More Illegal Immigrants from India Crossing Border

Fox News, July 17, 2011

Police wearing berets and bulletproof vests broke down the door of a Guatemala City apartment in February hunting for illegal drugs. Instead, they found a different kind of illicit shipment: 27 immigrants from India packed into two locked rooms.

The Indians, whose hiding space was furnished only with soiled mattresses, claimed to be on vacation. But authorities quickly concluded they were waiting to be smuggled into the United States via an 11,000-mile (17,700-kilometer) pipeline of human cargo–the same network that has transported thousands of illegal immigrants from India, through Central America and Mexico and over the sandy banks of the Rio Grande during the past two years.

Indians have arrived in droves even as the overall number of illegal immigrants entering the U.S. has dropped dramatically, in large part because of the sluggish American economy. And with fewer Mexicans and Central Americans crossing the border, smugglers are eager for more “high-value cargo” like Indians, some of whom are willing to pay more than $20,000 for the journey.

{snip}

Between October 2009 and March 2011, the Border Patrol detained at least 2,600 illegal immigrants from India, a dramatic rise over the typical 150 to 300 arrests per year.

The influx has been so pronounced that in May, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told a Senate committee that at some point this year, Indians will account for about 1 in 3 non-Mexican illegal immigrants caught in Texas.

Most of the border-jumpers are seeking jobs, even though India’s economy is growing at about 9 percent per year. Once safely inside the U.S., they fan out across the country, often relying on relatives who are already here to arrange jobs and housing.

{snip}

Many of the Indians apprehended are Sikhs, followers of India’s fourth-largest religion, who tell authorities they face persecution back home and want asylum. Applicants need to convince officials that they have a credible fear of persecution in India. If so, the case is referred to an immigration judge.

Such persecution was common in the mid-1980s, when the state battled a Sikh secessionist movement, Kumar said. But today the ruling party in Punjab is Akali Dal, a Sikh party, and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is also Sikh.

“It’s all nonsense,” Kumar said of asylum claims.

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Anonymous

    The most egregious part of this story is that Indians living in the United States are conspiring to get their relatives in, and financing the smuggling.

  • Jeddermann.

    “some of whom are willing to pay more than $20,000 for the journey.”

    And from EXACTLY where do they get that sort of money” I do not have that sort of money. These persons become indentured as an almost slave to someone for a seven year or so period?

    The Chinese have always done it, so might as well the Indians too!

  • Anonymous

    Now that the economy is not doing so well, illegal immigration from poor countries is slowing down, and the countries where the poorest of the poor live is increasing.

  • SKIP

    In India, anyone not muslim is being persecuted and threatened by the muslims, soon or late, the Indians are gonna strike back and that will bode ill for the muslims. Indian Hindus are a relatively peaceful and friendly lot in their country and anywhere I have worked with them, HOWEVER! their history in their country is NOT always peaceful and calm, they do indeed have a dark side to their culture.

  • Anonymous

    America’s current mass immigration mess is the result of a change in the laws in 1965. Prior to 1965, despite some changes in the 50’s, America was a low-immigration country basically living under immigration laws written in 1924. Thanks to low immigration, the swamp of cheap labor was largely drained during this period, America became a fundamentally middle-class society, and our many European ethnic groups were brought together into a common national culture. In some ways, this achievement was so complete that we started to take for granted what we had achieved and forgot why it happened. So in a spasm of sentimentality on the Right and lies on the Left, we opened the borders.

    Born of liberal ideology, the 1965 bill abolished the national origins quota system that had regulated the ethnic composition of immigration in fair proportion to each group’s existing presence in the population. In a misguided application spirit of the civil rights era, the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations saw these ethnic quotas as an archaic form of chauvinism. Moreover, as Cold Warriors facing charges of “racism” and “imperialism,” they found the system rhetorically embarrassing. The record of debate over this seismic change in immigration policy reveals that left-wingers, in their visceral flight to attack “discrimination,” did not reveal the consequences of their convictions. Instead, their spokesmen set out to assuage concerned traditionalists with a litany of lies and wishful thinking.

