OFIR Blog

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.

USCIS Chief says U.S. immigration laws are unjust

Leaders of our Federal government have said some pretty eyebrow-raising things in recent years, but if there were a contest for the most shocking of all, it’d be hard to top this:

Leon Rodriguez, head of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, one of the main branches of the DHS, announced recently that the laws he swore to enforce are unjust.  We knew they weren’t being enforced adequately so maybe this is his excuse.  However, he doesn’t seem to object to receiving a comfortable salary for sitting in the seat of chief administrator of immigration services.
 
Read about this bizarre development below.
 
USCIS Chief Says U.S. Immigration Laws are Unjust; He Should Resign
By Ira Mehlman, Federation for American Immigration Reform
May 16, 2015
 
Leon Rodriguez, director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) agency said on Wednesday [May 13] that U.S. immigration laws are unjust and do not reflect our nation’s values. Mr. Rodriguez, like every other American, is entitled to his opinion. He should not be entitled to remain director of USCIS, however.
 
It is clear that Rodriguez assumed his current position and took his oath to uphold the laws of the United States under false pretenses. Moreover, he cannot be expected to faithfully carry out laws that, as a matter of conscience, he believes to be unjust. His only legal and ethical option is to resign his post immediately.
 
Speaking to the Catholic Legal Immigration Network in Salt Lake City, Rodriguez observed that among the laws and regulations governing U.S. immigration policy, “You will never once see the word ‘justice.’” I haven’t read through the countless volumes that make up the U.S. immigration code, but I’ll take his word for it. I seriously doubt you will find the word justice in the tax code, or any of the other voluminous sets of laws that govern and regulate how our country operates.
 
The function of the immigration code is to regulate the influx of foreign nationals to the U.S. By necessity, that entails disappointing a lot of people. Being told “no” might not feel good; but it is not necessarily an injustice.
 
Perhaps most importantly, Rodriguez’s comments represent a fundamental misunderstanding of who U.S. immigration laws are meant to serve – and he is not alone in this misperception. First and foremost they are meant to serve and protect the interests and security of the American people. Aspiring immigrants have an interest in U.S. immigration policy, but the stakeholders are American citizens: workers, taxpayers, and parents of future generations of Americans.
 
The refusal of Mr. Rodriguez and the president he serves to conscientiously enforce laws meant to protect the interests of the American people is unjust, not the laws themselves. The millions of Americans who lose jobs and wages to illegal aliens, the taxpayers who shell out about $100 billion a year to provide basic services to illegal aliens, the thousands of Americans who are victimized by criminal aliens, and future generations of Americans who will live with the social and environmental consequences of current immigration policies, could use a little justice too. But they won’t get it from Mr. Rodriguez.
 

Your letters and commentaries help spread the word

Many of us are neck deep in politics.  They call us activists - or worse.

Many of us are very informed, but prefer to stay out of the fray and simply be supportive at the ballot box.

But, the vast majority of people are uninformed voters.  And, in large part, it's because of the "low information voter" that we are in the predicament we find ourselves now.

Letters to the Editor, commentaries and opinion pieces are critical in reaching out to people who only glance at the newspaper - occassionally.  Or take a peek online once in a while.

Please read through the fantastic collection of letters written by folks inspired to simply speak up and express their frustrations!

A well written opinion piece by OFIR founder and longtime member Elizabeth VanStaaveren is a good example!

A recent commentary by OFIR member Rick LaMountain is a great place to start.

 

Another sneaky way the DHS helps aliens instead of citizens

It seems the DHS cannot do enough to give benefits to aliens and help employers get cheaper labor.  Now a new rule allows the wives of H-1B workers to take jobs here, along with their husbands.  As David North of the Center for Immigration Studies says, there is no need for extra workers of any kind.  The spouses of H-1B workers are likely not in need of a job, and even if they were, any job openings should be available to citizens first.  

 
And by the way -- “An American woman who has a husband with a job in India cannot legally work there.” 
 
The entire H-1B visa program is notoriously corrupt; this latest embellishment makes it even more so. 
 
DHS will start receiving these new employment authorization applications on May 26.
 
