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.
by Richard F. LaMountain
What will it take for the Legislature’s Democratic majority to heed Oregonians’ will?
Last year, via Ballot Measure 88, Oregon voters rejected the illegal-immigrant driver cards the Legislature approved in 2013. The magnitude of that rejection — the margin was almost two-to-one — made clear: the vote transcended the issue of driver cards to constitute a broad mandate against state-government benefits for illegal immigrants.
In the 2015 session, however, the Democratic majority legislated as though Measure 88’s outcome had been the opposite — passing laws, indeed, that give many illegal immigrants a better shot at taxpayer-funded educational aid than most American citizens.
Senate Bill 932, which Gov. Kate Brown signed Aug. 12, credentials certain illegal immigrants — those who entered the United States as minors and graduated from Oregon high schools — to compete against U.S. citizens for need-based Oregon Opportunity Grants to the state’s colleges. And to aid them in doing so, House Bill 2407, which Brown signed in early July, gives them race-based preferences over American students seeking the same.
How? HB 2407’s text authorizes the state Office of Student Access and Completion to “prioritize awarding Oregon Opportunity Grants to qualified students . . . whose circumstances would enhance the promotion of equity guidelines published by the Higher Education Coordinating Commission.” Those guidelines, wrote Sen. Doug Whitsett, R-Klamath Falls, in Eugene’s Register-Guard newspaper, are based upon an “equity lens” whose purpose is to maximize “funding for students from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups.”
And foremost among those “underrepresented” groups? Illegal-immigrant youths, who are overwhelmingly Hispanic — a fact which will, thanks to HB 2407, give them preference for Oregon Opportunity Grants over white and, in many cases, Asian-American applicants.
What possessed the Legislature’s Democratic majority to pass laws that so blatantly contradict Oregonians’ clear mandate against benefits for illegal immigrants?
Answer: A radical, dogmatic belief that illegal immigrants should enjoy the rights and privileges of American citizens — a belief outlined in a June letter to Salem’s Statesman Journal newspaper signed by all 35 House Democrats. “Keeping our state a great place to live — a place where all working families have a chance to get ahead and where everyone is treated equally — will require us to reject the poisonous idea that some families matter more than others,” the letter proclaimed. “All Oregonians deserve to be treated with respect and humanity, regardless of their . . . citizenship status.”
And for the Legislature’s majority party, evidently, such “respect and humanity” require favoring illegal-immigrant students over American youths for taxpayer-funded educational grants.
What the Democrats miss: Whatever the circumstances of their arrival here, illegal immigrants are not, as the House majority caucus asserts, “Oregonians.” They are, rather, foreign nationals here in violation of U.S. immigration law — law that was instituted by the American people via the representatives they elected to Congress. And when Oregon’s Democratic Legislature grants benefits to those illegal immigrants, it undermines the interests of the Americans to whom it owes its foremost responsibility — the Americans, indeed, who via Ballot Measure 88 signaled their overwhelming opposition to such benefits.
In 2016, voters should elect a new majority party to the state Legislature — one which will respect both the electoral mandates and the interests of Oregon’s U.S. citizens.
Richard F. LaMountain is a former vice president of Oregonians for Immigration Reform and served as a chief petitioner of Ballot Measure 88, the 2014 referendum via which Oregon voters rejected illegal-immigrant driver cards.
Letters from across the country reveal the frustration of the voting public about illegal immigration
Across the country, citizens are expressing their outrage at elected officials for their lack of action in securing our borders, protecting our jobs and enforcing our immigration laws.
It's critical that we keep the conversation going and demand action to protect our country and our citizens. Please plan to attend Town Hall meetings in your area, write to your elected officials and submit letters to the editor or call a radio talk show and insist that elected officials be held accountable for policies that allow innocent American citizens to be raped, hit by drunk drivers and even murdered by illegal aliens that are not supposed to be in our country at all.
You're not alone in your anger and frustration. But, too many have been too silent for so long that it is going to take all of us to keep the conversation going and the pressure on during this election cycle. HOLD ELECTED OFFICIALS ACCOUNTABLE for their actions that perpetuate the problems we are having.
Below is a compilation of letters from across the country. Be inspired to write a letter of your own and submit it to a local newspaper.
New Haven Register
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letter to the Editor: Murphy wrong on supporting refugees
Posted: 09/20/15, 2:54 PM EDT |
I don’t normally agree with most of what Norm Pattis has to say in his weekly column, but last week’s was on the money. Why do politicians think it’s our responsibility to take in and support people who aren’t happy in their own country when we don’t even take care of our own? And our own illustrious Sen. Chris Murphy said we need to accept 50,000 “refugees” from Syria! He’s very generous with our tax dollars, which I am sure will increase to absorb the cost. Add that to the 11.3 million illegal aliens from Mexico and Central America that they’re trying to give a free pass to already. Where does it end? Maybe Murphy and his compadres should bring them to their houses and support them. We don’t want them! Everyone’s ancestors came here from other countries but they came the right way — legally. This smells exactly like the Jimmy Carter Cuban Boatlift when Castro emptied his prisons and asylums and sent them here ... and we all know how that turned out! Send everyone who is here illegally back to where they came from and tell them to apply to come back the right way. There is a process — make them use it.
