Calais Syrian stalemate continues as French and Brits trade barbs

It seems a French Member of the European Parliament said she believes that since the Syrians occupying the port of Calais want to go to the UK, they should be let in!   MEP Gerard Batten (Independence Party member) shot back with the truth one rarely hears regarding political asylum and why the Syrians want to be allowed into the UK.  For new readers, our original post is here.

UK Independence party representative Gerard Batten: Don’t offload your problem on us!

From the story at the UK Daily Mail (emphasis mine):

French politicians have been accused of trying to ‘offload’ Syrian refugees on Britain in a growing row over who should give them asylum.

Scores of Syrians have occupied the Calais ferry terminal including a dozen who are on hunger strike and two threatening to kill themselves if they are not given safe passage to Britain.

But a French MEP has come under fire after urging the European Parliament to back their call to be allowed into Britain.

If you have been wondering why the Syrians aren’t satisfied with France, here is the long and short of it:

Unlike Britain, France does not pay benefits to asylum seekers while their claims are being processed. About 40 Syrians have refused to move from a passenger gangway.

Batten to the rescue with several major points!

Mr Batten, the UK Independence Party’s spokesman on security and defence, said later: ‘The suggestion that Syrian refugees in Calais should be sent post-haste to England is absolutely outrageous.

‘These people have made their way across Europe with the intention of landing up in the UK. This is contrary to the UN Convention on Refugees that says they should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to.  [Important point #1 and it is rarely mentioned by anyone!—ed]

‘They want to come to Britain because of our reputation as a soft touch. [Important point #2—ed] They may indeed be refugees, but they are attracted to Britain because of the generous housing, benefits, and social services systems made available to foreigners.

‘If the French have not prevented their entry into France, as they were entitled to do under the Convention [Important point #3, the French let them into France—ed], then the French should offer them asylum, not try to offload the problem onto the UK.’

Germany’s Friedrich and now Britain’s Gerard Batten, could we be seeing the beginning of a trend?

Update: Springfield, Mass. refugee task force to meet today

For our previous posts on Springfield, Massachusetts where Mayor Domenic Sarno asked the US State Department to halt resettlement of more refugees to the greater Springfield area until the ones already resettled had assimilated and dug their way out of poverty, go here.

Springfield Mayor Domenic Sarno wants answers!

This is the latest from The Republican, which had been thoroughly covering the controversial issue.   It never ceases to amaze me how arrogant the resettlement contractors are and how unwilling they are to release even the most basic information about how the Refugee Resettlement program operates.  You can see that as you read through the full story.   Here is how it begins (emphasis mine):

SPRINGFIELD — Two months after Mayor Domenic Sarno urged the federal government to stop sending new refugees to Springfield, a local task force will meet Thursday to respond to the mayor’s concerns about hardships faced by the refugees and the city.

Sarno said the meeting, along with documents provided last week by the two refugee resettlement agencies in Western Massachusetts, seem to be a positive first step.

“Hopefully, this is the beginning of an open and honest dialogue with the resettlement agencies,” Sarno said Thursday, after receiving 14 documents that further explain the refugee resettlement program and the assistance received by refugees. “While we are an open and caring city, we cannot keep concentrating poverty on top of poverty.”

Sarno said he continues to have serious concerns that too many refugees are being placed in Springfield, straining city services such as schools, code enforcement, and police because of cases of substandard housing, claims of inadequate services by some refugees and their advocates, and challenges refugees face pertaining to language, education and employment.

The two resettlement agencies — the Lutheran Social Services of New England and the Jewish Family Services of Western Massachusetts – said they were unable to release information sought by The Republican last week regarding the numbers of refugees resettled in Springfield and the region in the past fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30. In addition, they did not respond to a question if the refugees have continued being resettled.

There is more, read it all.

They say they can’t get the numbers easily? 

They know how many were resettled in previous years, and here is where you find the number for FY2013 Arrivals by Destination City by Nationality by FY as of Sep 30, 2013

Holy cow!  They resettled 1,771 refugees in Springfield just this year!   (Update! The more I think about this, it can’t be right, something is missing at the data table.  Maybe this is for the last ten years!)

Also, remember this may only represent a portion of the refugees who arrived in Springfield over the years because others may have come from other cities to join their relatives and friends there, so no one has the complete number of secondary migrants (they are not tracked).

Here are the countries from which they came (the highest number, 368, were Somalis):
Afghanistan
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Bhutan
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Burma
Burundi
Dem. Rep. Congo
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Iran
Iraq
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Liberia
Moldova
Russia
Rwanda
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Sudan
Syria
Ukraine
Uzbekistan
Vietnam

I don’t know the names of surrounding cities and towns, but a local reporter could visit the site and put it all together for the area surrounding Springfield.

CIS: Amnesty bill combined with legal immigration will add estimated 32 million new voters by 2036

The Center for Immigration Studies has just released a new report.  The press release accompanying the report begins with this (emphasis is mine):

WASHINGTON, DC (October 10, 2013) — The Center for Immigration estimates that if the Senate Gang of Eight Immigration bill (S.744) becomes law it will add more than 17 million new potential voting-age citizens by 2036. These new potential voters are in addition to the roughly 15 million that the current level of legal immigration will add by 2036. Combined, current immigration and S.744 would create more than 32 million potential voters by 2036.

To place these figures in perspective, the last four presidential elections were decided by 4.5 million votes on average. Even if only a modest share actually vote, the impact of these new votes on future elections will likely be substantial.

Dr. Steven Camarota, CIS Director of Research and author of the publication, comments, “Current immigration policy is adding millions of new voters each decade; the Gang of Eight bill will add millions more.  This is one of the most important consequences of immigration.  Will it result in voters who need or want more government services? [You betcha!—ed] Or, will it reshape American foreign policy? There has been almost no discussion of the impact on the electorate.”

Go here for the full report.

While you are at the website, be sure to see David North on ‘Diversity visa month!’