-------------------------------
 
Stealth Work Force of as Many as 179,600 H-4 Workers Due To Be Authorized 
By David North, Center for Immigration Studies, May 6, 2015 
 
My colleague John Miano reported late last month on the highly suspect legal status of the H-4 workers DHS will authorize to start work in the next few weeks — these are a subset of the dependents of H-1B workers, usually spouses of programmers or other IT workers.
 
Now, let me tell you about the impact that they will have on the American labor market: It will take away jobs from as many as 179,600 U.S. workers — that's the government estimate — and, indirectly, will swell the coffers of some of America's most prosperous companies. Most of these will be white collar jobs.
 
This is a stealth work force and its impact on various U.S. labor markets will be so scattered that it will not be covered the press. Of course, I hope I am wrong about that. 
 
When the news gets out that a major corporation (such as Southern California Edison) has decided to replace hundreds of perfectly good resident workers with H-1Bs, newspapers cover the event and some politicians start making appropriate noises.
 
But the arrivals of the H-4s in the labor market will be quite different; one by one they will get jobs all over the country quietly and slowly; that new worker in the grocery store or the new accountant or perhaps the librarian in the law firm, they will all arrive without fanfare and another three jobs will be lost to American workers, who probably will never know that a decision in Washington robbed them of these jobs, or at least postponed their getting new jobs. 
 
There are a bunch of things wrong with the government's H-4 decision:
 
• It has nothing to do with the needs of the U.S. labor market; the workers are located near where their spouses work and no agency has decided (as it does with H-1B) that their skills are needed;
• There is no need for extra workers of any kind in the United States; 
• The workers themselves have absolutely no labor market protections; they can be hired at any wage (at or above the minimum); and
• Oddly, these particular H-4s are — as opposed to, say, Mexican H-4s married to H2-A farm workers — a comparatively cosseted population. 
 
On the last point one should bear two facts in mind. First, these workers, probably 90-plus percent women, are not only married to employed college graduates (all H-1Bs fit that description), but the H-1Bs are probably making in excess of $70,000 a year. I would guess that most of the H-4 women, or a large minority, have college degrees of their own. 
 
The new program, after all, is for the spouses of the upper classes of the H-1B population, people whose value to their employer is characterized, by definition, as above average because the employer has filed a green card application for the worker. 
 
The real (but totally hidden) beneficiaries of this program are the big corporations hiring the husbands — there is no need to give the H-1B a raise now that his wife can work, saving millions of dollars. 
 
I understand that many of these spouses are restless being unemployed, and many of them have something to contribute to society, but shouldn't U.S. workers get first dibs on available jobs?
 
By the way, and this is a minor point, this is not a reciprocal-arrangement with India, from whence come most H-1Bs. An American woman who has a husband with a job in India cannot legally work there. 
 
USCIS does not tell us where it got its 179,600 estimate of jobs to be filled in the near future by these women, or how it obtained is accompanying estimate of 55,000 new applicants each year in the future, but I suspect that both of these are understatements. 
 
Nevertheless, it is useful that USCIS has given us some numerical estimates; it does not always do that. 
 
As the agency says in its announcement, it will start receiving employment authorization applications from these H-4s (and the $385 fee that goes with them) on May 26. 
 

The Subversive Trans-Pacific Partnership

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has been described as a "stealthy delivery mechanism for policies that could not survive public scrutiny," and focuses on curtailing government at all levels. In addition, it encourages trade that would harm communities and the environment­.18 Recent revelations expose the Trans-Pacific Partnership as a transnational corporate coup.13 

The TPP is a multinational trade agreement, negotiated in secret meetings dominated by governments and 500 trans-national corporate interests16. Although still under negotiation, the media has virtually blacked out coverage of the TPP.8

It has been reported that former US Trade Representative Ron Kirk stated that if the people knew what was in the TPP agreement, it would raise such opposition that it could make the deal impossible to sign.