— Mike Pearson North Branford
The Berkshire Eagle
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letter: America's compassion will be its downfall
The Berkshire Eagle
Posted: 09/19/2015 12:17:34 PM EDT | Updated: about 5 hours ago
American's Compassion Will Be Its Downfall
To the editor:
Tony Smith's Sept. 5 letter "Past immigrants earned their status" is so right, especially about the U.S. becoming the planet's homeless shelter. Our country's compassion is used and abused. We help one family, they bring in 10 families, and suck our country dry.
If we as Americans don't stand up for our country and stop this merry-go-round the country will be town down! It's time to do something. Breaking our laws and being illegal is wrong. What would any other country do to an American citizen who breaks their laws? Death, torture, jail? I know one thing for sure — it wouldn't be a free life.
K. Withers Lee
Published: Sept. 18, 2015 Updated: 4:27 p.m.
Re: “Deport illegal aliens, with no exceptions” [Letters, Sept. 7]: I concur wholeheartedly with the widespread opinions expressed by legal citizens everywhere that the time has now come to rid this country of all illegal immigrants who don’t belong here.
The sooner the better.
I’ve heard enough about the wonders of multi-culturism and bilingualism to give me a permanent stomach ache.
What ever happened to English only? Why do we have to put up “dial 1 for English”? Those who foist these anti-American rules on the rest of us need to be escorted out of the country, along with all illegal aliens.
The Florida Times Union
By Letters from readers Fri, Sep 18, 2015 @ 3:22 pm
Some good, some bad
On the one hand, it appears our nation is doing a good job in stopping terror attacks based on the lack of incidents that actually occur.
Most of the reports that I read name the FBI as the organization that is most active and effective.
But the Department of Homeland Security is largely a hugely expensive joke. It is a politically correct organization where the airport screeners fail to detect a very large percentage of the test cases presented them.
Both the immigration and the border patrol segments of Homeland Security are not fulfilling their missions. But that’s likely through no fault of their own.
The timid leaders we have elected — and the even more timid bureaucrats that they appoint — have effectively neutered our personnel on the front lines.
With a budget of $38 billion, we still haven’t been able to secure the U.S. border.
Why doesn’t someone on the U.S. side demonstrate an “act of love” for this nation by sealing our borders?
It’s time we put out the word to all our southern neighbors that the U.S. will stop those who cross the border illegally.
And that we will use deadly force to ensure the safety and sanctity of this country.
Heaven knows how many bad actors have simply walked into our country because of purchased politicians who value their campaign donors more than personal integrity.
Alec Lawson, captain, U.S. Army (Ret.)
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letters to the Editor, Sept. 18
Posted Sep. 18, 2015 at 12:01 AM
End birthright citizenship
Maybe the most laughable canard bleated out by the open borders crowd is, “To eliminate birthright citizenship you’d have to change the Constitution.” But the statement has no basis in reality.
Birthright citizenship can be eliminated by Congress. The clause the border bleaters cling to is: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States … . But in 1868, when the amendment was adopted, there was no restriction on immigration. It didn’t cover Native Americans until 1924, so citizenship has obviously already been changed legislatively.
Then there are the pesky words, “… subject to the jurisdiction thereof …” Senator Lyman Trumbull, an architect of the amendment, said that meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else.” So it certainly wouldn’t apply to Mexican migrants, who wave Mexican flags on California streets all the time. But the final nail in the open borders folks’ coffin is Section 5, which states: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
The U.S. and Canada are the only major modern countries in the world who still grant birthright citizenship. It’s way past time to change that.
TribLIVE | Opinion/The Review
From whom they flee
Letter to the Editor
Thursday, Sept. 17, 2015, 8:55 p.m.
Updated 17 minutes ago
The refugee crisis in Europe and the U.S. exposes the lack of common sense in the Western world.
Moral leaders are quick to criticize European and U.S. governments for not doing enough for refugees coming to their countries. But where is the moral outrage against the corrupt, warmongering and dysfunctional leaders in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America who have created this crisis?
Why is the U.S. criticized for not wanting illegal immigrants while Mexican and other Latin American leaders are not criticized for creating circumstances causing their citizens to flee? Perhaps it's safer to criticize good guys than bad guys.
