legalization, a fair and humane immigration reform."
The day my friend and I had dinner, Janet Napolitano, secretary of Homeland Security, said the Obama administration will attempt an immigration "overhaul" next year. It will be "a three-legged stool," she said: strengthening law enforcement against illegal immigrants, ditto against their employers, while opening a "tough but fair pathway" for illegal immigrants to "earn" legal status.
Governor of Arizona until Obama summoned her, Napolitano certainly knows the cost of border law enforcement. In the 10 years from 1996 to 2006 alone, 3,100 people died trying to cross the desert encompassing Mexico and her state.
If a Mexican or Hispanic Exclusion Act is unlikely, so is the kind of fair and humane considerations that Lopez is urging.
Source:japantimes.co.jp
We did not go any further on the subject, but the late-afternoon news flash had said the Obama administration would take up immigration reform next year, and when it comes to immigration reform, the matter has to do with "illegal aliens," who are mostly Hispanics.
According to the Pew Hispanic Center, the number of "unauthorized" immigrants in the United States in 2008 was 11.9 million, of which 76 percent were Hispanics. Over the years, though, estimates have varied, the highest being the one put forth by Bear Stearns — yes, the highflying money-changer that touched off the current financial crisis — in its 2005 study: 20 million. At that level, the size of "undocumented" immigrants, to use another word for "illegal," comes close to that of the population of New York State.
How has this come about? The primary answer, as far as laws and regulations are concerned, is the Immigration Act of 1965. It abolished quotas by nationality and removed limits on visas for family reunification, thereby discarding the preference for Caucasians — which had been U.S. policy since its first immigration law. The Naturalization Act of 1790 had simply stated: "an alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to be a citizen of the United States."
One of the main promoters of the 1965 law was the recently deceased Ted Kennedy. The then young senator, along with the more accomplished Sen. Philip Hart, pushed those radical changes in immigration law for humanitarian reasons, insisting that it would not alter the demographic contour of the U.S. They were wrong on the demography.
So, until the first half of the 20th century, immigrants from Europe and Canada dominated. In the decade of the 1950s, for example, people from those two regions made up 70 percent of the total of "persons obtaining legal permanent resident status," as the U.S. Office of Immigration Statistics puts it. As a result of the 1965 law, though, they were down to 23 percent by the last decade of the 20th century. In contrast, people from "America" (excluding Canada), who were just 11 percent of total immigrants in the decade of the 1950s, made up 51 percent five decades later, those from Mexico alone accounting for 27 percent.
Changes in the "foreign-born population" category have been even starker. In 1970, Italy was the top country, with 1 million U.S. residents saying they were born there, followed by Germany with 833,000 and Canada with 812,000. Mexico was the fourth, with 760,000 people.
By 2008, the picture was very different. Mexico was at the top by far, with 11.4 million identifying that country as their place of birth. That is 15 times the 1970 number. In contrast, those who said they were born in Italy were 393,000, or 60 percent down from 1970. Germany had a smaller reduction, but at 641,000 in 2008 the figure was still down by 23 percent.
For that matter, no less remarkable are the increases of people from Asia. Barely on the map in the mid-20th century, by 2008, China (including Taiwan), the Philippines, India, Vietnam and Korea, in that order, were among the top countries identified by U.S. residents as their place of birth, although they were still far behind Mexico.
Despite all this, and even though this country has accepted more than a million legal immigrants every year while granting citizenship to another million for much of this decade, Americans are of two minds, as they always have been. They are not loath to recognize the history of their nation but are not entirely at ease with it.
About 140 years ago, the so-called Iwakura Embassy that toured the U.S. and Europe to learn things of the West recognized this. The American hosts explained to them that the U.S. became what it was thanks to the inflow of immigrants that enabled their "thinly populated" country to increase its population sevenfold since its independence a century earlier: "The matter of governance depends on attracting immigrants."
The embassy also learned that hostility was quickly rising against Chinese immigrants on the West Coast, even as many American entrepreneurs resorted to shanghaiing Chinese from Canton and Fujian. They needed dirt-cheap labor and the Chinese were willing to provide it. Indeed, around 1870, people from China made up one-third of the population of San Francisco.
Alas, hostility won the day over the need. In 1882, 10 years after the Japanese embassy left the U.S., the Chinese Exclusion Act was enacted. The situation is not much different today. America needs a great many people willing to do hard menial work on the cheap, and Mexico and other countries are willing to supply them. With this reality, condemning a large number of people doing the dirty work as "illegal" surely does not seem right.
