England currently has an immigration policy that lets in just about everybody — especially two-bit terrorists from Pakistan and points nearby. England does have some limits, however. It refuses to allow Gurkha veterans — you know, the ones who fought and were willing to die for England — into the country, nor does it provide them with benefits. I leave you to draw your own conclusions. The only thing I can say is that actress Joanna Lumley, whose performances I have always enjoyed, has gone up in my estimation.
As a California tax payer, my taxes have, for years, been paying for college educations for illegal immigrants. I certainly admire anyone who is able to work hard and get into college, but I have a fundamental objection to paying my hard earned money so that someone who is in America illegally can get a college education. That means that someone who is in America legally is not getting that same money or the opportunity to get that quality education. It also means that my taxes are higher so that I have less money for my own family and their education.
That may all be about to change, thanks to a sensible ruling from a California Appellate Court:
A state appellate court has put a financial cloud over the future of tens of thousands of undocumented California college students, saying a state law that grants them the same heavily subsidized tuition rate that is given to resident students is in conflict with federal law.
In a ruling reached Monday, the state Court of Appeal reversed a lower court’s decision that there were no substantial legal issues and sent the case back to the Yolo County Superior Court for trial.
“It has a huge impact,” said Kris Kobach, an attorney for the plaintiffs and a law professor at the University Missouri at Kansas City. “This is going to bring a halt to the law that has been giving in-state tuition to illegal immigrants.”
He said it is a big win for California taxpayers who have been subsidizing education for undocumented immigrants.
This is no small victory. When you read the rest of the news article from which I quoted, you’ll appreciate how California taxpayers have been forced to pay huge dollar amounts for illegal immigrants, even as out of state students who are legal American residents have been prevented from attending California colleges, while legal American students who live out of state have been charged huge premiums to attend school in California, even while the illegal aliens get a discount.
Even with the Appellate ruling, things still aren’t great. The Federal law, rather than saying that people who are here illegally shouldn’t be using my money for their benefit, simply says that, when it comes to higher education, illegal aliens have to be subject to the same treatment as any other American citizen — which either means charging illegal aliens the premium price, or dropping the tuition price for all students, whether in state or out of state. Nevertheless, it’s a start, because it’s going to force Californians to confront the true price of illegal aliens on our education system.
One of the things few people realize Tony Blair’s government did to England was to open the floodgates to virtually unlimited immigration. Get a load of these numbers:
- Between 1982 and 1997, Britain added about 50,000 new immigrants per year.
- In 2004, a peak year, after a few years of Labour’s open borders approach, Britain added 244,000 immigrants in one year alone.
- Other than 2004, average immigration recently has been 190,000 new immigrants per year.
- Current immigration is 25 times higher than at any other time in the past 1,000 years.
- By 2006, 68% of these immigrants had nothing to do with movement within the European Union. (In other words, these aren’t the Polish immigrants we’re talking about here; these are the Pakistani ones.)
A coalition of British political figures, including a prominent Muslim member of the Labour party, are getting very worried and have floated a plan to limit permanent immigration to a mere 20,000 per year from on-EU countries.
The proposal is narrow and mild. It wouldn’t stop EU immigrants, nor would it stop people seeking asylum, nor would it stop all the instant and generous welfare benefits Britain immediately and automatically confers on new immigrants (including, if I remember correctly, full welfare for each of an immigrant Muslim’s many wives).
The British public would support the idea. Currently, 81% of Labour party members are on board with limiting the tidal wave of immigrants, immigrants who seek not to embrace the values and conduct of their new country, but to turn their new country into a 3rd world Muslim replica of the one they left behind.
Interestingly, the Labour party is adamantly opposed to the plan. I guess it’s looking at demographics and has figured out that, in the long run, if it de-Britainizes Britain, it will get all those Muslim votes….
I don’t have actual knowledge here. I’m just wondering.
The lede from the AP is that the number of uninsured dropped by more than a million people last year:
The number of people without health insurance fell by more than 1 million in 2007, the first annual decline since the Bush administration took office, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday.
The AP attributes that decline to more government insurance, and AP may well be right, since I don’t have data documents in front of me:
The welcome news on health insurance coverage was tempered by the continued erosion of private coverage paid for by employers and individuals. Government programs — such as Medicaid for the poor — picked up the slack, resulting in the overall reduction in people without health insurance.
The uninsured rate also fell to 15.3 percent, down from 15.8 percent in 2006.
“Private insurance has been falling (and) public insurance definitely went up,” said David Johnson, who oversees the Census division that produced the statistics. The number of uninsured children also fell in 2007, after an increase in 2006 that had interrupted years of progress in getting more kids covered.
I wonder, though, if there’s not one other factor driving down the numbers of uninsured: the fact that illegal aliens are self-deporting as US immigration laws are finally getting enforced. Interestingly, the rate of returning immigrants is just about the same as the drop in uninsured:
Illegal immigrants are returning home to Mexico in numbers not seen for decades — and the Mexican government may have to deal with a crush on its social services and lower wages once the immigrants arrive.