This situation has the same moral equivalence as members of a dysfunctional family living next door, demanding to move into your house to be fed and clothed at your expense, and creating turmoil in your household. Who would stand for this?
Wouldn't it be less expensive and more humane to militarily engage the bad guys in charge of refugee-producing countries than to allow the turmoil that massive world migration will bring to stable countries? It will take decades to recover from the disruption and upheaval from migration.
Allowing unchecked immigration is insane and ensures the crisis will continue indefinitely. It's a shame that we don't have world leaders with the courage to solve this problem!
The writer is vice chairman of the Allegheny County Republican Committee.
Letters to the Editor
September 17, 2015
Lawbreakers by any name
I read Wilkinson's column in the paper and I agree that our immigration policy is flawed. However, he described the Mexican bad guy as "an undocumented immigrant," and I disagree with that. Such a description of Mexican citizens unlawfully present in our country may now be politically correct, but in my opinion it is incorrect.
Thousands of Mexicans willfully break our laws every day and surreptitiously cross our southern border, and they should only be referred to as "illegal aliens." Regardless of why Mexicans sneak into our country, their sneaking should not be tolerated by our governments (local, state and national), and when someone is found to be here illegally, they should be considered a criminal and treated accordingly. I know that many illegals come here to become American citizens, but I believe most want to keep their allegiance to Mexico and only desire the economic benefits of our rich country. It doesn't matter if they're behaving themselves while they're here. They're here illegally.
We can't immediately fine and deport all the illegal aliens, but if we withhold from them all of our social benefits, including educational and medical (except in special cases), they'll soon deport themselves.
We should also jail every businessman who profits from the low wages he pays to an illegal. My grandfather legally came from Germany to have a better life here, and he found it for himself and his posterity. All Mexicans should be required to do the same. If our present politicians won't fix our immigration problems, then we need to cast our votes in the next election for the folks who will.
Carl "Bud" Paepcke
Enforce the immigration laws
Posted: Thursday, September 17, 2015 12:15 am
Everyone who doesn't like what Donald Trump says about immigration are the same people who have ignored the problem for decades.
We have laws that allow people from foreign countries to attain citizenship legally. Occasionally there is news about new citizens. I actually attended one of these naturalization ceremonies in 1973 when my wife became a U.S. citizen. These people did what the law required. Just because we are so close to Mexico and South America it has become a problem with the politicians ignoring the people crossing the border and living here illegally. Businesses are to blame also for employing illegals for cheap wages.
Every politician from both parties is afraid to do anything about the problem because it will offend the Hispanic population. How ridiculous that is to let laws continue to be ignored. Obeying political correctness so we don't offend any minority is an epidemic in this country. We need someone who will actually do something about this problem, which is beyond critical as this point.
No other candidate is willing to address the problem and offer a solution. Amnesty for the illegals would cause a backlash of gigantic proportions and is a slap in the face of the people who obeyed the law and became U. S. citizens.
Both political parties created this problem and the Democrats won't do anything because the illegals are part of their government-dependency base. Likewise, Republican business owners would lose the cheap labor they provide. There are also the criminals who are shipping in illegal drugs and killing people. We have more than enough of our home grown criminals and don't need any more here illegally.
We definitely need a political outsider to lead this country after the eight years of damage done by the incompetency of the present administration. There are three Republicans who are not career politicians running for President. Hopefully we will chose right this time so this country can be great again and not the Third World country we are headed for.
Letters: A simple immigration policy
Sept. 16, 2015
Updated 12:00 a.m.
By ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
Our country was founded by legal immigrants and could be destroyed by illegal immigrants.
According to a study conducted by the Federation of America Immigration Reform, the cost of harboring illegal immigrants in the United States is a staggering $113 billion a year – an average of $1,117 for every household in America – and it is growing rapidly. Supporting illegal immigrants has caused our country to become almost insolvent.
I have read many of the expensive strategies proposed by our presidential candidates to keep illegal immigrants out of this country. However, they will only put us in more debt, and are not assured to be very effective.
We all know that illegal immigrants come to this country to improve their way of life. They all seek benefits without payments, better living conditions and employment. All the benefits that they receive are too numerous to mention. I have an inexpensive solution to solve the problem of illegal immigrants entering this country: Discontinue all illegal immigrant benefits.
Any landlord that rents an apartment to an illegal immigrant will be severely punished financially. Any tenant that allows illegal immigrants to move into their residence will be severely punished financially. Any employer that hires an illegal immigrant will be severely punished financially.
This will take away most of the incentives for immigrants to enter this country illegally and is not expensive to implement. I don’t know why none of the presidential candidates have mentioned this as opposed to building a wall and providing man power to service the wall which will be very expensive and not assured to keep illegal immigrants out of this country. It appears so simple. Am I missing something?