TPP Overview

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a fundamental component of President Obama’s continuing economic agenda. It would grant a broad range of powers to trans-national corporations based overseas. According to the New York Times:

Under the accord, still under negotiation but nearing completion, companies and investors would be empowered to challenge regulations, rules, government actions and court rulings — federal, state or local — before tribunals organized under the World Bank or the United Nations... critics, including many Democrats in Congress, argue that the planned deal widens the opening for multinationals to sue in the United States and elsewhere, giving greater priority to protecting corporate interests than promoting free trade and competition that benefits consumers.12

The TPP is the largest pending economic treaty in history and includes countries that represent more than 40 per cent of the world´s GDP. Current TPP negotiation members include the United States, Japan, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, New Zealand and Brunei.13

The TPP is a "docking" agreement, which means that any country in the TPP region (e.g., China) can add themselves just by signing on.15 The TPP would be forever. Unlike domestic laws, it would have no expiration date. It could be altered only by a consensus of all signatories.20

Ongoing TPP negotiations have been conducted in secrecy since 2008 and are now in the final stages. The Obama administration is attempting to "fast-track" the treaty through Congress so that elected officials will have no ability to review or comment on provisions. Fast track is implemented by Congress passing Trade Promotion Authority, which means that Congress surrenders all rights to amend the TPP treaty and is only allowed to vote yes or no on Obama’s final deal.9

Some of the more concerning aspects of the TPP are discussed below.

Immigration

The US Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority over immigration, immigrants, and work authorizations. Yet fast-track trade legislation essentially relinquishes that authority to the President.

NumbersUSA has pointed out that as a result of fast-track trade authority on the TPP, any President could much more easily expand guest worker programs without public debate. Indeed, that occurred under President Bush during five years of fast-track authority.17 As a result, in 2003, Congress objected to President Bush including immigration in trade agreements with a resolution that began:

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that

(1) trade agreements are not the appropriate vehicle for enacting immigration-related laws or modifying current immigration policy; and

(2) future trade agreements to which the United States is a party and the legislation implementing the agreements should not contain immigration-related provisions.17

The Hill recently reported that:

TPP's provisions are largely secret but, according to Curtis Ellis of the American Jobs Alliance, the U.S. Trade Representative revealed that "temporary entry" guest worker visas are a "key feature" of the pact. Ellis said that Obama Administration previously used the U.S.-South Korea trade pact to expand the length of time a L-1 visa holder can work in the U.S. That pact is viewed as a model for negotiating the TPP.17

As a result of these concerns, NumbersUSA sent notices to members of Congress reading in part:

Despite a U.S. labor force participation rate that is at its lowest level since 1978, President Obama wants to use the TPP to further reduce the jobs available to U.S. workers and instead reserve certain jobs for foreign workers under the agreement. It is indefensible that Congress would now consider surrendering even more of its authority over immigration to this President in order to fast track a trade agreement that will harm American workers, and the text of which Congress has not even seen.17

Environment

In an analysis of the leaked TPP “Investment” chapter13, Public Citizen observes that:

The leaked text would empower foreign firms to directly “sue” signatory governments in extrajudicial investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) tribunals over domestic policies that apply equally to domestic and foreign firms that foreign firms claim violate their new substantive investor rights. There they could demand taxpayer compensation for domestic financial, health, environmental, land use and other policies and government actions they claim undermine TPP foreign investor privileges, such as the “right” to a regulatory framework that conforms to their “expectations.”19

Thus, the TPP would elevate foreign-owned corporations to the same status as sovereign governments. These corporations would be able to challenge in foreign tribunals any environmental laws and regulations that they deemed a threat to their profitability. For example, provisions would disadvantage organic farmers and those who adopt more environmentally-sound farming practices.18

TPP will limit GMO food labeling and will allow the import of foods and goods that do not meet US safe standards.20 As US News reports:

Many jurisdictions have policies to promote opportunity and ameliorate the severity of market forces. These include minimum wage laws, laws requiring employers to offer health insurance, regulations covering product safety, work-place safety, environmental protection, and more. All of these protections are at risk under the TPP. For example, the pact would prevent communities from deciding whether or not they want fracking in their area.18

Intellectual Property

The TPP would extend copyright beyond the international 50 year standard after an author’s death by an additional 20 years, thus effectively prohibiting works from entering the public domain.3

Article 16 of the TPP wants signatories to find legal incentives to strong-arm ISPs into privately enforcing TPP copyright rules. The result could be arbitrary filtering of content, complete blockage of websites, and disclosure of ISP customer identities.3