The Mexican Consulate’s office in Dallas is seeing increasing numbers of Mexican nationals requesting paperwork to go home for good, especially parents who want to know what documentation they’ll need to enroll their children in Mexican schools.
“Those numbers have increased percentage-wise tremendously,” said Enrique Hubbard, the Mexican consul general in Dallas. “In fact, it’s almost 100 percent more this year than it was the previous two years.”
The illegal immigrant population in the U.S. has dropped 11 percent since August of last year, according to the Center for Immigration Studies. Its research shows 1.3 million illegal immigrants have returned to their home countries.
I have no idea if there is any cause and effect at work here. I just think it’s interesting.
Back in 1989, Bay Area locals were stunned to learn of a horrific massacre up in Sonoma County:
[Ramon] Salcido, now 47, used a gun and knife to murder his wife, Angela Richards Salcido, 24; their daughters, 4-year-old Sofia and 22-month-old Teresa; his mother-in-law, Marion Richards, 47; her daughters, 12-year-old Ruth and 8-year-old Maria; and Tracey Toovey, 35, his supervisor at Grand Cru Winery in Glen Ellen.
He was also convicted of attempting to murder his 2-year-old daughter, Carmina, who survived a slashed throat, and another winery worker, Kenneth Butti, who was shot in the shoulder.
After these heinous murders, Salcido escaped to Mexico, where he was caught and returned to California for trial. The jury convicted him and recommended the death penalty. He’s been appealing ever since, a process that just resulted in an opinion from the California Supreme Court.
Almost surprisingly, given that it is a California Court, the judges ruled that the death penalty was valid. They batted down his arguments about mental illness and information withheld from the jury, and all sorts of other stuff.
The argument that intrigued me was Salcido’s claim that, as a Mexican citizen, he could not be extradited from Mexico (which has no death penalty) to America. This is a familiar argument, as we’ve seen it play out before, with Mexico refusing to turn suspected killers over to the US authorities. This time, though, there was a twist. In reading the following, you have to appreciate the unspoken concept behind all this, which is that Salcido was here in America, and committed all those horrible acts, as an illegal alien:
In his appeal, Salcido’s lawyer contended his client, who was a Mexican citizen, had been transferred to the United States in violation of a treaty that allows the Mexican government to block the extradition of one of its citizens unless U.S. authorities promise not to impose the death penalty, which does not exist in Mexico.
Salcido’s lawyer contended agents from Sonoma County and the federal government had induced Mexican officials to transfer Salcido by identifying him as a U.S. citizen.
But the court said law enforcement officials from both countries had believed Salcido was a U.S. citizen based on his own statements and on Salcido’s residence in California, where he had a Social Security card and a driver’s license.
In other words, the Supreme Court said that, if you’re going to go around pretending to be an American citizen, you can’t complain if you are then treated as one to your detriment. In any event, the Court added, only the Mexican government gets to complain if one of its citizens is wrongfully taken from its borders. Given Salcido’s appalling conduct, Mexico may feel that this is one citizenship error better left unremedied.
Britain’s first Muslim peer, Lord Ahmed [a Muslim peer is an entirely new thing in England], is being investigated over a motorway crash in which a man was killed.
The Crown Prosecution Service said it was examining a police file following an investigation into the accident on the M1 in South Yorkshire on Christmas Day last year.
The 50-year-old Labour peer was at the wheel of his gold-coloured X-Type Jaguar [is there an irony that a Labour politician -- that's the party of socialization and the poor people -- is driving an expensive luxury car? This goes to my point about the new Left being the party, not of the working class, but of the angry class.] when he hit a stationary red Audi A4 in the fast lane of the motorway at Thorpe Hesley, near Rotherham.
The Audi’s Slovakian driver, Martyn Gombar, 28, from Leigh, Greater Manchester, was killed [although it's the Muslims who get the press, the greatest number of immigrants in England have come from the Balkan countries].
The peer denied any responsibility for the tragedy, including that he was sending a text message at the time of the crash [not unique to England, of course, but text messages are a fairly new phenomenon too, aren't they?].
He said: “I totally deny this allegation [that I sent a text message] and I have nothing else more to say. I was not using my phone at the time.
“I welcome the inquiry because it will vindicate me. I have co-operated with the police fully and there is an ongoing inquiry into this. [Good for him.]
“As far as I’m concerned, I’ve got no comments to make because it’s a police inquiry and they have every right to investigate.”
Incidentally, speaking of the new England, look at these figures:
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) will release figures showing that more than 200,000 Britons emigrated during 2006. That will take the total number who left the country between 1997 and 2006 to 1.97 million.
Another 1.58 million foreign nationals resident in Britain left during the same period.
However, 3.9 million foreigners arrived over the decade, including more than 500,000 in 2006.
According to figures compiled by Jay Winter, of Yale University, the last comparable exodus came between 1911 and 1914, when 2.4 million people left Britain. The other significant spike in emigration came in the late 1950s and early 1960s, when thousands of Britons left to start new lives in Australia, Canada and the United States.
