Welcome to the new OFIR blog!
OFIR invites you to pop in regularly and find out what's new, what's pressing and needing action and what other concerned citizens are doing in the fight to stop illegal immigration.
September 14, 2016
Federal records show that from 2008 to 2014, nearly 13,000 criminal aliens who had been ordered deported were released back onto our streets because their home countries refused to take them back. This unacceptable practice has allowed many of these criminal aliens to commit new and serious crimes after their release, including rape, assault, child molestation, drug dealing, and murder. This serious problem was well known to Hillary Clinton the entire time she was Secretary of State. Yet she failed to stop this practice when she had the duty and responsibility do so as Secretary of State, failing to follow clear legal requirement passed by Congress.
Section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act commands that when a foreign nation refuses or “unreasonably” delays the return of one of their nationals, the Secretary of State shall order our consular officials to stop issuing visas to persons from that country. As Secretary, she clearly had both actual and constructive notice about these practices from many nations. Yet, Hillary Clinton failed to fulfill her duty to use this authority and stop this practice, even once. For most nations, using this authority will get compliance in short order. Of course, there are many other diplomatic and financial actions the United States can take to promptly end the refusals and delays.
While the full scope of this problem and all of the crimes may not be known to the public, the available information is disturbing.
The Boston Globe has reported that between 2008 and 2014, almost 13,000 convicted aliens that should have been detained until deported, were released onto our streets, resulting in numerous totally preventable rapes, assaults and murders, among other crimes. For example, a convicted criminal alien who should have been deported to Haiti in 2012 was instead released, and murdered 25-year-old Casey Chadwick just last year. The Boston Globe further reported that, out of the data it analyzed, there were more convicted killers released from 2008 to 2012 than traffic violators.
Hillary Clinton must explain to the American people, and especially to the victims of these criminal aliens who were not deported, why she did not act to prevent these tragic events.
Jeff Sessions represents Alabama in the United States Senate, where he is chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest.
OFIR Vice President Richard LaMountain has clearly laid out a reasonable path to an Oregon win for Donald Trump's bid for the Presidency.
Oregon has a blue reputation, but, in this particular case, it may be tenuous at best.
Read LaMountain's VDare article and then consider helping the first presidential candidate, in decades, that has openly and meaningfully addressed the problems surrounding illegal immigration.
The suspect arrested for the triple homicide and attempted murder near Woodburn has been deported SIX times!
Just released by ICE:
After conducting a comprehensive review of Mr. Oseguera’s immigration and criminal history, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has designated this as a federal interest case. To that end, the agency filed a notice of action (Form I-247-X – Request for Voluntary Transfer) with the Marion County Jail asking to be alerted if or when Mr. Oseguera is slated for release so the agency can take custody to pursue further administrative enforcement action. Relevant databases indicate Mr. Oseguera has no significant prior criminal convictions. However, he has been repatriated to Mexico six times since 2003, most recently in 2013.
How many more people must be murdered before our elected officials ENFORCE our immigration laws?
Read more: http://stjr.nl/296WJsk
It seems that reporter April Ehrlich might be a bit off center in Worker shortage coincides with immigration decline in her article published in the Argus Observer.
First of all, and not mentioned in the article is that Oregon law that makes it illegal for anyone under the age of 16 to work in the fields like many of us remember doing. We worked to earn money for school clothes, rides at the State Fair or saving for college. It was hot, dirty and most important, a valuable life lesson that I still treasure.
The reporter states that nationwide only 26% of ag workers are illegal aliens. That means that the remainder are US citizens or approved VISA workers who are willing to do the work.
Perhaps even more disturbing is the false wailing that illegal alien laborers only take the jobs Americans won't do - like picking our fruit and vegetables or working in the fields. The fact is, numerous studies show that less than 5% of laborers in the US illegally, are actually working in the fields. They, like most workers, want better jobs and move easily on to employment in construction, drywall, hotels and restaurants etc., pushing American workers and legal immigrants out of those very jobs.
