Friday, February 29, 2008

Spousal Abuse Accusation: Ticket to Preferential ICE Treatment?

Domestic violence against immigrant brides presents a difficult policy question. Do we oblige the woman to prove her claim by competent evidence, in order to protect men from false accusations? Or, to prevent any further abuse, do we presume the truthfulness of her charges, and just write off any falsely accused men as collateral damage?

Writer Carey Roberts suggests the dilemma is intensified by the incentive for disloyal wives to falsely accuse their husbands in order to receive preferential treatment from Immigration & Customs Enforcement, and passes along the first-person account of a man who says he was victimized by his foreign wife and the presumption of guilt.

By Carey Roberts,

Each year the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and similar federal laws funnel $1 billion to help abused and battered women – or so we are led to believe. A good part of that money goes to immigrants who claim to be victims of domestic violence.

Last Fall I wrote a three-part exposé that revealed how an immigrant woman’s restraining order becomes a “gold-plated meal ticket that entitles her to preferential treatment by immigration authorities, free legal services, and a generous helping of welfare services.”

One woman whose father had been falsely accused of abuse and forced from his home wrote me, “I believe the Violence Against Women Act should be called the ‘Women Get What They Want Act.’”

Following those columns I received an unending stream of horror stories from persons falsely accused of domestic violence. One came from Sean Moffett of St. Paul, Minn. whose wife is from Guatemala. Soon after the wedding he discovered to his dismay that her real aim was different from what she had pledged in her wedding vows.

This is his story:

My wife’s family came to visit for a few months and they repeatedly attempted to provoke confrontations between my wife and me. Ultimately, my wife assaulted me by punching me in the neck. I did not hit my wife back or abuse her in any way.

I was arrested for 5th Degree Domestic Assault and spent three days in jail for a crime I did not commit and for not leaving my home under duress. While I was behind bars, my wife cleaned out the joint bank account.

I later learned that a legal aid group called Civil Society Helps had assisted with my wife’s abuse claims to expedite her immigration application. This outfit helps many immigrant women to file false abuse claims under the Violence Against Women Act.

Shortly after my release from jail, my wife asked me to write a letter to immigration stating I was an abusive husband. She promised if I wrote the letter she would help me get my home back.

Instead of allowing myself to be blackmailed, I wrote the Citizenship and Immigration Service to withdraw the petition for my wife’s U.S. residency. I used my last credit card to retain a lawyer to petition for divorce. At that point I was broke, homeless, and sleeping in my car and under my desk at the office.

The courts later granted my wife all of the marital property and ordered that I surrender to her a car that was titled in my name. To add insult to injury, the judge granted her a one year Order for Protection.

She then telephoned me several times, calling me an “abuser” real slow and sarcastically. Knowing how groups like the Civil Society work, I can only imagine how they coached my wife.

Several times my wife has been confronted by the Eagan, Minn. police for driving without a license. She was repeatedly given a warning, yet continued to drive the vehicle.

Later, I spoke with one of the officers and reminded him it is against the law for anyone to drive a motor vehicle without a license or insurance. His partner threatened to arrest me for allegedly creating a public disturbance. But I had done nothing wrong and they backed off when I informed them I had a witness looking on.

Last year I earned a very high salary, lived in a house by a lake, and enjoyed life as much as I could with a wife who didn’t love me. At age 36 I had no previous criminal history and had honorably completed four years of U.S. military service.

In three days, I was reduced to living in poverty and was homeless for weeks. I am no longer employable in my field due to my “criminal” history -- 5th degree domestic assault with no conviction. My house was recently foreclosed and I have lost everything.

Thanks to our VAWA laws and a series of outright lies by an immigrant residency-seeker, a law-abiding American citizen can be left penniless. All of your assets can be seized and given to the immigrant even if you are innocent of the charges.

The courts have violated my rights as an American citizen and I am alienated in my own country.

© 2008 Carey Roberts - All Rights Reserved

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Documents for Travel to the United States

What is the WHTI?