    Chief among national concerns was total numeric immigration. Senate floor manager and Camelot knight-errant Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, assured jittery senators that “our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually.” Senator Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, further calmed that august body, insisting “the total number of potential immigrants would not be changed very much.” Time has proven otherwise. Average immigration levels before the 1965 amendments took effect hovered around 300,000 per annum. Yet 1,045,000 legal immigrants flooded our cities in 1996 alone.

    The 1965 “reform” reoriented policy away from European ethnic groups, yet implemented numbers similar to 1950’s rates in an attempt to keep immigration under control. However, Congressmen managed to miss a loophole large enough to allow a 300 percent in immigration, because they did not take into account two “sentimental” provisions within the bill. Immediate family members of U.S. citizens and political refugees face no quotas. Their likely impact on the nation was ignored, presumably because aiding families and the dispossessed cast the right emotive glow.

    Yet leftists could sound like hard-nosed defenders of the national interest when necessary. In urging passage of the 1965 bill, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, D-New York, wrote in a letter to the New York Times, “The time has come for us to insist that the quota system be replaced by the merit system.” As if merit is the operative principle along the Rio Grande today! Similarly, Representative Robert Sweeney, D-Ohio, insisted the bill was “more beneficial to us.” In fact, the 1965 bill made “family reunification” – including extended family members – the key criterion for eligibility. These new citizens may in turn send for their families, creating an endless cycle known to sociologists as the immigration chain. The qualifications of immigrants have predictably fallen. Hispanic immigrants, by far the largest contingent, are eight times more likely than natives to lack a ninth-grade education, and less than half as likely to have a college degree.

    The bill did not end discrimination based on what President John F. Kennedy called “the accident of birth.” (This of course begs the question of whether birth within the nation, the basis of common national community, is just an accident, but let that pass for now.) It de facto grossly discriminates in favor of Mexicans and certain other groups.

    Not only has the bill failed in its stated purpose, it has realized many of its critics’ worst nightmares. Concern mounted that this bill would radically change the ethnic composition of the United States. Such things were still considered legitimate concerns in 1965, in the same Congress that had just passed the key civil rights legislation of the 1960’s.

    Specific influx predictions that were made seem tragicomic today. Senator Robert Kennedy predicted a total of 5,000 immigrants from India; his successor as Attorney General, Nicholas Katzenbach, foresaw a meager 8,000. Actual immigration from India has exceeded by 1,000-times Robert Kennedy’s prediction.

    Senator Hiram Fong, R-Hawaii, calculated that “the people from [Asia] will never reach 1 percent of the population.” Even in 1965, people were willing to admit that we have a reasonable interest in not being inundated by culturally alien foreigners, and it was considered acceptable to say so on the floor of the Senate. Try that today, even as a supposed conservative! (Asians currently account for three percent of the population, and will swell to near 10 percent by 2050 if present trends continue.)

    The only remaining Congressman who had voted on the 1920s quotas, Representative Emanuel Celler, D-New York, insisted, “There will not be, comparatively speaking, many Asians or Africans entering this country.” Today, the number of Asians and Africans entering this country each year exceeds the annual average total number of immigrants during the 1960s.

    Yet the largest ethnic shift has occurred within the ranks of Hispanics. Despite Robert Kennedy’s promise that, “Immigration from any single country would be limited to 10 percent of the total,” Mexico sent 20 percent of last year’s immigrants. Hispanics have made up nearly half of all immigrants since 1968. After a 30-year experiment with open borders, whites no longer constitute a majority of Californians or residents of New York City.

