| The new effort to tighten and enforce immigration
limits has prompted a severe reaction. Several billboards have gone up
questioning the new law. One, funded by the United Front Task Force, asks,
"Is it OK for Oklahoma to have a law that promotes hate among people?"
The other, by the American Dream Coalition, shows a tearful girl clutching
a teddy bear with the statement, "My mommy is not a criminal. She
is a hardworking Hispanic woman." But on the television station's
forum page, a listener responded: "We need to put up more signs that
say: OKIES don't hate illegal immigrants they just want them legal! Deport
all illegal immigrants now." The Republican who wrote HB 1804, Randy
Terrill of Moore, said the plan doesn't discriminate, harass or single
out anyone, unless they are breaking the law. "This isn't about whether
you are for or against immigration, or for or against immigrants. It doesn't
matter what your skin color is or if you speak with an accent. What matters
is if you are in the country legally or illegally. The only people threatened
by House Bill 1804 are those who choose to break the law," he said.
It eliminates most taxpayer subsidies for illegal immigrants and allows
state and local law enforcement officers to verify the residency status
of those arrested. It also cracks down on business owners who employ illegal
Good for Australia to have some politician who still cares about his constituents.
A NSW Senate candidate has compared the immigration of Muslims to Australia to the bird flu and says it should stop. Christian Democratic Party (CDP) Senate candidate Paul Green called today for a moratorium on Muslim immigration while a study on its social impacts was carried out. He said it would be easier to carry out such a study with the country's Muslim population at 300,000, rather than three million at a later date. A study would also give the Australian people a chance to have a say on the immigration program, Mr Green said. He said that in the last 12 months, a number of local Muslim senior clerics had made statements that were not of "the Australian nature". "If there was bird flu coming from a people's group across the nation would we not halt, assess the risk management of what it means to Australia and then assess the factors and then say, is it not safe to continue that or withhold it until it is dealt with," he said. "We are saying there's cracks in the foundation, we need to address them." Mr Green said Australia would suffer the same fate as "Britain, France and Holland" unless the study was carried out. However, he said the social impact study would not form part of any political deal done with the Liberal Party for preference swapping ahead of this year's federal election. Christian Democrats leader Fred Nile said his party's immigration policy also called on a priority for Christians who have been persecuted, particularly in Muslim countries, to be allowed into Australia. "It's a very broad policy, and it is certainly not racist," Mr Nile said. "We don't care where the people come from, what colour of the skin they are, we are happy to accept them, particularly the Christians who have been persecuted." Mr Nile said he believed the Federal Government was already starting to adopt some of the CDP policies.
Mexico has a lot to teach to Britain on how to deal with immigration.
Mexico has a radical idea for a rational immigration policy that most Americans would love. However, Mexican officials havent been sharing that idea with us as they press for our Congress to adopt the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill. That's too bad, because Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliens than the United States does, has much to teach us about how it handles the immigration issue. Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico. At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, its noteworthy that nobody has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve our illegal immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are: in the country legally; have the means to sustain themselves economically; not destined to be burdens on society; of economic and social benefit to society; of good character and have no criminal records; and contributors to the general well-being of the nation. The law also ensures that: immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor; foreign visitors do not violate their visa status; foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the countrys internal politics; foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported; foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported; those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.
Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense. The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens -- and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, illegal and illegal. Under the constitution, the Ley General de Población, or General Law on Population, spells out specifically the country's immigration policy. It is an interesting law -- and one that should cause us all to ask, Why is our great southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent? If a felony is a crime punishable by more than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico. If the United States adopted such statutes, Mexico no doubt would denounce it as a manifestation of American racism and bigotry. We looked at the immigration provisions of the Mexican constitution.  Now let's look at Mexico's main immigration law. Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society: Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32) Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)
Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37) The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38) Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country: Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73) A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86) A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91). Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116) Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116) Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons: Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117) Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118) Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico -- such as working with out a permit -- can also be imprisoned. Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says, "A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123) Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126) Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law: A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127) Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132) All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States. The stark contrast between Mexico's immigration practices versus its American immigration preachings is telling. It gives a clear picture of the Mexican government's agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States. Let's call Mexico's bluff on its unwarranted interference in U.S. immigration policy. Let's propose, just to make a point, that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) member nations standardize their immigration laws by using Mexico's own law as a model.
For years this party has been the lonely voice speaking the truth on this subject. It's good that mainstream media are starting to share or concerns.