Comment on “We need to tell modern immigrants’ stories”
By Dave Francis, Daily reader September 16, 2015
All of the presidential candidates have little to say about the illegal immigrant problem. They are all close-mouthed and probably scared of their own shadows.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is completely different from the pack. He is not hindered in saying anything true — and that is exactly what people want to hear. Rhetoric is finally old hat, and the majority of the population is not listening to it anymore. They want change!
Trump’s greatest benefit to average Americans is that no one can buy his loyalty. … We want a true outsider who is not looking for a handout to fill campaign or personal bank accounts.
I believe Trump will bring back all the jobs to our country again — jobs for every genuine new American and jobs for people who have given up and can hardly put food on the table. … No matter who you are, as long as you’re here in the United States legally, then you will be eligible for a job. …
It’s about time employers were held more accountable for hiring illegal workers. … Every American of any race, color or religion should be first for any job. …
Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, testified before the House Oversight Committee a few weeks ago. He said that the agency only controls approximately 40 percent of the border between the United States and Mexico. … Before that committee, border patrol agents testified about the brutal conditions facing them. …
Why are so many of our tax dollars spent to defend foreign countries? American citizens should be able to travel highways in southern Arizona without fearing for their lives.
Letter: Government should penalizes those who hire illegal immigrants
By MLive/Jackson Citizen Patriot opinion
on September 16, 2015 at 9:55 AM, updated September 16, 2015 at 9:59 AM
With all the supposedly intelligent politicians in Washington, I am amazed at all the talk about building a wall at the border between the United States and Mexico.
One need only look at the map and recognize that the Gulf of Mexico provides and easy way to go around the end of any wall, fence, ditch, etc.
Our government needs to arrest and penalize any American or American business which hires an illegal immigrant.
They should charge the culprit and then send the illegal person back to Mexico or any other home country.
It can't solve the problem overnight, but it should be an ongoing procedure. This is a country of laws which attempts to safeguard its citizens. I fought in WWII for just that purpose.
William W. Harper / Jackson
SEPTEMBER 15, 2015
A nation is defined by borders, culture, language. Without borders, our nation is vulnerable to the influx of illegal immigrants, who will bring drugs, cause crimes and cause deaths by autos, destroying the identity of our country.
Our nation is in the process of this transition. Our Judeo-Christian culture is under attack from without and from within. Illegal immigrants are coming to America, setting up their own enclaves, refusing to blend in with the American mosaic.
Years ago, immigrants would come to our country and would become part of our communities. This is not so today.
For years, English was the preferred language in our country — not so today. I have seen notes from providers that can be in five languages. Is this the modern-day Tower of Babel? If we are not willing to fight for the values that made America great, we will become a Third World nation — our demise is imminent.
The Jamestown Sun
Trump may be right about children of undocumented immigrants
By Roland Riemers from Grand Forks Today at [September 14, 2015] 6:32 a.m.
Donald Trump has stated that babies of illegal immigrants should not be considered citizens. I believe he is right.
The current legal standard is based on the 1898 case of U.S. v. Wong. Wong was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were legally residents there but not U.S. citizens. The Supreme Court ruled Wong was a born U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment.
This ruling is often used as the basis for claiming anyone born here is now a citizen. But that is not what the ruling says. Under the 14th Amendment, parents have to be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., and Wong’s parents met that requirement easily. But not so with modern “anchor babies” whose parents are not legal residents of the U.S.
So, how do we fix this? Congress is free to define wording to give effect to the constitutional provision, “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” and has attempted to do so with the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009 and 2011, but neither bill was even discussed in Congress.
While I am not a Trump supporter, it does appear that once again Trump may be proven right while the majority are again proven wrong.
(Riemers is chairman of the North Dakota Libertarian Party.)
Record & Landmark
LETTER: Amnesty is wrong for illegal immigrants
Posted: Monday, September 14, 2015 3:03 pm
In response to “Another View” in Monday’s Statesville R&L, the “Balancing opportunity and border control," did anyone question why people are fleeing their own country to come here? Might the reason be they did not want to follow their country’s laws? Could it be they did not like being told what to do in their own country? And with that kind of attitude, not liking their own country’s laws, why would American citizens not expect them to follow the laws of United States? And that is the problem, is it not?
The article says, “Trump’s solution might sound simple, but it isn’t, and he undoubtedly knows it. So why does he say it? He says it because it resonates with a large segment of the American public.” And I believe the paper’s statement is correct. But it gets complicated when the care of their children becomes a weapon of choice by those that do not want to fight for or follow our laws. Some say the children are our future, and it takes a village to raise a child!
OK, if those children are our future, what are we teaching them when exceptions to our laws are being made? Aren’t the illegal parents, who are now responsible for their American kids, being held responsible? It becomes simple if illegal aliens become legal, through existing laws, for their American children's sake. See? Simple! Amnesty becomes a get-out-of-jail card for illegal aliens and a bad example of becoming a law-abiding American citizen.