    As immigrants pour in, native Americans feel themselves pushed out. In 1965, Senator Hugh Scott, R-Pennsylvania, opined, “I doubt if this bill will really be the cause of crowding the present Americans out of the 50 states.” Yet half-a-million native Californians fled the state in the last decade, while its total population increased by three million, mostly immigrants. This phenomenon also holds true in microcosm. In tiny Ligonier, Indiana, (population 4,357) 914 Hispanics moved in and 216 native Americans departed during the 1990s. Hispanics now outnumber the Amish as the area’s dominant minority.

    Thirty-plus years of immigration at historic levels have also had an economic impact on America. In 1965, Ted Kennedy confidently predicted, “No immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge.” However, political refugees qualify for public assistance upon setting foot on U.S. soil. The exploding Somali refugee population of Lewiston, Maine, (pop. 36,000) is largely welfare-dependent. Likewise, 2,900 of Wausau, Wisconsin’s 4,200 Hmong refugees receive public assistance. In all, 21 percent of immigrants receive public assistance, whereas 14 percent of natives do so. Immigrants are 50 percent more likely than natives to live in poverty.

    Ted Kennedy also claimed the 1965 amendments “will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.” Teddy cannot have it both ways: either the immigrant will remain unemployed and become a public charge, or he will take a job that otherwise could have gone to a native American. What is presently undisputed – except by the same economic analysts at Wired magazine and the Wall Street Journal who gave us dot-com stocks – is that immigrant participation lowers wages.

    Despite the overwhelming assurances of the bill’s supporters, the 1965 Immigration Reform Act has remade society into the image its critics most feared. Immigration levels topping a million a year will increase U.S. population to 400 million within 50 years. Meanwhile, exponents of multiculturalism insist new arrivals make no effort to assimilate; to do so would be “genocidal,” a notion that makes a mockery of real genocides. Instead, long-forgotten grudges are nursed against the white populace. Native citizens take to flight as the neighborhoods around them, the norms in their hometowns, are debased for the convenience of low-paid immigrants and well-heeled businessmen. All the while, indigenous paychecks drop through lower wages and higher taxes collected to provide social services for immigrants. And this only takes into account legal immigration.

    These results were unforeseen by liberals easily led about by their emotions. Others were not so blind. Jewish organizations had labored since 1924 to unweave national origins quotas by admitting family members on non-quota visas. The B’nai B’rith Women and the American Council for Judaism Philanthropic Fund, among other Jewish organizations, supported this reform legislation while it was yet in subcommittee in the winter of 1965. Roman Catholics had the twin motivations of still-evolving social justice doctrine and the potential windfall of a mass influx of co-religionists from Latin America. Other organized minorities pressured for increased immigration to benefit relatives in their homelands. The ultra-liberal Americans for Democratic Action, the ACLU and the National Lawyers Guild joined the chorus. Further, the Communist Party USA supported higher immigration on the grounds that it destabilizes working Americans.

    Americans must realize demographic trends are not inevitable, the product of mysterious forces beyond their control. Today’s population is the result of yesterday’s immigration policy, and that policy is as clearly broken as its backers’ assurances were facetious. A rational policy will only come about when native Americans place the national interest above liberal howls of “prejudice” and “tribalism.”

  • AM

    It’s absurd that people from India are claiming asylum in the USA. There must be like 50 safe countries along the way for them to claim asylum. What a joke.

  • rockman

    there is nothing to stop the whole world coming here to live off the fat of the land. Plenty for all to share.

  • Ebeneezer

    The highly intelligent master race that whites cannot academically compete with according to Sureesh the troll.

  • Kenelm Digby

    As I have warned oft-times before, subcon immigration into the USA will dwarf any Mexico or Latin America has thrown at the USA, and will make mestizo immigration look like tea party.

  • kgb

    But authorities quickly concluded they were waiting to be smuggled into the United States via an 11,000-mile (17,700-kilometer) pipeline of human cargo…

    As if they needed it: a youtube video about PERM, a program

    designed to hire the cheapest Asian workers available while

    legally cheating Americans out of jobs

    http://goo.gl/ylKZv

  • Anonymous

    Isnt the president of India a Sikh whose daughter lives in DC and runs Amnesty International?