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has expressed serious concern that the TPP will:

  • Place Greater Liability on Internet Intermediaries, as noted above.
  • Compel signatory nations to enact laws banning circumvention of digital locks on movies on DVDs, video games, and players, and for embedded software.
  • Create New Threats for Journalists and Whistleblowers.
  • Enact a "Three-Step Test" Language That Puts Restrictions on Fair Use.
  • Adopt Criminal Sanctions: Adopt criminal sanctions for copyright infringement that is done without a commercial motivation.1

The EFF notes that:

TPP raises significant concerns about citizens’ freedom of expression, due process, innovation, the future of the Internet’s global infrastructure, and the right of sovereign nations to develop policies and laws that best meet their domestic priorities. In sum, the TPP puts at risk some of the most fundamental rights that enable access to knowledge for the world’s citizens."1

Critics of the TPP say it would result in increased drug prices and could give surgeons patent protection for their procedures.14

Corporate tribunals override national sovereignty

A TPP leaked document made public by Wikileaks reveals that:

Under the accord, still under negotiation but nearing completion, companies and investors would be empowered to challenge regulations, rules, government actions and court rulings -- federal, state or local -- before tribunals organized under the World Bank or the United Nations.13

The Huffington Post emphasizes the point:

Let that sink in for a moment: "[C]ompanies and investors would be empowered to challenge regulations, rules, government actions and court rulings -- federal, state or local -- before tribunals...." And they can collect not just for lost property or seized assets; they can collect if laws or regulations interfere with these giant companies' ability to collect what they claim are "expected future profits."16

The New York Times observes:

In all, according to Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, about 9,000 foreign-owned firms operating in the United States would be empowered to bring cases against governments here. Those are as diverse as timber and mining companies in Australia and investment conglomerates from China whose subsidiaries in Trans-Pacific Partnership countries like Vietnam and New Zealand also have ventures in the United States.

More than 18,000 companies based in the United States would gain new powers to go after the other 11 countries in the accord…

Under the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a member nation would be forbidden from favoring “goods produced in its territory.”14

This is really troubling,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the Senate’s No. 3 Democrat. “It seems to indicate that savvy, deep-pocketed foreign conglomerates could challenge a broad range of laws we pass at every level of government, such as made-in-America laws or anti-tobacco laws. I think people on both sides of the aisle will have trouble with this.”14

Conclusion

From what we now know, the Trans-Pacific Partnership represents a distinct and significant threat to national sovereignty and the ability of any member nation – including the United States – to regulate its trade, intellectual property, environment, and immigration.

Most troubling is what we don’t yet know about the secretive TPP.

In the interests of America and all Americans, Congress is obligated to deny fast-track TPA authority on the TPP and to reject the TPP in its entirety.

 

The author, Fred Elbel, is the OFIR webmaster and director of Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform.

References

1. What is TPP, Electronic Frontier Foundation

2. What Is Wrong With the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Electronic Frontier Foundation, August 21, 2012 - one-page overview

3. What is the TPP, and why should you care?, Naked Security, August 28, 2012

4. Obama secretly signing away U.S. sovereignty, WorldNetDaily, October 16, 2013

5. Thanks to WikiLeaks, we see just how bad TPP trade deal is for regular people, The Guardian, November 13, 2013

6. Trash the TPP: Why It's Time to Revolt Against the Worst "Trade Agreement" in History, Occupy.com, July 19, 2013

7. Leaked TPP Intellectual Property Chapter from May 2014, Electronic Frontier Foundation, May 2014

8. Media Leave Viewers In The Dark About Trans-Pacific Partnership, Media Matters, February 9, 2014

9. Immigration, Outsourcing And Now Fast-Tracking TP - When Will GOP Stand Up For Americans?, Patrick J. Buchanan, VDare, January 31, 2015

Following the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, we threw open America’s doors to a flood of immigrants, legal and illegal. Some 40-50 million have poured in, an unprecedented expansion of the labor force.

Thus, “free-trade” Republicans and their collaborators in the Business Roundtable and U.S. Chamber of Commerce decided to drop the U.S. labor force into a worldwide labor pool where the average wage was but a tiny fraction of an American living wage.