Troy D. Reed
Published: September 14, 2015
Immigration's environmental cost
In the discussion of immigration, the environmental cost is seldom addressed. Every year we add 1 million legal immigrants to our population. In less than five years, that is like adding another "Colorado." The impact of a million initial immigrants is misleading as they reproduce and eventually become 2 million. The number of illegal aliens in the United States is guessed at11 million. That is as great as the population of Washington and Oregon.
Our population is 320 million. The Census Bureau estimates at current immigration rates we will have 399 million by 2050. Its high estimate is 458 million. Compare these increases to just 323,000,000 with zero immigration.
So what is the environmental cost of immigration? The loss of wildlife habitat, agricultural land and open space is especially great. Every hour of every day we lose 50 acres of farm and ranch lands to development. Between 1982 and 2010, we lost 24 million acres of agricultural land to urban sprawl, highways and malls to accommodate our growing population. Increased demands for water is a serious problem difficult to solve. Pollution, carbon footprint and energy demands increase with population increases.
Few in power care about the environmental cost of immigration. The Republicans want cheap labor and associated campaign contributions. The Democrats want the votes from Third World immigrants. Environmental groups are no longer opposed to immigration for the same reason.
If we don't reduce immigration the environmental cost will be huge. We need to end the anchor baby hedge, stop 'chain immigration', secure our southern border, crack down on expired visas, and reduce legal immigration to no more than 100,000. Unless the average American rises up against our policy of massive immigration, I see no hope for the long-term quality of our environment.
A GANNETT COMPANY
Letters to the editor, Sept. 15: Donald Trump
11:10 p.m. CDT September 13, 2015
Readers sound off on Donald Trump's presidential run.
Trump seeks greatness
The authors of the Tennessee Voices article bashing Donald Trump on immigration were not truthful in their representation of Trump’s stance on the subject. The first sentence in the article states that “Trump and his anti-immigrant rhetoric” should be rejected by Nashvillians.
I would agree with authors Dorn, Breen and Turner if this were a true statement, but it is not.
Mr. Trump has repeatedly said that he loves immigrants from all countries, but immigrants to this country should obey the laws of the United States. The fact is that illegal immigrants are in this country because they broke the law.
Left-wing politicians and liberals state that we are a country of laws, but they want to pick and choose the laws they wish to enforce.
If the immigration laws that are now in place had been enforced, and our sovereign borders were secure, we would not have the massive influx of illegal immigrants, which is unfair to all citizens, especially those that played by the rules and immigrated to the United States legally.
Trump is sending a message that is resonating all across this land and it is time to “Make America Great Again."
By Mark Krikorian, Center for Immigration Studies, September 16, 2015
Participants in the two Republican debates later today are certain to be asked about their views on illegal immigration and the Middle Eastern refugee crisis. The answers are not difficult, and yet one candidate after another flubs them. Here's a template for answering the first question, with the second to follow.
Actually fixing immigration will be hard work, but explaining it isn't – or shouldn't be. And yet, from Trump's saying whatever pops into his head, to Carson's frivolous assurance that he would seal the border within a single year, to Jeb's detailed plan to enforce the rules after amnestying all the illegals, and to the clichéd boasts by the rest that they will "secure the border," the candidates' responses to illegal immigration queries do not speak well to their political skills.
At the risk of sounding like a middle-school English teacher, they need to introduce the problem, offer three concrete solutions that are understandable, hold together, and make sense both politically and as policy, and then conclude by showing how they point to the future:
Well, Hugh, I'm glad you asked that question. Until we have in place an enforcement system that will prevent the settlement of another 12 million illegal aliens, we're not even going to talk about what to do with the ones already here. We're not going to amnesty them and we're not going to launch a dragnet to find them. If they're arrested for something else, I'll make sure we have resources in place to deport them, but in the meantime my administration would focus on the three things we need to have in place before we even talk about the illegals already here.
First, we need nationwide E-Verify, so when a company hires somebody, and is filling out the paperwork for Social Security and the IRS, they also check, using this free online system, whether the new employee is telling the truth about who they are. The system's already in place, it's used millions of times every year, including by the great folks at (insert name of company in your state), and unlike the Obamacare website, it actually works. But it's optional now and needs to be rolled out nationwide, so that all our businesses and workers are playing on an even playing field.
Second, we need a check-out system for foreign visitors. One thousand new illegal aliens will settle in our country today, and most of them will have come in legally on some kind of visa, but just stayed when their time was up. Better fencing at the border won't fix that. Right now, we're pretty good at checking people into our country, but after that, it's the honor system. Heck, we don't even send a text message thanking them for visiting our country and reminding them to make sure they head home on time.