Nativo Lopez, president of the Mexican American Political Association, has called for boycotting the upcoming decennial census for the first time in his organization's 50-year history. He has done this simply to plead for "a federal statute called legalization, a fair and humane immigration reform."
The day my friend and I had dinner, Janet Napolitano, secretary of Homeland Security, said the Obama administration will attempt an immigration "overhaul" next year. It will be "a three-legged stool," she said: strengthening law enforcement against illegal immigrants, ditto against their employers, while opening a "tough but fair pathway" for illegal immigrants to "earn" legal status.
Governor of Arizona until Obama summoned her, Napolitano certainly knows the cost of border law enforcement. In the 10 years from 1996 to 2006 alone, 3,100 people died trying to cross the desert encompassing Mexico and her state.
If a Mexican or Hispanic Exclusion Act is unlikely, so is the kind of fair and humane considerations that Lopez is urging.
Source:japantimes.co.jp
Immigration policies need public, not political debate
Canadians need a public debate on the merit of their government's existing immigration policies since a new set of studies has shown that under present conditions, immigrants no longer bring the benefits that had been brought by immigrants before the 1970s.
The most fundamental reason is that present immigrant selection procedures have made their average incomes after 10 years equal to only 80 per cent of the income of comparable Canadian workers (Statistics Canada). Before the 1970s, immigrants after 10 years on average earned the same as Canadians.
These low earnings of recent immigrants are important because of the Canadian welfare state. On the one hand, its highly progressive personal income tax rates (the top 10 per cent of all filers pay about 50 per cent of all taxes while the bottom half pays about five per cent) result in average immigrants' tax payments below those of the average Canadian.
On the other hand, the welfare state provides immigrants with access to all of the major social programs like health care, education and pensions and provides several costly services for them specifically. As a result, the costs of social benefits used by immigrants on average are at least the same as those of Canadians.
The difference between average payments and benefit costs results in a transfer of money from Canadian taxpayers to the immigrants estimated to be at least $18 billion annually. Each immigrant absorbs $280,000 over their lifetime in Canada.
In the past, immigrants provided Canadians with benefits through lowering the average cost of railroads, bridges, municipal services and capital-intensive private production. In recent times, these lower costs have been replaced by increasing costs of building in densely populated areas. Private investments no longer need local markets to operate at optimum scale since free trade and low transportation costs allow world-wide marketing.
The large numbers of immigrants (about 36,000 new immigrants from abroad settle in the Vancouver region every year) require the construction of about 250 new dwellings every week, which causes real estate prices to be high and adds to urban sprawl, traffic congestion and pollution. The immigrants add to the demand for already overcrowded schools, health care facilities and urban transit. They add to global greenhouse gases since they would have produced much less in their native countries.
It is often argued that immigrants are needed to fill jobs Canadians do not want. This benefits employers but lowers the wages of low skilled Canadian workers. It also reduces incentives for employers to invest in labour saving and productivity-raising machines that would allow them to offer profitably wages high enough to attract Canadians to do the work they previously did not want.
Before the 1970s, the number of immigrants fluctuated with labour market conditions. Under present policies, the same number of immigrants settles in the Lower Mainland every year, even if they add to cyclically high unemployment.
Immigration is seen by some as a saviour of Canada's financially troubled health care and pension systems. Simulations using government forecasts of births and deaths show that Canada's population in 2050 would have to be 135 million to maintain the current ratio of 20 pensioners supported by 80 workers. Immigration rates required to reach this figure are not feasible.
Immigrants have greatly enriched Canada's quality of life by bringing a multitude of ethnic restaurants, stores and cultural events. But the benefits of further contributions of this sort have become increasingly smaller.
The experience during the recent civil war in Lebanon shows that large numbers of immigrants have become Canadian citizens but live, work and pay taxes in their countries of origin. They keep their citizenship rights to return for medical care, pensions and personal security, all at the expense of Canadian taxpayers that is in addition to those mentioned above.
The screening of refugees and immigrants used by Canada is considered by the United States to be inadequate to keep out potential security risks. As a result, the U.S. has tightened border security, which has imposed great costs on trade and travel on all Canadians.