The successful acquisition of employees can be described quite simply.
Adequate, competitive wages for the work being done, safe, decent working conditions, attractive benefits and, as most industrialized nations do, mechanize when possible to streamline and reduce the tedious, dirty jobs often associated with farm or factory work.
The alternative, which is practiced by many seeking to avoid the above, is to hire illegal labor. The fact is that it's against Federal Law to hire workers that are in the country illegally. There are VISA's available for ag labor, if only employers would do the paper work and be responsible. But, that's too much work and expense, apparently, when they can more easily hire illegal workers. After all, there are no real consequences for hiring illegal aliens - right?
Instead, those working here illegally are more easily cheated and abused as employees. Those working here illegally are often being paid under the table, or using a fake or stolen ID to get a job. Employers know they are hiring illegal workers, they know they are breaking the law and they know that it's likely an illegal alien worker won't complain about long hours, no breaks, unsafe working conditions or worse.
What kind of business model is this for the United States? We aren't some 3rd world country taking advantage of the poor with no other options - or, are we?
Why don't we have a real conversation about what needs to be done to make Oregon's farmers more competitive in world markets in a way that does not involve encouraging more illegal aliens to come here for those jobs. Why don't we invest in research to improve mechanization to make our farmers more competitive? I think we're smart enough to do that - don't you?
The appointment of Mark Morgan as Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol is the same as President Obama sitting in that chair.
By now Americans that are paying attention realize that our way of life is under attack by this administration and our institutions have been systematically corrupted by their influence. This message to the American people is to assist those that do care and are paying attention to connect the dots about how this administration is proceeding with their anti-American agenda to further corrupt border security. These similarly embedded corruptive agents that remain throughout government after this administration expires will continue their agenda if permitted to do so.
We watched in disgust as the ACLU, SPLC and the Department of Justice joined hands to attack the U.S. Border Patrol for unnecessary violence which was a bogus claim. We understood at the time those were the first major shots fired by this administration to fundamentally transform and cut the effectiveness of the U.S. Border Patrol to zero when it began.
Unfortunately, few in Washington D.C. care about National Security and Public Safety and gleefully go along with the administrations attack program that coincides with the Central American surge and the vast un-vetted numbers coming in under the guise of Refugee Resettlement. Silence is as effective an assent as a yea vote to these plans.
Such official D.C. chicanery gives credence to those doubting any actions by this government consider what is best for the American people.
This "appointment" is quite obviously another glaring example at first glance.
Zack Taylor, Chairman and Border Security Expert
From: COMMISSIONER KERLIKOWSKE
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 7:57 AM
Subject: Commissioner's Message: Commissioner Kerlikowske Announces Border Patrol Chief (Kerlikowske reports to Jeh Johnson who reports to President Obama.)
This morning I will be announcing that I have selected Mark Morgan as chief of the U.S. Border Patrol. You will see from Mark's long career in law enforcement and the leadership positions he has held that he will fulfill at the highest level the obligations and responsibilities of leading the outstanding law enforcement organization that is the Border Patrol. There was a national search for a chief and a professional and objective process used to select Mr. Morgan. The pool of candidates who applied yielded an array of extremely experienced, dedicated, and professional law enforcement executives in federal law enforcement and within the Border Patrol who sought this critical position.
I also want to address very directly the selection of someone who is not a part of the Border Patrol, (which is obviously part of the objective criteria?) The position of a law enforcement chief at the local, state, or federal level is one that demands an exhausting commitment of time; time that must be spent analyzing its future in light of rapid changes and time charting a course from a variety of perspectives. (NAFBPO comment, based on political objectives not related to enforcing existing law which constitutes a fundamental transformation.) That is why almost all federal law enforcement agencies have at various times chosen someone from outside their ranks to make that assessment and chart that course. (The border patrol did not make this choice, the Obama Administration made the choice which is the same as President Obama filling the position in person.) The U.S. Capitol Police (Vince Foster), U.S. Park Police, Coast Guard CID, Naval Criminal Investigative Service, ATF (fast & furious), and DEA among others have done the same in addition to large local and state law enforcement organizations across the country. None of those decisions to have a leader from outside the organization (officially) reflected negatively on the current leadership of those agencies. In the case of the Border Patrol, the current leadership across the top, from Headquarters to the field, consists of the finest group of men and women that I have worked with in my more than 40 years in law enforcement.