The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) is a U.S. law that requires all travelers, including U.S. and Canadian citizens, to present a valid passport or other approved secure document when traveling to, or through, the United States from within the western hemisphere. The new document requirements were implemented for air travelers to the United States in January 2007. Final document requirements for those seeking to enter the United States at land or sea ports of entry have yet to be finalized and implemented.

What is the Government of Canada doing?

For the past two years, the Government of Canada has strongly encouraged the United States to ensure that the WHTI is implemented with minimal impact on travel and trade at the border and without compromising local communities and our integrated economies.

The Government of Canada has urged the U.S. administration to take advantage of the time granted by the U.S. Congress to get the WHTI implementation right. This will allow the two governments to continue to collaborate closely on a strategy for implementing the WHTI for land and water travel in a way that will address security needs, while facilitating the flow of legitimate travellers and goods across our shared border.

A shared commitment to security and prosperity

A working group headed by senior officials of the Canada Border Services Agency, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is directing the work of government representatives.

Canada is concerned about the economic and community impacts of the WHTI if it is implemented before travelers on both sides of the border have obtained approved, secure documents.

Identifying secure documents

Government of Canada officials are working closely with their U.S. counterparts to determine which alternative documents would be accepted at land and water ports of entry by the time the WHTI is fully implemented, at the earliest, on June 1, 2009.

Canada is working with the United States to ensure that the WHTI implementation increases security at the border without compromising the flow of legitimate trade and travel.

As part of this effort, the Government of Canada’s negotiations have led to recognition that enhanced driver’s licences (EDLs) and the Certificate of Indian Status card could potentially serve as acceptable alternatives to passports at the Canada-U.S. land and water borders.

The Government of Canada’s efforts have also resulted in Canadians aged 18 and under being allowed to present only a birth certificate to enter the United States by land and water.

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

2d Circuit: Ineffective Assistance Can Constitute "Exceptional Circumstances"

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has blasted the immigration bar in Garfield Aris v. Michael Mukasey, a recent case alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, decided Feb. 20.

With disturbing frequency, this Court encounters evidence of ineffective representation by attorneys retained by immigrants seeking legal status in this country. We have previously indicated that ineffective assistance of counsel can constitute an “exceptional circumstance” warranting the reopening of a deportation order entered in absentia. See Twum v. INS, 411 F.3d 54, 59 n.4 (2d Cir. 2005).

We write today to establish what we would have thought self-evident: A lawyer who misadvises his client concerning the date of an immigration hearing and then fails to inform the client of the deportation order entered in absentia (or the ramifications thereof) has provided ineffective assistance. We further clarify that such misadvice may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel even where it is supplied by a paralegal providing scheduling information on behalf of a lawyer.

Under the (Immigration & Naturalization Act), an alien ordered deported in absentia may reopen the case by filing a motion within 180 days after the order of deportation if the alien demonstrates that the failure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances.

(The Act) defines exceptional circumstances as “circumstances such as serious illness of the alien or death of an immediate relative of the alien, but not including less compelling circumstances) beyond the control of the alien.”

We now join our sister circuits in concluding that, under BIA precedent applicable to the pre-1996 version of the INA as well as its current iteration, a lawyer’s inaccurate advice to his client concerning an immigration hearing date can constitute “exceptional circumstances” excusing the alien’s failure to appear at a deportation hearing...and meriting the reopening of an in absentia deportation order.

The importance of quality representation is especially acute to immigrants, a vulnerable population who come to this country searching for a better life, and who often arrive unfamiliar with our language and culture, in economic deprivation and in fear. In immigration matters, so much is at stake -- the right to remain in this country, to reunite a family, or to work. While binding Second Circuit precedent holds that aliens in deportation proceedings have “no specific right to counsel,” the Fifth Amendment does require that such proceedings comport with due process of the law.

...given the disturbing pattern of ineffectiveness evidenced in the record in this case(and, with alarming frequency, in other immigration cases before us), we reiterate that due process concerns may arise when retained counsel provides representation in an immigration proceeding that falls so far short of professional duties as to “impinge upon the fundamental fairness of the hearing.”