Like NAFTA and GATT, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is an enabling act for multinationals to move freely to where it is cheapest to produce while securing access to where it is most profitable to sell.

10. Obama's next immigration scam - Guest workers get free pass in so-called free-trade TPP agreement, World Net Daily, March 14, 2015

11. Democrats Blast Obama’s Secret Trade Negotiations, Limits To Growth, March 18, 2015

12. Trans-Pacific Partnership Seen as Door for Foreign Suits Against U.S., New York Times, March 25, 2015

13. Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) - Investment Chapter, Wikileaks, March 25, 2015

Read the full Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) - Investment Chapter, Wikileaks, March 25, 2015

The TPP Investment Chapter is dated 20 January 2015. The document is classified and supposed to be kept secret for four years after the entry into force of the TPP agreement or, if no agreement is reached, for four years from the close of the negotiations.

Julian Assange, WikiLeaks editor said: "The TPP has developed in secret an unaccountable supranational court for multinationals to sue states. This system is a challenge to parliamentary and judicial sovereignty. Similar tribunals have already been shown to chill the adoption of sane environmental protection, public health and public transport policies."

Current TPP negotiation member states are the United States, Japan, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, New Zealand and Brunei. The TPP is the largest economic treaty in history, including countries that represent more than 40 per cent of the world´s GDP.

14. Trans-Pacific Partnership Seen as Door for Foreign Suits Against U.S,, The Guardian, March 25, 2015

15. Corporate Sovereignty Provisions Of TPP Agreement Would Massively Undermine Government Sovereignty, TechDirt, March 26, 2015

16. Now We Know Why Huge TPP Trade Deal Is Kept Secret From the Public, Huffington Post, March 27, 2015

17. We join unions, environmentalists and more in broad coalition against threat of anti-worker trade bill, NumbersUSA, April 14, 2015

18. Obama's Pacific Trade Deal Is No Deal At All - These trade negotiations are about corporations seeking to prevent competition, U.S. News and World Report, April 19, 2015

19. Analysis of Leaked Trans-Pacific Partnership Investment Text, Public Citizen, March 25, 2015

20. Stop TPP – The Facts

10 Ways The TPP Would Hurt U.S. Working Families

21  Stop The TPP, Communications Workers of America

Sheriff of the year a friend of Measure 88 campaign

Sheriff Tom Bergin worked diligently to secure the endorsement of the Sheriff's of Oregon PAC for the Measure 88 campaign.  Sheriff Bergin is a great friend of OFIR's and we salute his success.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clatsop County Sheriff Tom Bergin was named Sheriff of the Year by the Western States Sheriffs' Association at its annual conference last week in Nevada.

Clatsop County Sheriff Tom Bergin was named Sheriff of the Year by the Western States Sheriffs’ Association at its annual conference last week in Nevada.

The association includes sheriffs from 15 western states, including Oregon, Washington to North and South Dakota and down to California and Texas.

Sheriffs in the association receive training related to issues such as use of force, officer video cameras and numerous other court decisions.

In addition, the sheriffs work on immigration issues, conducting meetings with federal officials related to travel management plans on national and state lands and managing forests and federal law enforcement expansion authority, according to the association.

Bergin is on several committees and is the state representative for Oregon. He is also involved with legislative issues both in Oregon and at the federal level.

Western State President Sheriff Dave Brown presented the award to Sheriff Bergin.

“I am truly honored to receive this award. There are many deserving sheriffs but to be singled out as Sheriff of the Year for WSSA is a humbling experience that I will never forget and (will) treasure forever,” Bergin said at the ceremony.

Bergin is in his third term as Clatsop County sheriff and has been in law enforcement for almost 30 years, all of which he has served in Clatsop County.

Read the article here.
 

Some Senators don't want to protect American workers

 
 
The displacement of citizen workers by foreign nationals brought here under flawed visa programs is a serious problem for this country, but falls very low on the scale of importance to many U.S. Senators.
  
This was clearly shown at the recent Senate hearing described by John Miano in a blog on the Center for Immigration Studies website.  Here he names the names of organizations that appear to control certain Senators’ positions on the issue of jobs for Americans first.
 