I welcome Mark as an important member of President Obama's leadership team at CBP and DHS and firmly believe that his experience listed below and long and successful career in law enforcement will be of great value to the men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol. (We doubt very seriously that Mark Morgan will benefit the National Security and Public Safety of America or the American people.)
R. Gil Kerlikowske Commissioner
Mark Morgan joins U.S. Customs and Border Protection with a 30-year career in the military and law enforcement related to anti-terrorism and border security operations. (Specifically, what were each and all of his contributions in fact, not in vague undefined terms?)
Mr. Morgan has a 20-year career at the Federal Bureau of Investigation where he is an Assistant Director. During his time at the FBI, which began as a special agent in 1996 assigned to the Los Angeles Field Office, Mr. Morgan served in multiple leadership positions.
In 2008, Mr. Morgan served as the Deputy On-Scene in Baghdad, Iraq where he was responsible for all FBI personnel and operations within the Iraq Theater of Operations within the Counterterrorism Division. (Specifically, what did he do? Did he assist in drafting the rules of engagement for U.S. Military there? Perhaps screening information deemed not appropriate for the American public? )
In 2010, he was named the Section Chief of the Strategic Information and Operations Center, with responsibility for leading the FBI’s global command and strategic intelligence center. (During the phase of the rise of ISIS what specifically were all of his recommendations, published and unpublished?)
The following year, 2011, Mr. Morgan was appointed as the Special Agent in Charge of the El Paso Division, where he was responsible for leading all threat-based and intelligence driven counterterrorism, criminal, cyber, and counterintelligence operations extending from the western tip of Texas to the City of Midland. (Was he involved in ensuring final development of the Transnational Crime Corridor from Juarez, CHIH, Mexico, into the United States by Wilderness Designations created by an Obama Executive Order in the Potrillo Mountains over the will of the people in the Southwest:
From 3 minutes 58 seconds to 14 minutes 8 seconds.
In 2013, as the Deputy Assistant Director, Inspection Division, Mr. Morgan directed day to day operations to ensure compliance and facilitate the improvement of performance by providing independent, evaluative oversight of all FBI investigative and administrative operations. (Specifically, did this include removing all training references to radical islamic jihad, Muslim Brotherhood and similar material from training texts and existing investigators guides ?)
In, 2014, Mr. Morgan served in a detail assignment with CBP as the Acting Assistant Commissioner for Internal Affairs where he planned, organized, and coordinated the complete re-design of CBP’s Use of Force Incident Response protocols. He directed operations related to the screening of potential employees for suitability, implemented internal security measures, and launched CBP’s criminal and serious administrative misconduct investigative unit. In this position, he was responsible for obtaining CBP’s new authority to investigate allegations of misconduct against CBP employees. (Specifically, did this include commendation medals for Agents engaged in deadly force situations wherein they did not use deadly force? Objectively speaking, what exactly did he cause to be implemented ?)
In 2015, he was appointed as Assistant Director of the FBI’s Training Division, in Quantico, Virginia, with responsibility for overseeing the delivery of training, professional development and defensive systems to the FBI workforce, and domestic national security, law enforcement, and international partners throughout the world. (Specifically, did part of this training serve as a policy blindfold to investigators for incidents like Fort Hood, San Jose and Orlando?)