The Court goes on to lecture immigration attorneys on the fundamentals of their obligation to provide competent services, and to make prompt disclosure of lapses.

Members of the bar enjoy a monopoly on legal practice, a professionalized system designed in large part around [their] needs. And for that reason, among others, lawyers have a duty to render competent services to their clients.

When lawyers representing immigrants fail to live up to their professional obligations, it is all too often the immigrants they represent who suffer the consequences.

We appreciate that, unfortunately, calendar mishaps will from time to time occur. But the failure to communicate such mistakes, once discovered, to the client, and to take all necessary steps to correct them is more than regrettable -- it is unacceptable. It is nondisclosure that turns the ineffective assistance of a mere scheduling error into more serious malpractice.

(This deportee's) prior attorneys failed spectacularly to honor their professional obligation to him and to the legal system they were duty-bound to serve. Governmental authorities, whatever their roles, must be attentive to such lapses that so grievously undermine the administration of justice.

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Obama, Clinton Unite Against Border Fence

Obama, Clinton Back Off Border-Fence Law
By Terence P. Jeffrey,

( - In a CNN debate in Austin, Texas, Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton agreed Thursday night that the Secure Border Fence Act of 2006, which directs the secretary of Homeland Security to construct 700 miles of double border fencing along specific sections of the U.S.-Mexico border, should not be enforced as written.

"I think when (Obama and I) voted for this, we were voting for the possibility that where it was appropriate and made sense, it would be considered," said Clinton.

Stressing her desire to be deferential to the views of people who live along the border in Texas -- which on March 4 will hold a primary that is widely viewed as a must-win event for the New York senator -- Clinton said of a border fence, "there may be limited places where it would work. But let's deploy more technology and personnel, instead of the physical barrier."

"This is an area where Senator Clinton and I almost entirely agree," said Obama. "I think that the key is to consult with local communities, whether it's on the commercial interests or the environmental stakes of creating any kind of barrier."

Both Clinton and Obama argued that the Bush administration was being too aggressive in pushing to build the border fence mandated by the 2006 law.

The agreement among the senators came in response to a question asked by CNN's John King, one of the moderators of the debate.

On September 29, 2006, the Senate voted 80-19 for passage of H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act of 2006. (It passed the House on September 14, 2006, by a vote of 283-138). Clinton and Obama both voted for the act.

The law mandated that the secretary of Homeland Security build more than 700 miles of double fencing along specific segments of the U.S.-Mexico. Then House Homeland Security Chairman Peter King (R.-N.Y.), the principal sponsor of the law, explained its purpose in a floor speech on the day of the 2006 House vote. "It provides over 700 miles of two-layered reinforced fencing," King said, according to the Congressional Record.

An October 1, 2006 story in the Washington Post, which reported that the bill had passed in the Senate, carried this headline: "Border Fence is Approved; Congress Sets Aside Immigration Overhaul in Favor of 700-Mile Barrier."

"The Senate gave final approval Friday night to legislation authorizing the construction of 700 miles of double-layered fencing on the U.S.-Mexico border, shelving President Bush's vision of a comprehensive overhaul of U.S. immigration laws in favor of a vast barrier," said the lead in the Post story.

All 435 members of the House of Representatives and one third of U.S. senators faced reelection contests just one month after passage of the Secure Fence Act.

The actual text of the law -- enacted with Clinton's and Obama's votes -- is unambiguous.

"[T]he Secretary of Homeland Security," the law says, "shall provide for at least 2 layers of reinforced fencing, the installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors--(i) extending from 10 miles west of the Tecate, California, port of entry to 10 miles east of the Tecate, California, port of entry; (ii) extending from 10 miles west of the Calexico, California, port of entry to 5 miles east of the Douglas, Arizona, port of entry; (iii) extending from 5 miles west of the Columbus, New Mexico, port of entry to 10 miles east of El Paso, Texas; (iv) extending from 5 miles northwest of the Del Rio, Texas, port of entry to 5 miles southeast of the Eagle Pass, Texas, port of entry; and (v) extending 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry to the Brownsville, Texas, port of entry."