Neither of Oregon’s 2 Senators is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, but Senators Wyden and Merkley both have very poor records on importation of foreign workers.  Sen. Wyden’s voting record on reducing unnecessary worker visas is F over his whole US Senate career from 1989-2015.  Senator Merkley’s is F- over his Senate career, 2009-2015, on the same subject: unnecessary worker visas

 
By John Miano, Center for Immigration Studies, March 22, 2015 
[abridged version]
 
I testified last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Reforms Needed to Protect Skilled American Workers. It was a great honor to be invited. However, participating in an event like this highlights the growing isolation between Washington and the rest of America.
 
At one time there was a consensus that American citizens should come first under our immigration laws. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that preserving jobs for American workers is a primary purpose of our immigration laws; see, for instance Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 334 (1993).
 
No such consensus exists in today's Washington.
 
The impetus for the hearing was the recent replacement of Americans by H-1B workers at Southern California Edison, Northeast Utilities, Cargill, and Walt Disney World.
 
You would think that members of Congress, upon learning that Americans workers are being replaced by foreign workers, would response in unison, "This is outrageous. That needs to stop now!"
 
I sensed such outrage from Sens. Durbin, Grassley, Sessions, and Vitter—but none of the rest present.
 
In fact, the impression I came away with is that most of the senators did not think it is even a problem when Americans are being replaced by foreign workers.
 
(Senators, that was just my impression. I know that some people put on a restrained face hiding rage behind that. If I left out any senator at the hearing who was outraged, I will be happy to amend this post and link to any statement you have made that Congress should act immediately to stop the replacement of Americans by foreign workers.)
 
 
While at the hearing, I saw that a number of organizations had put out a statement that included the following claim:
 
MYTH: Foreign workers displace American workers in the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. 
 
The liars who signed this statement are:
• American Immigration Lawyers Association
• BSA | The Software Alliance
• Compete America Coalition
• Computer & Communications Industry Association
• Consumer Electronics Association
• Council for Global Immigration
• FWD.us
• HR Policy Association
• Information Technology Industry Council
• National Association of Home Builders
• National Association of Manufacturers
• National Venture Capital Association
• Partnership for a New American Economy
• Society for Human Resource Management
• Semiconductor Industry Association
• Silicon Valley Leadership Group
• Tech CEO Council
• TechNet
• U.S. Chamber of Commerce
 
While I was in the hotel room the night before, I watched a Rachel Maddow segment on MSNBC in which they went over a poll that asked Americans what the biggest problem in the country was. The number one problem, by far, was government.
 
It would behoove some senators to read Aesop's fable of The Ass and His Purchaser. The moral is "You are known by the company you keep."
 
Senators, when you hang out with liars, like those listed above; when you put their statements in the record; and when you repeat their statements without question you look like an ass too. You are measured by the company you keep.
--------------------------------
 
 
 

 

Practical thoughts on immigration

 
In this article, Heather Mac Donald gives a clear account of the dangers the U.S. faces from prolonged lax enforcement of the immigration laws, and she condemns the amnesty policies of President Obama.  Ms. Mac Donald has followed and written about immigration issues for several years; her article here underscores the urgency of restoring the rule of law in immigration matters.
 
Practical Thoughts on Immigration
by Heather Mac Donald, Manhattan Institute
In Imprinis, monthly speech digest of Hillsdale College, February 2015 | Volume 44, Number 2
 
The lesson from the last 20 years of immigration policy is that lawlessness breeds more lawlessness. Once a people or a government decides to normalize one form of lawbreaking, other forms of lawlessness will follow until finally the rule of law itself is in profound jeopardy. Today, we have a constitutional crisis on our hands. President Obama has decided that because Congress has not granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens living in the U.S., he will do so himself. Let us ponder for a moment just how shameless this assertion of power is.
 