Finally, we need to undo the damage President Obama has done to law enforcement. For state and local police (insert reference to your state here), the ability to partner with immigration authorities is vital to public safety. And yet this president has dismantled the arrangements between local cops and immigration agents, winked at sanctuary cities, and even punished towns and states that have tried to do the right thing.
Once those three goals are met – not on paper in Washington, but in fact, in the real world – then we'll take another look at the illegal immigrants already here. And there's likely to be a lot fewer of them, simply owing to attrition. In fact, of the illegals here today, fully two and a half million have moved here since President Obama was inaugurated. If he had just done his job, this whole problem would be much smaller and less wrenching. In a (fill in name) administration, we will finally work our way out of this mess.
It's a little long for a debate response when there are eleven people on the stage, but even in abbreviated form it's concrete, coherent, and concise.
The current debate on border security centers around fencing and walls. Other security measures are also being proposed, such as advanced electronic surveillance technology, advocated by Glenn Spencer of American Border Patrol. In a letter addressed to presidential candidate Jeb Bush, Northwest talk show host Lars Larson makes a great case for strong fences as used successfully in Israel.
An open letter to Jeb Bush, from Lars Larson
August 27, 2015
In a country that has seen really great leaders, you bring new meaning to “bush league”.
Let me be specific in my criticism beginning with your latest statement on our border invasion.
“You can’t build a wall and solve this problem…it’s not practical, and it’s not conservative. I don’t think we should spend hundreds of billions of dollars with an impractical solution.” (Breitbart 26 August, 2015) Jeb….can I call you Jeb? I understand you’re trying to avoid unfortunate connections to the B word.
Not only can we build a wall, we must build a wall. It’s feasible, fair and fiscally responsible. Let me explain it to you in simple terms since you either lack the information or are allowing your establishment GOP inclinations override common sense for those in our party who cash in big time on all that cheap labor.
Israel has done it. If a tiny country that is our greatest ally can get it done, please explain to me why a man seeking the most powerful office in the world starts off by declaring what we “can’t” do?
I’ve been pushing this idea since my second visit to Israel in 2005 when I got the chance to see most of their wall from a helicopter. Yet today I hear almost no mention of it by American politicians, even though I’ve mentioned it to dozens of them and have talked about it extensively on my show.
Here’s how quickly Israel put up a barrier against real terrorists:
(Wiki) In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak approved financing of a 74 km (46 mi) fence between the Wadi Ara region and Latrun. In 2001, a grass roots organization called “Fence for Life – The Public Movement for The Security Fence” urged the government to build a fence to separate the Palestinian territories from Israeli population centers. By 2003, 180 km (112 mi) had been completed and in 2004, Israel started the southern part of the barrier. By 2006, 362 km (224.9 mi) of the barrier had been completed, 88 km (54.7 mi) was under construction. By 2012, 440 km (273.4 mi) (62%) of the barrier had been completed, 57 km (35.4 mi) (8%) was under construction.
Unfortunately nearly every Democrat Party member, aided and abetted by “you can’t build a wall” establishment Republicans like you, declare that illegal aliens will just “buy taller ladders”. It’s a simplistic, stupid argument not backed up by facts, which I understand coming from Ds, but why from YOU?
Before I get to the costs and benefits, let’s talk about what it did for a country like Israel facing hundreds killed every year by determined terrorists.
(Wiki) “The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Israel Security Agency report that in 2002, there were 452 fatalities from terrorist attacks. Before the completion of the first continuous segment (July 2003) from the beginning of the Second Intifada, 73 Palestinian suicide bombings were carried out from the West Bank, killing 293 Israelis and injuring over 1,900. After the completion of the first continuous segment through the end of 2006, there were only 12 attacks based in the West Bank, killing 64 people and wounding 445. Terrorist attacks declined in 2007 and 2008 to 9 in 2010.
If a fence is that affective against terrorists, how do you think it will work against low skilled workers (“doing the jobs Americans won’t do” to quote the canard used by RINO politicians)?
You have expressed concern that in some cases, a barrier would leave people separated in some communities and impede economic activity. The same was true in Israel but I’ve seen the security gates that allow law abiding Palestinians to cross (in one specific example I remember from my visit ten years ago, a farmer who lived on the West Bank of the Jordan who would cross regularly to work his olive orchards on his land on the other side of the fence). A fence lets both sides decide who comes in legitimately
Now about the cost: Israel has a barrier 422 miles long (680 Kilometers) that cost about $2M per Kilometer. Call it 1.3 billion dollars. America needs a barrier roughly five times a long. Hundreds of miles of the fence have already been built, but even assuming we had to build 2,000 miles (3,000 km) of brand new barrier, that would cost about $6B. Now assume that because it’s built by our oh-so-efficient government, let’s double the cost (call it $12B) and then because it would be constructed with Davis Bacon union labor, add 50%. Round it up to $20B.