Early in Thursday night's debate, moderator John King asked about the legally mandated fence, noting that many people in southern Texas oppose it.

/ldblquote Senator, back in 2006, you voted for the construction of that fence. As you know, progress has been slow," said King. "As president of the United States, would you commit tonight that you would finish the fence and speed up the construction, or do you think it's time for a president of the United States to raise his or her hand and say, 'You know what? Wait a minute. Let's think about this again. Do we really want to do this?'"

Clinton's full answer, including some back and forth with King, runs more than 500 words in the transcript of the debate posted by CNN on it website.

"Well, I think both Senator Obama and I voted for that as part of the immigration debate," she started. "And having been along the border for the last week or so--in fact, last night I was at the University of Texas at Brownsville -- and this is how absurd this has become under the Bush administration. Because, you know, there is a smart way to protect our borders, and there is a dumb way to protect our borders. And what I learned last night when I was there with Congressman [Solomon] Ortiz [D.-Texas] is that the University of Texas at Brownsville would have part of its campus cut off.

"This is the kind of absurdity that we're getting from this administration," Clinton continued. "I know it because I've been fighting with them about the northern border. Their imposition of passports and other kinds of burdens are separating people from families, interfering with business and commerce, the movement of goods and people. So what I've said is that I would say, wait a minute, we need to review this. There may be places where a physical barrier is appropriate.

"I think when both of us voted for this, we were voting for the possibility that where it was appropriate and made sense, it would be considered," said Clinton. "But as with so much, the Bush administration has gone off the deep end, and they are unfortunately coming up with a plan that I think is counterproductive.

"So I would have a review," she said. "I would listen to the people who live along the border, who understand what it is we need to be doing to protect our country."

When King then asked her whether she now thought her vote for the border fence was wrong, she did not give a yes-no answer. Instead, she suggested using more manpower and technology, instead of fencing, to secure the border.

"But, you know, John," she said, "there's a lot we've learned about technology and smart fencing. You know, there is technology that can be used instead of a physical barrier. It requires us having enough personnel along the border so that people can be supervising a certain limited amount of space and will be able to be responsive in the event of people attempting to cross illegally."

She then suggested President Bush was being too aggressive in trying to build the fence. "I think that the way that the Bush administration is going about this, filing eminent domain actions against landowners and municipalities, makes no sense," she said.

"So what I have said is, yes, there are places when after a careful review, again listening to the people who live along the border, there may be limited places where it would work," she said. "But let's deploy more technology and personnel, instead of the physical barrier.

"I frankly think that will work better and it will give us an opportunity to secure our borders without interfering with family relations, business relations, recreation and so much else that makes living along the border, you know, wonderful," she said. "And the people who live there need to have a president who understands it, will listen to them and be responsive."

Obama indicated that he agreed with Clinton in this area. "Well, this is an area where Senator Clinton and I almost entirely agree," he said. "I think that the key is to consult with local communities, whether it's on the commercial interests or the environmental stakes of creating any kind of barrier. And the Bush administration is not real good at listening. That's not what they do well.

"And so I will reverse that policy," Obama said. "As Senator Clinton indicated, there may be areas where it makes sense to have some fencing. But for the most part, having border patrolled, surveillance, deploying effective technology, that's going to be the better approach."

John Birch Society's Surprisingly Moderate Immigration Views

The New American, which is the John Birch Society's official publication, has published some surprisingly moderate positions on immigration, including illegal immigration.

Immigration Report: Is catering to those in favor of illegal immigration coming to an end?

According to national polls, at least 80 percent of the American people now favor cutbacks in immigration quotas.... More than 90 percent support an all-out-effort to curb the massive illegal immigration. That was in 1982. After decades, are we any closer to a solution to the problem?

John F. McManus, publisher of The New American, reports in his cover story, The Battle Against Illegal Immigration, on the progress of immigration control over the last 20+ years, highlighting what has and has not been accomplished.