Article 2, Section 3, of the Constitution mandates that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This provision assumes that there is a law for the president to execute. But in this case, the “problem” that Obama is purporting to fix is the absence of a law granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Rather than executing a law, Obama is making one up—arrogating to himself a function that the Constitution explicitly allocates to Congress. Should this unconstitutional power grab stand, we will have moved very far in the direction of rule by dictator. Pace Obama, the absence of a congressional law granting amnesty is not evidence of political failure that must somehow be corrected by unilateral executive action; it is evidence of the lack of popular consensus regarding amnesty. There has been no amnesty statute to date because the political will for such an amnesty is lacking.
 
To read the rest of the article, click here:  http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/
---------------------------------
Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. She received her B.A. from Yale University, and earned an M.A. in English from Cambridge University and a J.D. from Stanford Law School. She writes for several newspapers and journals, including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The New Criterion, and Public Interest, and is the author of three books, including—with Victor Davis Hanson and Steven Malanga—The Immigration Solution: A Better Plan Than Today’s.
 
Her article, Practical Thoughts on Immigration, was adapted from a speech she delivered on February 18, 2015, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Naples, Florida.
 

Dorchester Conference left alot to be desired

Having defeated Ballot Measure 88 in 35 out of 36 counties and with a 66% NO vote, it seemed curious to me that a conversation about just exactly how that happened would be eminent on the floor at the Dorchester Conference.  Perhaps those people scratching their heads about what happened to Oregon Republicans in the last election should review what happened with Measure 88 - and why!  There is a clear message here!

Uber vs. Taxi was the lead topic of discussion on Saturday.  Disappointing, for sure.  A break-out session (one of three) to discuss immigration reform was offered late in the afternoon on Saturday.

Saturday's OFIR meeting moving and maddening

In a moving presentation at the Saturday, Feb. 28 OFIR meeting, California father Don Rosenberg explained the tragic death of his son by a hit and run, unlicensed, illegal alien driver and the infuriating way in which he and his family were treated on the path to the prosecution of his son's killer.

Even with the gorgeous early Spring weather, a full house greeted Don as he unwound the story of what he and his family have endured.  It's enough to have to ever experience such an unimaginable loss, but even worse to think that our own government treated the criminal with more respect than the grieving family.

OFIR thanks Don and his family for his unending work in shining a light on the real problem - a government that won't enforce our laws and elected officials that are a disgrace as public servants.

 

Effective immigration law enforcement is ‘pro-immigrant,’ compassionate

 
Effective immigration law enforcement is ‘pro-immigrant,’ compassionate
By Michael W. Cutler, Senior Special Agent, INS (Ret.)
Senior Fellow, Californians for Population Stabilization
On CAPS website, February 17, 2015
 
For many years those of us who have called for the effective enforcement of our immigration laws and the securing of our borders have been accused of being “Anti-Immigrant” and have had a host of other vile epithets hurled at us by immigration anarchists who enrich themselves greatly through the callous and cynical exploitation of the very aliens they purport to support.
 
Those who exploit the failures of the immigration system include special interest groups and unscrupulous employers who know that foreign workers – both legally employed and illegally employed in the United States – accept lower wages under substandard conditions.
 
Additional exploiters include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, immigration attorneys who in the flood of illegal aliens see clients and politicians who seek to not only accept campaign contributions from many of those who profit from the massive influx of foreign nationals but hope to garner votes along the way.
 
The exploiters demonstrate unmitigated chutzpah claiming that opening our borders to a human tsunami of foreign nationals from around the world is an act of compassion. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush claims that it would be an “Act of Love” to provide lawful status for unknown millions of aliens who evaded the inspections process that is supposed to prevent the entry of international terrorists and transnational criminals among other categories of aliens deemed excludible under our immigration laws.
 
Jeb is “Looking for love in all the wrong places!”
 
Jeb and those of a similar mindset know damn well that such a massive amnesty program would do great harm to all Americans and that the greatest harm would be done to America’s black and Latino communities. He is no fool. The only conclusion that can be reached is that wealth and power are all that matter. For them, those who suffer as a result of the failures of the immigration system are simply “collateral damage.” They certainly know the damage being done even as they spout their rhetoric and false accusations. They simply do not care.
 
Click here to read the entire article.
 

Where do Oregon Republicans stand on immigration?

For the past 50 years Republicans from all across Oregon have gathered at the Dorchester Conference in Seaside to discuss politics.  The opportunity for hundreds of politically active Oregonians to gather and discuss the issues of the day with Legislators, Mayors, Congressmen and others has been an asset to Oregon politics.