For 2.5% of the great Barack Obama’s 2009 “stimulus” we could have it built. Put it out to bid to be started in five different locations by five different companies and get it done in less than the 8 years it took the Israelis. Hell, hire both Halliburton and Bechtel to keep the left and right happy here.
What does America get for this expenditure of $20B (one half of one percent of the current federal budget or one tenth of one percent of the federal budget over the five years such a project might take)?
Let me get to that right after I dispense with the problem no American politician (Congressmen King and Gohmert and the great Sen Jeff Sessions excepted) has been able to tackle.
Frankly, it’s easy (remember that Gov. “Can’t”).
Require every American company e-verify its entire workforce. It’s illegal to employ no green card illegals, but for starters, use Iowa Congressman Steve King’s idea: if you’re not a legal worker, your wages are not deductible at tax time. Raids and criminal charges take forever. The IRS decree would act instantly on every company.
Read the rest of the article online at: http://larslarson.com/an-open-letter-to-jeb-bush/
Birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment, anchor babies and illegal immigration are dominating the news.
Donald Trump has opened the discussion even more when he called for the denial of automatic citizenship for anchor babies. Even Jeb Bush, an open border and amnesty advocate, has denounced the practice.
The article below by Colin McNickle is an insightful look into the issue. All OFIR members should read the article and learn what’s true and what’s not true about birthright citizenship.
Wong does not make a birthright for illegal aliens
By Colin McNickle, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (Greensburg, Pa.)
August 24, 2015
The firestorm that has erupted anew over "birthright citizenship" exposes the manifest dangers of constitutional ignorance. Not Donald Trump's but that of his critics who have shown remarkable reading incomprehension regarding the Constitution and the Supreme Court case they so regularly cite in defense of their position.
A diverse chattering class of liberals, "progressives," conservatives and even, remarkably, libertarians pounced on Mr. Trump when he said that the children of illegal aliens born in the United States are not, under the 14th Amendment, automatically citizens of the United States.
Fox News host Bill O'Reilly, for one, would have none of that. "If you are born here, you're an American, period," he said, sparring with Trump, one of the gaggle of Republican presidential contenders. Later, Mr. O'Reilly, as have many others, cited United States v. Wong Kim Ark, decided by the Supreme Court in 1898.
As the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court notes, at issue in Wong was the citizenship status of those of Chinese descent. An 1882 law already had barred Chinese from becoming naturalized citizens; "exclusionists" sought to bar them from birthright citizenship as well (based on the nationality of their parents and not the place of their birth).
Wong Kim Ark was born to Chinese parents in San Francisco in 1873. But, later, following a trip to China, he was denied readmission to the United States. "The government argued that Wong Kim Ark was not a citizen because his Chinese parents made him subject to the emperor of China."
The logic was tortured. Nonetheless, its essence, properly employed, goes to the heart of the 14th Amendment:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof (emphasis added), are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
The high court, citing not only common law but the 14th Amendment, ruled 6-2 that citizenship was guaranteed to all persons born in the United States, regardless of their heritage.
So, case closed, right? The Supreme Court ruled birthright citizenship is the law of the land for all, right? The Donald Trump argument is populist pap and for naught, right?
Well, not exactly.
The Wong case involved the child of legal resident aliens. "The Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the question of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens," wrote Lino A. Graglia, a University of Texas law professor, in a seminal 2010 white paper.
And illegal aliens clearly are subject to the jurisdiction of the country whence they came.
But what about the common law component of the court's Wong decision?
"The court recognized that even a rule based on soil and physical presence could not rationally be applied to grant birthright citizenship to persons whose presence in a country was not only without the government's consent but in violation of the law,"
Professor Graglia wrote. A number of constitutional scholars -- from Graglia, to Yale law professor Peter Schuck, to Gerald Posner -- say Congress can and should act -- without repealing or amending the 14th Amendment -- to end the absurdity of constitutionally warrantless birthright citizenship for illegal aliens, citizenship that's wholly unsupported in case law.
After all, the Constitution "should not be interpreted to require an absurdity," Graglia concluded. And it need not be. Because it doesn't.
Colin McNickle is Trib Total Media's director of editorial pages.
Published in the Aug. 8 edition of the Oregon Catalyst, State Rep. Mike Nearman, also an OFIR Board member calls out the Oregon Attorney General for her work in creating the most confusing ballot title ever for the Official English initiative.
The language has been challenged to the Supreme Court. We'll see what the Supreme Court does with it. Please stand by.