Mr. Morgan was an active-duty member and reservist in the U.S. Marine Corps. Before joining the FBI, he served as a deputy sheriff in Platte County, Missouri and as an officer in the Los Angeles Police Department. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering from Central Missouri State University and a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Missouri-Kansas City. (Major Hassan was on active duty with the U.S. Army. Mateen was a security guard for Wackenhut before he became front page in Orlando. Whatever else are Morgan's qualifications we can be assured his main qualification is carrying out the Obama administrations policies as being levied against law enforcement agencies nationwide and further avoids protecting National Security and Public Safety through strict enforcement of existing Immigration Law
You may have heard David Cross on the Lars Larson Show each Thursday afternoon, reporting about the foreign national criminal of the week. You may have read David's detailed Guest Opinion pieces in newspapers across the state. You may have received or seen posted on our OFIR website, his reports on foreign national criminals held in the Oregon prison system.
David Cross is well known for his accurate, detailed research about foreign national crime and it hasn't gone unnoticed. The Center for Immigration Studies invited David to attend an immigration briefing at the National Press Club in Washington DC. this past weekend.
Read more about Breitbart's interviews at the event.
Once again, Oregon attracts attention from outside the state, this time for the Legislature's misuse and abuse of the Emergency Clause on new legislation passed in the Oregon Legislature.
Efforts are underway to stop the shenanigans via an initiative petition circulating throughout the state.
Read the full article by Montana resident Paul Nachman and then be certain you, your friends, neighbors and co-workers have all signed the petition and mailed it in before June 26, so the paperwork can be processed before the deadline.
Will some of the Syrian refugees the Obama administration is hustling through a truncated vetting process make their way to Oregon?
In early April, the Associated Press’ Khetam Malkawi reported, “the first Syrian family to be resettled in the U.S. under a speeded-up ‘surge operation’ for refugees left Jordan” for Kansas City, Mo. “While the resettlement process usually takes 18 to 24 months,” Malkawi wrote, “the surge operation will reduce the time to three months.” Its purpose? To help President Barack Obama meet his goal of admitting 10,000 Syrian refugees this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.
Between the start of the fiscal year last October and April 1, the State Department reports, 17 Syrian refugees had been resettled in Oregon. Obama’s surge could increase that number suddenly and dramatically — to the detriment, as we’ll see, of many Oregonians. First, however, let’s look at what 10,000 Syrian refugees could mean for the nation as a whole.
In regard to their country of origin, FBI counter-terrorist official Michael Steinbach told Congress last year, “We don’t have systems in place on the ground to collect information to vet ... The dataset, the police, the intel services that normally you would (consult) to seek information” about refugees don’t exist. Consequently, even under the more comprehensive pre-surge vetting, terrorists from Syria could and did slip through the cracks. One prominent example: Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab, a Syrian admitted to the United States as a refugee in 2012, returned to his home country and fought for the terrorist group Ansar al-Islam in late 2013 and early 2014. Afterward, eluding State Department screening yet again, he returned to the United States. Under Obama’s dramatically-shortened vetting process, even more Al-Jayabs likely will be able to enter our country.
Granted, not all Syrian refugees would be terrorists. But to the communities in which they settle and to Americans as a whole, they would constitute a significant fiscal burden. “More than 90 percent of recent Mideast refugees draw food stamps and about 70 percent receive free health care and cash welfare,” noted Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. Indeed, the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector estimates that the 10,000 Syrian refugees the administration aims to resettle here, over the course of their lifetimes, likely would cost U.S. taxpayers $6.5 billion.
And now, to Oregon.
Late last year, Gov. Kate Brown said our state “will ... open the doors of opportunity” to Syrian refugees. If she makes good on that, however, she may shut those same doors on some of our most vulnerable fellow citizens.
According to the Oregon Employment Department, some 200,000 Oregon residents are unemployed or underemployed. Indeed, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated recently, more than 16 percent of Oregonians live in poverty. The city of Portland, OPB reported late last year, has a shortage of some 24,000 housing units “affordable to the lowest-income renters” (those available for $750 a month or less); the Washington County housing market, said the county’s Housing Services Department, has recently suffered “a shortage of affordable housing for extremely low-income and low-income households.” And Oregon’s $7.4 billion K-12 school fund for the 2015-17 biennium, a state legislative committee determined last year, was almost $1.8 billion short of the amount needed “to reach the state’s educational goals.” Clearly, some of Oregon’s youngest and poorest would be harmed by an influx of refugees who would compete against them for already-insufficient jobs, shelter and education dollars.