Every year a slate of topics covering state and national issues, is presented for conference attendees.  Speeches presenting both sides of the issue and debate with the table group expands participants knowledge of each issue.  A comment period allows participants to express their viewpoint to the entire conference.

Oregonians for Immigration Reform has participated in The Dorchester Conference for the past several years, hosting an informational booth in the vendor hall, participating in the conference and contributing financially to the conference in the form of sponsorships.

For the past few year as the issue of immigration becomes increasingly concerning in local and national politics, OFIR requested that the topic of immigration be slated as a discussion topic at an upcoming Dorchester Conference.  OFIR has been denied every time.  Why?

OFIR and Protect Oregon Driver Licenses delivered a powerful blow to the Legislators that supported Ballot Measure 88 with 66% of Oregonians voting NO on driver cards for those illegally in the country. 

Because of the profound message that victory sends, OFIR has submitted yet another request for immigration to be a topic at the conference.   OFIR has gotten no response to our request.  Why?

Please read the letter OFIR has submitted to the Dorchester Conference and feel free to send a comment to:

Telephone: (503) 435-0141
www.OregonIR.org
 

To: Alison Bruun
President - 2015 Dorchester Conference

From: Cynthia Kendoll
President - Oregonians for Immigration Reform

Re: Illegal immigration as a discussion topic at Dorchester Conference

Will the 2015 Dorchester Conference include illegal immigration as the subject of a discussion group on Saturday, March 14?

As proved by last year's election, opposition to illegal immigration is of vital importance to Oregon voters -- and to Republican success. Via Ballot Measure 88, nearly one million Oregonians voted to repeal the 2013 state law granting driver cards to illegal aliens. Republican candidates who publicly supported efforts to deter illegal immigration -- among them Kim Thatcher, Sal Esquivel, Bill Post, Mike Nearman and Greg Barreto -- won their elections. Those who downplayed or avoided the issue -- like Dennis Richardson, Monica Wehby, Patti Milne and Matt Geiger -- were defeated.

At Dorchester, the issue could be explored in a number of ways specific to Oregon. Possible questions for a discussion group could be:

-- Should Oregon mandate that state businesses use E-Verify to vet job applicants' eligibility for U.S. employment?

-- Should Oregon repeal ORS 181.850, which purports to limit Oregon law enforcement's coordination and cooperation with federal immigration authorities?

-- Should Oregon enact a constitutional amendment to ensure only U.S. citizens vote in state elections?

Both in Oregon and across the nation, illegal immigration is of paramount concern to American voters. It's time that the Dorchester Conference gives illegal immigration the attention it has earned -- and makes it a topic of a Saturday discussion group.

As well, I would be happy to address conference attendees on the connection between opposition to illegal immigration and Republican electoral success or any other immigration related topic.

Thank you for your consideration, and all the best.

Cynthia
President - Oregonians for Immigration Reform http://www.oregonir.org/ Authorized Agent and Statewide Campaign Manager - Protect Oregon Driver Licenses http://www.protectoregondl.org/
Advisory Board - Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform - http://www.cairco.org/

OFIR applauds voters for seeing through the false statements

Two months after the election those who supported the new law giving driver cards to illegal aliens - on the ballot as Measure 88 - are still trying to explain away their overwhelming defeat. 

Spending nearly $600,000 (more than ten times that of Protect Oregon Driver Licenses) Andrea Miller - Director of Causa - claims they simply didn't have the resources to "educate the public".

The clear and simple truth is that the majority of Oregon Legislators, the Governor, big unions and special interest groups couldn't quite dupe the public. 

The reality of the major problems created by granting driver cards to illegal aliens was just too big to bury in the sob stories of hardship about getting to and from jobs that illegal aliens are not supposed to have in the first place.

Nearly a million voters - 66% voted NO on 88, even after hearing nothing but misinformation and, in some cases, downright lies about what Ballot Measure 88 would accomplish.

Jim Ludwick - founder and past President of OFIR laid it all out nicely in a letter in response to yet another sob story printed in The Register-Guard.


 

Pages