Blog post by Fred Elbel on July 16, 2015
I came across a nearly unbelievable news item, the article The Political Persecution of Dinesh D’Souza by Pamela Gellar, Breitbart, July 15, 2015. Even if I didn't know who Dinesh D'Souza is, the article would send shivers down my spine. But I do know who he is.
I wish, sometimes, I were a low-information voter, content to watch sitcom reruns and vote the party line. Ignorance is bliss, as they say. But, I'm not a low-information voter, which makes the news article even more troubling.
Dinesh D'Souza's movie, “America, Imagine a World Without Her” was co-produced by Gerald Molen, Academy-award winning producer of "Schindler's List". I wrote a review of the movie which states in part:
“America, Imagine a World Without Her” asks us to imagine that George Washington had been killed by a sniper's bullet. He asks us to "imagine the unimaginable - what would the world be like if America did not exist?" The movie asks: would the world suffer the loss of a great nation or would it a better place without an imperialist, racist nation?
He also wrote a number of books, including the best-selling books,The Roots of Obama’s Rage, which was described as the most influential political book of the year, and America: Imagine a World without Her - a rebuttal of the progressive shame narrative of American history.
D'Souza produced the movie "2016: Obama's America", in which he asks (in 2012), "If Obama wins a second term, where will we be in 2016?" Now we know.
D'Souza apparently ticked off the wrong powerful leftist elites with his exposes.
He admittedly made a mistake. On May 20, 2014, D'Souza pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court to a charge of using "straw donors" to make political campaign donations. He was sentenced to eight months in a halfway house, five years probation, and a $30,000 fine. But It doesn't end there. He's now been sentenced to five years of "therapeutic counseling".
From the article Fox News: Fed Judge Orders Psych Counseling For D'Souza, Fox News, July 15, 2015:
A federal judge has ordered Dinesh D’Souza to undergo ongoing psychological counseling, despite two psychologists already clearing him.
U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman told D’Souza that he considers his violation of federal campaign finance laws to be evidence of a psychological problem and ordered further counseling.
D’Souza said the judge already ordered him to complete eight months of counseling and once he finished, the judge said it wasn’t adequate.
D’Souza added that a prominent New York psychiatrist also “certified that he was perfectly normal” and provided a written statement to the court concluding there was no need to continue the consultation.
But Berman, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, overruled the judgment of the two licensed psychologists.
Berman emphasized that D'Souza “to do eight hours each week for the entire five years he’s on probation and not just the eight months he was confined to a halfway house.” That's 1.6 hours every weekday for the next five years. Even mass murderers aren't sentenced to that much therapy, which in this case, amounts to court-imposed brainwashing.
Geller writes in her article The Political Persecution of Dinesh D’Souza:
...The idea that Dinesh D’Souza would be hounded and punished for something that Democrats do every day – that’s the point...
The idea that Dinesh would have to undergo psychological counseling is Maoist. It’s what Mao Zedong did to intellectuals and political dissidents in China. And as could have been predicted by anyone who is aware of how totalitarians have used psychology as a weapon, the psychological counseling hasn’t gone well. On Monday, Judge Berman “read aloud a report from a court-appointed psychologist who called D’Souza ‘arrogant’ and ‘intolerant of others’ feelings.’”...
Since when did being “arrogant and intolerant” – that according to a court-appointed psychologist – become a crime? The psychologist also claimed that “the client tends to deny problems and isn’t very introspective.” If that were a crime, Barack Obama should be serving a life sentence. If being arrogant and intolerant were a crime, you’d have to arrest the entire mainstream media.
Where is the outcry? Where is America? I don’t care if the enemedia isn’t writing about it. Where are decent Americans? It’s chilling. If Dinesh D’Souza is psychologically damaged in some serious way, so are millions of conservative Americans. And that’s the insidious point of his “therapeutic counseling.”
The persecution of Dinesh D’Souza is the latest manifestation of a disturbing new trend in American politics...
The use of the legal system to persecute political opponents is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes. This is how low the Obama administration has sunk...
Geller is spot-on. And, by the way, so is D'Souza.
Fred Elbel is Director of the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform - CAIRCO.
by Michael Cutler - former INS Special Agent Published in the Daily Caller July 10, 2015
The mere idea of providing illegal aliens with “protection” from federal law enforcement agents flies in the face of reason and commonsense.
From the steps of the Oregon State Capitol, hundreds of enthusiastic grassroots activists listened to Sheriff Arpaio, who hails from Maricopa County, Arizona.
Many other speakers addressed many topics: the legislative mis-use of the emergency clause, government transparency, 2nd amendment rights, voter fraud, limited taxation, immigration and 2 new initiatives being advanced and much more throughout the sweltering afternoon.
A disruptive, rude and obnoxious crowd across the street used bull horns, whistles and chants to disrupt the rally - but to no avail.
View photos of the rally with Sheriff Joe.