  • jewamongyou

    Mark my words. There will come a time when hordes of Indian, and Chinese, men will flock to our shores and claim “persecution” – because they cannot find wives in their own countries due to the lopsided gender ratios. As a result, they will import those same gender ratios to America.

    http://jewamongyou.wordpress.com/

  • OBSERVER

    Name me ONE non-white nation that has “asylum”?

  • NAVY

    Indian illegals emulate African Hip Hop culture and adopt thug life guiding principles to deal with stigma received from breaking immigration law.

    Indian thugs arent the most obvious. They tend to be found living in white-tax-money, Indian-owned, white American Hotels and Motels and multi-tenant apartment complexes.

    The most apparant can be identified in black leather jackets and black beanies.

  • Indian American

    To poster # 13:

    “Name me ONE non-white nation that has “asylum”?”

    India. Yes, India did & still does grant asylum status to Sri Lankan Tamil refugees, Iranian minorities & Tibetians. Historically, many Jewish refugees thrived in India especially after the destruction of temple of Solomon and later even some Sephardic Jewry. The best part is that India happens to be the ONLY nation where Jews have never suffered any sort of discrimination. India has and will always be “anti-Semitic free”! Furthermore, our welfare system is even more generous as compared to the United States. Not only do we readily grant them asylum but we also furnish them with food, accommodation and even affirmative action in our universities all under tax payer expense of course.

  • hokieva

    RE: 12 “There will come a time when hordes of Indian, and Chinese, men will flock to our shores and claim “persecution” – because they cannot find wives in their own countries …”

    I’ve had a similar but different premonition. I believe the the “human right” of the future will be the “right” of the Chinese,Indians etc to move from areas of high population density to areas of low population density – ie Australia, Siberia, Canada etc. I believe the proper response to this is an assertion of the rights of all indigenous peoples including whites.

    I also worry that they will use DNA as tool to demonstrate that they are more truly “native” or genetically similar to the original inhabitants of the Americas and Australia.

    All of that said, in absolute numbers these Indians are a trickle compared to the mestizos. Sikhs are mostly “blue collar” farmer types – its economic migration by Punjabis looking to be truck drivers or construction workers in America. Not terrorists or irrendentist latinos.

    While India/China will clearly be our rivals/enemies/trading partners/demographic monsoon of the future – today: the threat is Mestizos, the threat is Mestizos, the threat is Mestizos.

  • Anonymoose

    5 — Anonymous wrote at 12:30 AM on July 19:

    “These results were unforeseen by liberals easily led about by their emotions. Others were not so blind. Jewish organizations had labored since 1924 to unweave national origins quotas by admitting family members on non-quota visas …. Roman Catholics had the twin motivations of still-evolving social justice doctrine and the potential windfall of a mass influx of co-religionists from Latin America. Other organized minorities pressured for increased immigration to benefit relatives in their homelands. The ultra-liberal Americans for Democratic Action, the ACLU and the National Lawyers Guild joined the chorus. Further, the Communist Party USA supported higher immigration on the grounds that it destabilizes working Americans.”

    All of the above is true, but remember one thing before racing off into the murky world of Jew bashing. The 1965 Immigration Reform Act was more than anything a cloying scheme cooked up by the Kennedy brothers to allow more Irish to immigrate into the United States. The Irish had their own separate national quota, which was quite limited and not sufficient to let in those who wanted to come here.

    If that, and family reunification for existing citizens, were the primary goals, the national quota system could have be reformed without allowing so many millions of non-Europeans into the United States. For example, the quotas of the Great Britain, Ireland and all of Europe could have been combined into a single pan-European quota. Nor was there any need to allow 100 percent of the unused national quotas to be distributed worldwide.

    I think John Kennedy was a visionary and a more important political thinker than most are aware of. But this one might obviate that which he did accomplish, by engineering the ultimate fall of a unified English-speaking North American civilization led by assimilated Euro-Americans.