Many Canadians welcome immigrants in order to help them to a better life and to increase Canada's reputation as a global model of peaceful multiculturalism and a caring society. What is the value of this benefit of immigration? Does it exceed the costs? Let the public decide, not politicians seeking immigrant votes.
Source:kelowna.com
The most fundamental reason is that present immigrant selection procedures have made their average incomes after 10 years equal to only 80 per cent of the income of comparable Canadian workers (Statistics Canada). Before the 1970s, immigrants after 10 years on average earned the same as Canadians.
These low earnings of recent immigrants are important because of the Canadian welfare state. On the one hand, its highly progressive personal income tax rates (the top 10 per cent of all filers pay about 50 per cent of all taxes while the bottom half pays about five per cent) result in average immigrants' tax payments below those of the average Canadian.
On the other hand, the welfare state provides immigrants with access to all of the major social programs like health care, education and pensions and provides several costly services for them specifically. As a result, the costs of social benefits used by immigrants on average are at least the same as those of Canadians.
The difference between average payments and benefit costs results in a transfer of money from Canadian taxpayers to the immigrants estimated to be at least $18 billion annually. Each immigrant absorbs $280,000 over their lifetime in Canada.
In the past, immigrants provided Canadians with benefits through lowering the average cost of railroads, bridges, municipal services and capital-intensive private production. In recent times, these lower costs have been replaced by increasing costs of building in densely populated areas. Private investments no longer need local markets to operate at optimum scale since free trade and low transportation costs allow world-wide marketing.
The large numbers of immigrants (about 36,000 new immigrants from abroad settle in the Vancouver region every year) require the construction of about 250 new dwellings every week, which causes real estate prices to be high and adds to urban sprawl, traffic congestion and pollution. The immigrants add to the demand for already overcrowded schools, health care facilities and urban transit. They add to global greenhouse gases since they would have produced much less in their native countries.
It is often argued that immigrants are needed to fill jobs Canadians do not want. This benefits employers but lowers the wages of low skilled Canadian workers. It also reduces incentives for employers to invest in labour saving and productivity-raising machines that would allow them to offer profitably wages high enough to attract Canadians to do the work they previously did not want.
Before the 1970s, the number of immigrants fluctuated with labour market conditions. Under present policies, the same number of immigrants settles in the Lower Mainland every year, even if they add to cyclically high unemployment.
Immigration is seen by some as a saviour of Canada's financially troubled health care and pension systems. Simulations using government forecasts of births and deaths show that Canada's population in 2050 would have to be 135 million to maintain the current ratio of 20 pensioners supported by 80 workers. Immigration rates required to reach this figure are not feasible.
Immigrants have greatly enriched Canada's quality of life by bringing a multitude of ethnic restaurants, stores and cultural events. But the benefits of further contributions of this sort have become increasingly smaller.
The experience during the recent civil war in Lebanon shows that large numbers of immigrants have become Canadian citizens but live, work and pay taxes in their countries of origin. They keep their citizenship rights to return for medical care, pensions and personal security, all at the expense of Canadian taxpayers that is in addition to those mentioned above.
The screening of refugees and immigrants used by Canada is considered by the United States to be inadequate to keep out potential security risks. As a result, the U.S. has tightened border security, which has imposed great costs on trade and travel on all Canadians.
Many Canadians welcome immigrants in order to help them to a better life and to increase Canada's reputation as a global model of peaceful multiculturalism and a caring society. What is the value of this benefit of immigration? Does it exceed the costs? Let the public decide, not politicians seeking immigrant votes.
Source:kelowna.com
Federal immigration officials target Vermont farms
MONTPELIER, Vt. — Federal immigration officials are cracking down on Vermont dairy farmers as part of a national effort, asking them to provide records to prove their workers are legal.
Kelly Loftus, a spokeswoman for the state Agency of Agriculture, said immigration officials visited four farms on Thursday.
In an "emergency notice to all dairy farmers in the northeast," a Vermont group called Dairy Farmers Working Together said that up to 100 Vermont dairy farmers have been served with subpoenas seeking payroll records from November 2008 to November 2009.
Loftus said the move creates another level of anxiety and stress for the state's dairy farmers, many of whom are already suffering financially because of low milk prices.
In Washington, Homeland Security officials described the effort as one aimed at encouraging businesses to use an electronic program to check workers' immigration status. The department's Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency plans to audit the hiring records of about 1,000 employers nationwide.