Larry Greenley, contributor to The New American, offers real solutions including a model state resolution in his article, How to Fix Illegal Immigration. Both articles are published at

The print magazine discusses avoiding extreme solutions in the illegal immigration situation, and three influential black leaders give a candid look at what life is like for America’s black population living at "ground zero" of the illegal immigration crisis. Warren Mass offers a historical perspective with his Immigration as a Win-win Affair, and once again our publisher has the last word in his Unasked Questions Deserve Answers article covering the presidential election.

There is also a link to a .pdf file of the magazine's Merger in the Making issue, which can be downloaded and shared with others at no cost, about the North American Union.

Sunday, February 17, 2008

New York Times denounces "creaky, corrosively inept" ICE priorities

A New York Times editorial denounces the U.S. immigration regime today, or at least its perceived emphasis on excluding illegal aliens rather than speeding the process for legal immigration.

You can tell a country’s priorities from what works and where the money goes. With billions for border and workplace enforcement, the government has been rushing to impose ever more sophisticated and intrusive means to keep immigrants out. Yet it continues to tolerate a creaky, corrosively inept system for welcoming immigrants in — an underperforming bureaucracy that takes their money and makes them wait, with a chronic indolence that is just another form of hostility.

The denunciation is well deserved as to our system for accomodating lawful, welcome immigration, but you have to wonder what planet they're living on if they think current U.S. measures to prevent illegal immigration "work."

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Phoenix Tweaks Police Policy on Illegal Aliens

The New York Times carried this article about the new policy in Phoenix as to when police may and may not inquire about immigration status. There will be no inquiry of crime victims or witnesses, and civil traffic violations won't trigger an inquiry. But all criminal arrestees will be questioned whether they are in the U.S. legally.

Phoenix Police to Check Arrestees’ Immigrant Status
February 16, 2008

PHOENIX — The police in this city at the center of the immigration debate will soon ask all people arrested whether they are in the United States legally and will in certain cases report the information to the federal authorities, Mayor Phil Gordon announced on Friday.

People stopped for civil traffic violations like speeding will not be questioned, nor will crime victims or witnesses.

All those arrested on criminal charges like drunken driving and murder will be asked by officers whether they are in the United States legally.

The police may decide to recommend checking by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The change includes having the police notify the immigration agency about people who are detained but not arrested who officers have “reasonable basis” to believe are illegal immigrants.

A conservative legal group said the policy did not go far enough.

Civil rights advocates suggested that people who appeared to be Latino or spoke with accents would be more likely to be checked than others.

Hispanics make up 34 percent of Phoenix, the nation’s fifth-largest city, with 1.5 million residents.

At a news conference on Friday, Mr. Gordon and the four lawyers on a commission that recommended the changes tried to emphasize that the program would be closely monitored. Police officers, they said, would not become immigration agents and would not stop people at random and ask their legal status.

“We are doing what every city in this country should be doing but doesn’t,” Mr. Gordon said.

He added that the policy drew “a bright line between what should and should not be the role of the Phoenix Police Department.”

The program departs from a policy that is more than 10 years old that bars officers from asking people about their legal status in most cases. It also sets Phoenix apart from most other big cities with large immigrant populations, including New York and Los Angeles. The police in those cities generally avoid such questions over fears that they would lead to racial profiling and discourage immigrants from cooperating with the police.

Mr. Gordon had faced criticism that the current policy was in effect helping make Phoenix a sanctuary for illegal immigrants. The city is 200 miles from Mexico and is the largest in a state with the heaviest influx of illegal immigrants.

An illegal immigrant killed a police officer last fall, and the police union and others stepped up calls to change the policy. Judicial Watch, a conservative-leaning legal group in Washington, began preparing a suit and looked into a recall of Mr. Gordon.

Police Chief Jack F. Harris, who has been outspoken in warning of the dangers of major police involvement in immigration enforcement, said he endorsed the policy, would write regulations for it and put it into place within three months.

Christopher J. Farrell, director of investigations with Judicial Watch, called the change a “public relations feel-good piece” that “split the baby.” The main problem, Mr. Farrell said, is that it continues to restrict officers from contacting the immigration agency, which Judicial Watch believes violates federal law.