    #5 also wrote – “Americans must realize demographic trends are not inevitable, the product of mysterious forces beyond their control. Today’s population is the result of yesterday’s immigration policy, and that policy is as clearly broken as its backers’ assurances were facetious. A rational policy will only come about when native Americans place the national interest above liberal howls of “prejudice” and “tribalism.”

    The only problem is, politically it is too late to change the situation. I was there (as a teenager). I remember the backer assuring us that immigration reform would not change the demographics of American society as to race and ethnicity. Perhaps they intended that it would not, but events outside the United States melded with the door left open (not an intended “open door”)to accomplish exactly that.

    The losers: Blacks first, then working class whites, then Mexican Hispanics. Today, in the employment world, the first preference is for anyone who is from other than those three primary groups that make up the historic American population, other than Native.

  • Ebeneezer

    “The 1965 Immigration Reform Act was more than anything a cloying scheme cooked up by the Kennedy brothers to allow more Irish to immigrate into the United States. The Irish had their own separate national quota, which was quite limited and not sufficient to let in those who wanted to come here.”

    Wrong. It actually made it more difficult for the Irish to Emigrate to America.

    Before the Hart/Cellar immigration reform,an would be Irish immigrant would be sponsored by a family member already there,have a job waiting for them, and work his way towards legal residency. The immigration reform made the tremendously difficult for them to move to America legally (which is why there was a surge of Irish illegals in the 70’s and 80’s) and gave preference to non white immigrants.

  • Anonymous

    Poster #17 replies to # 5…

    5 — Anonymous wrote at 12:30 AM on July 19:

    “These results were unforeseen by liberals easily led about by their emotions. Others were not so blind. Jewish organizations had labored since 1924 to unweave national origins quotas by admitting family members on non-quota visas …. Roman Catholics had the twin motivations of still-evolving social justice doctrine and the potential windfall of a mass influx of co-religionists from Latin America. Other organized minorities pressured for increased immigration to benefit relatives in their homelands. The ultra-liberal Americans for Democratic Action, the ACLU and the National Lawyers Guild joined the chorus. Further, the Communist Party USA supported higher immigration on the grounds that it destabilizes working Americans.”

    All of the above is true, but remember one thing before racing off into the murky world of Jew bashing. The 1965 Immigration Reform Act was more than anything a cloying scheme cooked up by the Kennedy brothers to allow more Irish to immigrate into the United States.

    ———————————————-

    Why is everything called Jew bashing when some facts are stated?

    The 1965 Immigration Act was to ALLOW mostly NONwhite 3rd world peoples into this nation and you know it. To rid and dilute the WHITE population, period! So quit with the “more Irish to immigrate” baloney. The Kennedy’s did NOT cook up the 1965 Immigration Act to begin with, Cellar, Hart, Jacob Javits and their cohorts did!

  • Anonymoose

    19 — Anonymous wrote at 10:43 AM on July 24:

    Why is everything called Jew bashing when some facts are stated?

    The 1965 Immigration Act was to ALLOW mostly NONwhite 3rd world peoples into this nation and you know it. To rid and dilute the WHITE population, period! So quit with the “more Irish to immigrate” baloney. The Kennedy’s did NOT cook up the 1965 Immigration Act to begin with, Cellar, Hart, Jacob Javits and their cohorts did!

    ____________________________

    I was there. We were told that the Immigration Reform Act would not change American society, that a few talented people along with a small number of strivers would be able to come to American from non-white countries that had miniscule or non-existent national quotas. The idea that more Irish would be able to come here was publicly noted.

    I am sure liberal Jews in congress has a principal role in promoting this legislation, but others wanted it too. We were battling with the communists for the allegiance of the Third World. That, as noted in this forum, was an important factor, maybe the most important one. That, and the fact, that Democrats won overwhelming house and senate majorities in the 1964 election.