The audits are based on investigations and intelligence and include some businesses connected to public safety and national security, ICE said.
Dairy farmers in Vermont and elsewhere have turned to imported help because of the difficulty of hiring people locally to do the work.
U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy said the crackdown was poorly timed.
"I'm disappointed that this comes amid a crisis in dairy prices and at the start of the holiday season," said Leahy, D-Vt. "We have a broken system that does not work well for anyone, and especially for dairy farmers and the workers they need to keep their farms running. This is all the more evidence that we need workable reform of the agriculture visa system, and it can't come soon enough."
The announcement from Dairy Farmers Working Together recommended that dairy farmers affected by the crackdown call the state Agency of Agriculture for assistance from an immigration attorney.
Source:http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iL7VQ2HDoV8TekCusvBfQLKa2ohQD9C3BUHO0
Kelly Loftus, a spokeswoman for the state Agency of Agriculture, said immigration officials visited four farms on Thursday.
In an "emergency notice to all dairy farmers in the northeast," a Vermont group called Dairy Farmers Working Together said that up to 100 Vermont dairy farmers have been served with subpoenas seeking payroll records from November 2008 to November 2009.
Loftus said the move creates another level of anxiety and stress for the state's dairy farmers, many of whom are already suffering financially because of low milk prices.
In Washington, Homeland Security officials described the effort as one aimed at encouraging businesses to use an electronic program to check workers' immigration status. The department's Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency plans to audit the hiring records of about 1,000 employers nationwide.
The audits are based on investigations and intelligence and include some businesses connected to public safety and national security, ICE said.
Dairy farmers in Vermont and elsewhere have turned to imported help because of the difficulty of hiring people locally to do the work.
U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy said the crackdown was poorly timed.
"I'm disappointed that this comes amid a crisis in dairy prices and at the start of the holiday season," said Leahy, D-Vt. "We have a broken system that does not work well for anyone, and especially for dairy farmers and the workers they need to keep their farms running. This is all the more evidence that we need workable reform of the agriculture visa system, and it can't come soon enough."
The announcement from Dairy Farmers Working Together recommended that dairy farmers affected by the crackdown call the state Agency of Agriculture for assistance from an immigration attorney.
Source:http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iL7VQ2HDoV8TekCusvBfQLKa2ohQD9C3BUHO0
Canada immigration, to share biometric info with US
The US join forces with Canada in using biometric technology to stop the threat of terrorism.
Canada immigration announced yesterday that they will be increasing security at the country's borders by swapping refugees’ biometric information with the US.
The announcement was made following a bilateral summit with US Home Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Canada immigration has already launched a biometric information sharing programme with the UK and Australia. Under the new plans, the US will also join this programme in order to try to prevent fraudulent refugees from trying to move to Canada or the US.
Napolitano said, "biometrics continue to be a powerful tool to prevent terrorists and criminals from crossing our shared border and preventing identity theft and asylum fraud.”
Napolitana also spoke in response to concerns about privacy and the use of the biometric information. She added, "as we share information, we are committed to protecting privacy and civil rights.”
The existing deal with the UK and Australia was struck in August and intends to prevent criminals, terrorists and others from fraudulently claiming the right to live in the UK, Australia or Canada. Through the taking of fingerprints and the sharing of this information, dubious immigrants are likely to be picked up by Canada immigration before they are able to enter a country.
Source:globalvisas.com
Canada immigration announced yesterday that they will be increasing security at the country's borders by swapping refugees’ biometric information with the US.
The announcement was made following a bilateral summit with US Home Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Canada immigration has already launched a biometric information sharing programme with the UK and Australia. Under the new plans, the US will also join this programme in order to try to prevent fraudulent refugees from trying to move to Canada or the US.
Napolitano said, "biometrics continue to be a powerful tool to prevent terrorists and criminals from crossing our shared border and preventing identity theft and asylum fraud.”
Napolitana also spoke in response to concerns about privacy and the use of the biometric information. She added, "as we share information, we are committed to protecting privacy and civil rights.”
The existing deal with the UK and Australia was struck in August and intends to prevent criminals, terrorists and others from fraudulently claiming the right to live in the UK, Australia or Canada. Through the taking of fingerprints and the sharing of this information, dubious immigrants are likely to be picked up by Canada immigration before they are able to enter a country.
Source:globalvisas.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)