Antonio D. Bustamante, a member of Los Abogados, a Hispanic legal group in Phoenix, said the policy changed “only because of xenophobia” and people “who hate the undocumented without understanding the huge contribution they make to the city and the economy.”

Friday, February 15, 2008

Open Letter from U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo to Visiting Mexican President Felipe Calderon

President Calderon:

I was disappointed by misguided comments you recently made regarding U.S.-Mexico relations and U.S. immigration laws. Purveying misinformation and absurd allegations is hardly a positive step to building a constructive partnership.

According to the Associated Press you recently said, “You have two economies. One economy is intensive in capital, which is the American economy. One economy is intensive in labor, which is the Mexican economy. We are two complementary economies, and that phenomenon is impossible to stop.” Yes, both countries benefit by the 85% of Mexico’s manufacturing exports that come to the U.S., but people are not commodities. While I appreciate your concern for our joint prosperity, the economic and social ills that plague your country cannot be resolved by simply exporting your citizens to the United States.

It is undeniable that Mexico faces major challenges. Endemic corruption and the power of violent drug cartels still dominate everyday life across Mexico. Beyond the headlines, Mexico has deep institutional maladies. Mexico’s absurdly antiquated Napoleonic-inquisition styled legal system and the squandering of robust energy-industry opportunity by a poorly managed, state-run Pemex monopoly are just two examples of the kind of self-inflicted wounds that hobble your troubled nation.

I understand that you are attempting to resolve some of these problems and applaud your leadership in trying to do so. But what would contribute more to the long term stability of your economy and your country would be to focus more energy on addressing your domestic challenges and less on lobbying the U.S. to provide amnesty for Mexicans who have illegally entered this country with the blessing of your government. In doing so, you might be able to keep Mexico’s “best and brightest young men” in Mexico – where they can contribute more to Mexico’s economy than remittance payments. Unfortunately, your recent comments indicate that Mexico will continue its policy of encouraging illegal immigration and treating the United States as little more than a dumping ground for your social and economic problems.

In your speech yesterday to the California State legislature, you lectured the American people on how to improve our immigration policies. Why did you not propose that we model our policies on Mexico’s own policies toward illegal entry across your own southern border? Mexico expends enormous resources to prevent Guatemalans, Hondurans and Salvadorans from entering the country illegally, but you castigate the United States for wanting secure borders. Mr. President, in my neighborhood that is called hypocrisy.

You proposed in your Sacramento speech that “migration” be made “legal, safe and organized.” Mr. President, we already have such a program and it is called legal immigration. Over one million legal immigrants come through our ports of entry each year, not across our border fences. The American people set limits on the number of legal immigrants through our immigration laws, and it is not the job of the Mexican government to revise or expand those limits.

President Calderon, you are insulting the American people when you tell us that fifteen to twenty million illegal aliens in our country bring only benefits and no costs. I challenge you to give one concrete example of how the enforcement of our existing immigration laws violates anyone’s human rights. The people of Oklahoma are not anti-Mexican for passing laws to require verification of employment eligibility. The people of Indiana are not anti-immigrant for passing laws to require photo identification for voting. The people of California are not anti-Mexican for denying driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. The people of Arizona are not anti-immigrant for passing laws that deny welfare benefits to people who are in that state unlawfully.

It is no secret that the purpose of your visit is to influence the American election, and in fact your trip has been billed as a high-stakes effort to shape the immigration debate underway in the U.S. presidential race. What is perhaps more disappointing, however, is your attempt to insinuate that anti-amnesty sentiment here in the U.S. is the same as anti-Mexican sentiment. I am referring to your statement, “I need to change in the perception that the Americans are the enemy, and it is important to change the perception that the Mexicans are the enemy.”

It is both disingenuous and dangerous for you to inject this kind of xenophobia into this debate. The fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans support the enforcement of our immigration laws and take issue with the notion that we should reward illegal behavior, hardly qualifies as ethnic animosity or international enmity. What you must understand is that a treasured aspect of our national foundation is a respect for the rule of law. Perhaps if corruption were not so widespread and commonplace in Mexico, it would be easier for you to understand this.