What then, should Brown do?
Federal law 8 U.S.C. 1522 states that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which is charged with resettling refugees, “shall consult” with state governments “concerning ... the intended distribution of refugees among the states and localities before their placement.” Among the criteria for such placement: “the availability of (an area’s) employment opportunities, affordable housing, and public and private resources (including educational, health care, and mental health services.)” The law further directs HHS, “to the maximum extent possible,” to “take into account recommendations of the state(s).”
Citing this law, Brown should contact HHS and explain how an influx of Syrian refugees would harm some of her state’s most vulnerable residents. Coming from a Democrat friendly to the president’s overall agenda, her argument could sway the department’s chief refugee-resettlement officials.
Though the governor’s compassion toward refugees is laudable, it is to her fellow Oregonians — those she was elected to serve — that she owes her foremost responsibility. Immediately, she should contact HHS and say: For the sake of our own struggling people, send no more Syrian refugees to Oregon.
Cynthia Kendoll of Salem and Richard F. LaMountain of Cedar Mill are president and vice president of Oregonians for Immigration Reform
Oregonians are approaching the 9th anniversary of the tragic death of Deputy Kelly Fredinburg in a fiery head-on crash north of Gervais June 16, 2007. The driver of the car crossed the center line, killed Fredninburg and a passenger in his own car, who died a day after the crash.
Before he was indicted for his crimes, the driver fled to Mexico and to this day remains a fugitive. Below is a story from The Oregonian from 2014.
Suspect in 2007 crash that killed Marion County deputy remains at large, police say
The driver who police believe killed a Marion County deputy and another man in a late-night crash in 2007 remains a fugitive, authorities said.
Tips leading to the arrest of Alfredo De Jesus Ascensio are eligible for a reward of up to $21,000, according to a press release from Marion County Sheriff's Office.
Deputy Kelly Fredinburg, 33, was killed when Ascensio's vehicle crossed the center line on Oregon 99E north of Gervais, according to police at the time. Fredinburg's car caught fire and he was pronounced dead at the scene.
De Jesus Ascensio is wanted on two counts of criminally negligent homicide in connection with Fredinburg's death and Ascensio's 19-year old passenger Oscar Ascensio Amaya, who died the day after the crash.
De Jesus Ascensio was also hospitalized. Authorities believe he fled to Mexico around the time he was indicted.
The Fredinburg family helped create an Oregon Officer Reward Fund for arrests in criminal investigations of injury or death to police in the line of duty, the sheriff's office said. A reward of $20,000, along with another $1,000 offered by Crime Stoppers, is available for information that leads to an arrest in the case.
"I think about Kelly and his family quite often and reflect upon the sacrifice they have made," Sheriff Jason Myers said in a press release. "While nothing will replace the loss of Kelly, finding Alfredo DeJesus Ascencio and holding him accountable for his actions will bring some closure to this tragedy."
De Jesus Ascensio was 20 years of age at the time of the crash, was last believed to be in the area of Puacuaro, Michoacan, Mexico.
Anyone with information related to this investigation to find the suspect can report tips by calling 800-452-7888 in Oregon; or 1-503-823-HELP (4357) from anywhere in the United States. Callers from Mexico can call the Crime Stoppers Tip line, +011-503-823-4357. Tipsters should refer to case number is 07-28 and provide as much detail as possible, authorities said.
Ann Coulter has a gift for cutting right to the point. She explains how GOP candidates could sweep the elections this year with just a little understanding of what has happened in the past.
Key To Trump’s Victory: Math
With the California primary fast approaching, the media are rolling out their favorite fairy tale about how Republican Pete Wilson’s support for Proposition 187 in 1994 was a historic, game-changing error for the GOP, driving Hispanics from the party for good!