It turns out that Barack Obama might have been on to something with his bitterness speech. In case you’ve forgotten, he said:
You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, a lot of them — like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they’ve gone through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, and they cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Where Obama got it wrong was that he focused on the wrong bitter people. Down in Los Angeles, in the gun-ridden, crime-ridden, gang-ridden communities that taught that sprawling City, people are indeed getting increasingly bitter, although it’s a liberal government’s refusal to enforce the law that’s raising their ire:
When Jamiel Shaw Sr. stood up last week to call for a change in Special Order 40, it touched an already raw nerve in the black community. Shaw’s son, 17-year-old star football player Jamiel Shaw II, was gunned down within shouting distance of his house. The suspect, 19-year-old Pedro Espinoza, is an alleged gang member and an illegal immigrant. Special Order 40 has prevented law enforcement from probing the immigration status of some suspects and deporting criminals with dispatch. Even if Special Order 40 were modified, there’s no guarantee that Jamiel would still be alive, but to a community convinced that Latino-on-black racial violence is on the upswing, it’s still a matter of simple justice.
And that’s true despite the statistics Police Chief William Bratton (seconded by the Los Angeles Times) piled on the public table in recent weeks, numbers that back up the claim that, with the exception of young Shaw and a handful of other cases, the majority of the killings of blacks are by other blacks, not Latinos. That won’t ease black fears that some Latino gangs are bent on wiping them out.
The author of the above op-ed goes on to say that African-Americans are right to feel that this is all a racist thing, with the Hispanics trying to kill them because they’re black and the City government ignoring them because they’re black. As to the first point, when one considers that gang warfare has been a fixture of American urban life practically since there were American urbs, I doubt that’s the case. That is, the Hispanic gang members are gunning blacks down, not because they’re black, but simply because they’re the other gang, and this is a pure turf battle.
I also doubt that there is racism in the City’s response. Instead, I suspect the City’s unwillingness to acknowledge black concerns this has more to do with a City wedded to a stupid liberal policy that makes it a haven for illegal immigrants (because liberals know that “no person is illegal.”) To me, this snotty liberal attitude is evidenced by the fact that Bratton assured blacks that the policy is not a problem, since blacks are killing each other faster than Hispanics can. In other words, what you’re seeing here isn’t racism run amok; it’s liberal politics and identity politics run amok.
In any event, I think the African-Americans in LA have the perfect right to be bitter that the City of Los Angeles does nothing about an influx of criminals into their communities, criminals who should be deported instantly before they get guns in their hands and victims in their sights.
Last night, I was discussing with my mother the British woman I met in Florida who said that the situation in England, vis a vis Muslims, is much worse than even the papers describe. Aside from pointing to political correctness as the culprit, I also also laid the blame, as did the British woman, on Britain’s unlimited immigration problem, hatched at Oxbridge and imposed on the rest of the nation. My kids, who were listening, asked what unlimited immigration meant.
I explained to them that it’s healthy for a country to take in new people, because it brings in new ideas and new energy. However, I said that a country should be able to control how many come in, and should be able to ensure that the people are healthy and are not criminals. They looked blank. I sought an analogy. Imagine, I said, if we went into downtown San Francisco and announced that anybody who wanted could come and live in our house. All they had to do was show up. And imagine, I said, that the ones who showed up were drug addicts and crazy people and criminals, as well as some nice people. Their eyes widened. I went on to explain, and they agreed, that within minutes of this policy, our house would be trashed, stinky, and minus all its nice stuff. They agreed that a country, just like a homeowner, ought to have (and exercise) control over those whom it invites in.
Why does this involve San Francisco? Because I just read today that San Francisco, in violation of federal law, is again inviting criminals into its borders and to use up taxpayer funded resources:
San Francisco’s “sanctuary” policy for illegal immigrants, which has drawn sharp criticism from conservatives, will be promoted in an advertisement campaign complete with multilanguage brochures and radio and TV public service announcements.
The city-funded outreach campaign is expected to roll out this spring and build on San Francisco’s response to last year’s federal immigration raids, which city officials said scared undocumented immigrants into not accessing city services, reporting crimes or sending children to school.
City officials Wednesday were not able to provide The Examiner with a cost breakdown for the campaign.
“We have worked with the Board of Supervisors, Department of Public Health, labor and immigrant rights groups to create a city government-wide public awareness campaign so that immigrants know The City won’t target them for using city services,” said Nathan Ballard, Mayor Gavin Newsom’s spokesman.
Supervisor Tom Ammiano, who is working on the planned outreach campaign to undocumented immigrants, said it will ensure “a lot of deserving people” take advantage of city services. “To me, it’s a logical follow-through.”
Boy, am I glad I don’t live in San Francisco anymore. It would drive me into a frenzy to know that my money was being used to turn the City into a haven for criminals. (And I do believe that all illegal aliens, even if they’re not violent or criminally negligent, are criminals because, by definition, they’ve broken the law.)