President Calderon, in many ways your trip thus far has been a long series of mixed messages. You accuse the United States of recent protectionist trends, yet you heavily restrict foreign entry into Mexico’s energy sector through a massive, state-run Pemex monopoly. You assure American politicians that an open flow of cheap Mexican labor is not only benign but vitally necessary, but you take great care in securing your own southern border with Guatemala. You come to the United States purportedly to promote better political and economic ties with the U.S., but then issue a thinly veiled threat that Mexicans will regard the U.S. as an enemy if we refuse to provide millions of illegal aliens with unconditional amnesty.

President Calderon, I respectfully suggest that the next time you visit our country, rather than trying to influence U.S. policymakers or our election process, you take time to listen to Americans rather than lecture them. If you want to make changes in government policies, apply your energies to Mexico’s laundry list of problems rather than meddling in domestic American politics.

Monday, February 11, 2008

Politicians Renege on Promise to Secure the U.S.-Mexico Border

President Bush's proposed budget will reduce border security funding by 33 percent, according to the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps.

The Minutemen have organized a letter-writing campaign to tell Congress to fund the completion of a fence along the length of the U.S.-Mexico border, "using $3 billion (Bush) promised in October."

Open Borders advocates are dismissive of the idea of a fence at the border.

"Show me a 50-foot fence," Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano is said to have quipped, "and I'll show you a 51-foot ladder."

Even the Minutemen advocate stationing 20,000 National Guardsmen along the fenceline to enforce the border.

Saturday, February 9, 2008

Here is a recent article from the Australian Immigration News suggesting that the grass is greener Down Under, where the government admits 200,000 migrants per year. Medical professionals are especially welcome. The News is a promotional piece by, a commercial immigration consultant in Australia.

Australian immigration: Happy migrants express no regret
Thursday, 24 January 2008

Afraid your immigration decision to Australia could be of ill judgement? Maybe you're in for a rather pleasant surprise.

"...if migration is something you are contemplating, you could find no more attractive proposition," said the Australian ambassador to the Philippines, Tony Hely.

His statement is strongly supported by an article recently published in a major Filipino newspaper highlighting Australia’s migrant experience. It dealt with the overwhelming satisfaction of migrants to Australia about the decision they had made to start a new life “Down Under.”

Based on a recent survey commissioned by the Australian government, the article noted that 30% of respondents felt that the thing they liked most about Australia was, in fact, its people. This comes as no surprise, as last year, Australia's been voted the country with the world's friendliest people. Lifestyle, weather and environment also rated highly.

They were also asked which part of their immigration experience they enjoyed the least. Understandably, 10% responded “missing the family back home”, while 30% simply answered “nothing.”

This immigration survey's findings dramatically showed why Australia is increasingly becoming a favoured destination for prospective migrants.

A separate immigration survey, conducted in 2006 in 20 countries worldwide, found that Australia was one of the top three most attractive destinations for migrants, along with Canada and the United States.

Statistics show that today, almost one in four of Australia’s population of around 21 million was born overseas. Half the nation was either born abroad or has a parent born overseas. Filipinos represent the fourth largest non-European immigrant population in Australia, and have been very successful and adaptable to the Australian way of life.

It also shows that some of the top seven most commonly spoken languages in Australia are Cantonese, Arabic, Vietnamese and Mandarin.

"The Lucky Country" applies a completely non-discriminatory immigration policy, taking close to 200,000 migrants per year.

On Monday, 26 January, Australians from all races, religions and countries of origin will come together to celebrate Australia Day. At first, it used to be a day solely marking the arrival of European settlers in Australia. But today it unites those who trace their ancestry back to that day with the indigenous Australians and those who have come across the seas, albeit under different circumstances, to settle in the great Down Under.

More and more migrants are advocating that Australia is a fantastic place to live, study, work and raise a family. If you would like to follow in their footsteps, why not fill in our free visa eligibility assessment form to see for which visa you qualify?

Joining thousands of others in starting a brand new life in the country everyone's talking about, could be one of the best decisions you've ever made.