Both CNN and MSNBC retold this completely bogus narrative this week. NPR rolls it out once every two weeks.
I’m writing an emergency book on Trump right now, due today, and liberals won’t stop lying about Prop 187 — so for this week’s column, I’m telling the real story of that initiative, again. Maybe the 700th time is the charm!
In 1994, Gov. Pete Wilson of California was headed for defeat in his re-election bid. He had an abysmal 15 percent approval rating — syphilis had a higher approval rating. He ended up pulling out an amazing come-from-behind victory by tying himself to Proposition 187, a ballot initiative that would deny illegal immigrants non-emergency government services.
In the lead-up to the election, the media freely dispensed advice to Wilson, nearly identical to the advice they’re giving Donald Trump today.
Proposition 187, was, in the words of The New York Times, a “nativist abomination,” “xenophobic,” and a “platform of bigotry, racism and scapegoating.” Republicans faced an epic loss unless they repudiated Prop 187 and leapt on the Hispandering bandwagon — and pronto.
Unaware that the Times’ political advice was a gag, Wilson’s Democratic opponent, Kathleen Brown, was convinced opposition to Proposition 187 would propel her to victory. She campaigned against the proposition, urging voters to “send a message that says we understand that in diversity is our strength!”
Pete “Prop 187” Wilson won the election with 55 percent of the vote. That included 21 percent of the black vote — nearly three times the 8 percent average for Republicans in House races nationwide the same year.
Wilson’s 1994 victory on the back of Proposition 187 also happens to be the biggest margin for any Republican running statewide in California in the last 30 years, except for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger who won his 2006 re-election by one point more (after effectively becoming a Democrat).
Proposition 187 was even more popular than Wilson, winning 59 percent to 41 percent. It was supported by a majority of white voters, a majority of black voters, a majority of Asian voters — and a third of Hispanic voters, i.e., more of the Hispanic vote than Mitt Romney got.
Proposition 187 was twice as popular with Hispanic voters in California as George H.W. Bush had been two years earlier. In 1992, Bill Clinton won 71 percent of the Hispanic vote in California to Bush’s 14 percent. Texas Hispanics chose Clinton over Bush by nearly the identical percentage, 70 percent to 15 percent.
Maybe there’s something else Hispanics don’t like about Republicans.
In 1992, Proposition 187 wasn’t even a twinkle in California’s eye. Hispanics had no idea they were supposed to hate Republicans yet. Nonetheless, they voted in a landslide for the Democratic presidential candidate, and also for two Democrats running for the U.S. Senate that year.
The reason California can’t elect a Republican statewide isn’t that Hispanics got even madder at Republicans since Proposition 187. It’s that they’re a much larger part of the electorate, thanks to: (1) Reagan’s amnesty; and (2) the ACLU running to a Jimmy Carter-appointed judge to get Proposition 187 overturned.
As with gay marriage, abortion and any number of other legal absurdities, whenever liberals lose by allowing people to vote, they dash to the courts to give them whatever they want. Judge Mariana Pfaelzer’s ruling declaring the popularly enacted Proposition 187 “unconstitutional” was on appeal when Gray Davis became governor of California, and dropped the appeal.
The combination of amnestied illegals and their kids, and illegal aliens coming for the free government services and their kids, has resulted in a state where whites are only about 40 percent of the population and 60 percent of the electorate.
Pete Wilson’s victory with Proposition 187 ought to be studied by today’s GOP like General Eisenhower’s Operation Overlord. Today’s America has nearly the same demographics as California did in 1994 — aka “the California Republicans Swept With an Anti–Illegal Alien Initiative.” In 1994, California’s voting population was 75 percent white, 12 percent Hispanic, 7 percent African-American and 6 percent Asian. Today, the American electorate is 72 percent white, 10 percent Hispanic, 13 percent African-American and 3 percent Asian.
I understand why the left doesn’t want the GOP to try anything like Prop 187 again. But why can’t Republicans do the math?