In our repressive world of thoughtcrime and guiltspeak, it now takes great courage to tell the truth, even when its obvious. Fortunately there are a few brave people prepared to do it, and Julie Spence, the chief constable of Cambridgeshire, is one of them. Last week she courageously said the unsayable and pointed out that the large numbers of recent immigrants are causing serious problems in her manor. Dangerous crime, such as drink driving, human trafficking, credit card fraud and knife crime, has gone up substantially and her officers are now having to deal with people speaking nearly 100 different foreign languages. The cost in translation fees for Cambridgeshire is close to £1m a year. Some people might discount the claims made by Spence and her detailed report into the impact of immigration on her force as a crude way of getting more money out of the government. Others might say that the police all too often use their resources badly anyway, and whats needed is probably better management rather than more money. But all that is beside the point. What she has made clear is blindingly obvious ? a large and sudden influx of immigrants, whatever advantages they might bring, will inevitably come at very great cost, in many different ways. Whats true of Cambridgeshire is true of the country as a whole, and not just in policing. How strange it is, and how late, that it is beginning to be possible to say such a thing without being denounced as a neo-Nazi. The Labour government, in its 10 years of office, has allowed more than a million new people from all over the world to settle in this country. That is little short of a social revolution. Twenty-five per cent of babies born here have at least one foreign-born parent. Several large cities will have a nonwhite majority within a few years. We have seen almost uncontrolled immigration ?
Labour has lost control of our borders. Whatever the positive results of this astonishing change, there are some very spectacular negative ones. Big city hospitals are weighed down with masses of new patients who dont speak English, or who wont see male doctors or who cannot get GPs and clog up casualty departments. Local authorities, as in the notable case of Slough, find they have large numbers of immigrants for whom they cannot get extra money to meet the new costs of housing, social care, welfare and so on. As for schools, I cannot understand why nobody makes the obvious point that standards in schools are bound to suffer when many tens of different languages are spoken among the schoolchildren; how can any child progress in reading, writing and talking English, and being acculturated as an English-speaking Briton, when the rest of the class dont speak it? At our local school in west London there are more than 90 mother tongues, and a high proportion of recent immigrants or asylum seekers ? dislocated, confused and homesick as they must be. It is a perfect recipe for collapsing standards in education, which is what weve got. If the broken society means anything, it means one in which the civil bonds between individuals, their families, their neighbours and their institutions are seriously damaged. Its perfectly obvious that multiculturalism was bound to sever the ties that bind; too much diversity means not enough solidarity, and a broken society, as we have seen, and will see more.
The babel and bedlam of Damilola Taylors estate in Peckham is a terrible example. Even Trevor Phillips has now spoken of sleepwalking to segregation and even his own outfit, the Commission for Racial Equality (soon to become the Commission for Equality and Human Rights), published a grim and angry report last week about a fracturing society, growing ethnic segregation and growing extremism. Its good that such people recognise it, but it is absolutely maddening that they, who contributed so much to it themselves, dont understand their own responsibility for it. It was also quite sickening to hear Liam Byrne, the minister for borders and immigration, cravenly welcoming Spences comments last week: Its because we want to hear voices like Julie Spences, he said, that I set up the Migrant Impacts Forum. It is vital, he said, to consider the social impact of immigration when making migration decisions. Indeed it is vital, and was vital 10 years ago, and 30 years ago, when all governments, especially his, failed to do so. And its laughable for him to talk about some damned forum on the impact of migrants; some proper research should have been devoted to it in 1997. Of the complex problems caused by mass immigration one of the easiest to see and to quantify is in housing. We all know there is a housing crisis and a terrible shortage of affordable homes. On Newsnight last week Sir Andrew Green of Migrationwatch UK pointed out ? and his figures, based always on government figures, are not challenged even by Whitehall ? that we will have to build 200 houses a day for the next 20 years to meet predicted housing needs.
Apparently this came as a surprise to the presenter Jeremy Paxman. Liam Byrne then pointed out that Gordon Brown has promised to build 3m new homes. What did not emerge in the programme is that one-third of all new households are being formed by immigrants and, therefore, 1m of Browns promised 3m will have to go to immigrants. Nor is the government very keen to quantify the net benefit to the economy made by immigrants. They may swell productivity but they also swell the population, and will also need schools and hospitals and housing, and care in their old age. According to Migrationwatch, the net effect of immigrant labour on GDP is £1 per week per person. It is shocking that this massive, historic change was forced upon us without consultation and without our consent. Who wanted it? Who is responsible for it? And why? In casting about for an answer, perhaps its worth considering the Mori survey into black and ethnic minority attitudes to voting and to politics at the 2005 general election. Of those who voted, 58% chose Labour, 10% Conservative. I hope that isnt a thoughtcrime.