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.

Help citizens or illegal aliens?

 
All students should have an opportunity to attend college, says Pamela Prosise in her op-ed in the Statesman Journal, June 30. She advocates extending to illegal aliens the benefit of publicly-funded tuition assistance  (Oregon Opportunity Grants), as called for in Senate Bill 932 now pending in the Legislature.
 
Note that Ms. Prosise is a retired teacher of English to students who come into the school system not speaking English. Teachers of English language learners, along with many other persons in the educational system, have a vested interest in a large supply of foreign students who need English-language instruction.  Teachers’ unions and associated unions made large contributions to Yes on Oregon Safe Roads, the political action group (SOS Orestar i.d. no.16889) supporting Measure 88 which would have extended the benefit of official driver cards to illegal aliens. See these amounts given in 2014 to the YES on Oregon Safe Roads campaign:
 
American Federation of Teachers – Oregon Issue PAC (5486) - $5,000 
Oregon AFL-CIO - $703
Oregon AFSCME Council (75) - $12,500
School Employees Exercising Democracy (249) - $20,000 
SEIU Local 503 - $100,000
SEIU Local 49 Committee on Political Education (4213) -  $20,000
 
To see all contribution and expense records for the Yes on Oregon Safe Roads campaign, click here. The day-by-day reports of financial transactions (receipts and expenditures) of YOSR show names of contributors and amounts they have contributed.  A summary record is available here; to see 2014 summary, click on the “Prev” link.
 
You can view here the 2014 summary records for the Protect Oregon Driver Licenses campaign. Detail of contributions is here.
 
Ms. Prosise disdains use of the term illegal alien, which is the correct legal term defining persons who are present in this country in violation of U.S. immigration laws, usually by sneaking across borders via clandestine means, or knowingly overstaying the allotted time of their visas. 
 
In her arguments for extending tax-paid tuition assistance to illegal alien students, Ms. Prosise is so narrowly focused that she does not see the consequences of open borders.  She apparently believes national boundaries are unnecessary, undesirable, and we should not attempt to maintain them.
 
She acknowledges no difference between citizens and non-citizens, nor between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants.
 
She is blind to the history of this country which was built by mostly law-abiding, patriotic citizens, many of whom gave their lives in wars to establish and maintain the country.  For over two  centuries, honesty and fair play characterized the lives of most citizens, resulting in a prosperous country with political freedom and a good quality of life -- until recent decades when massive waves of illegal and legal immigration began to destabilize society here. We now see large multinational business corporations increasing their political power, thriving on the cheap labor provided by high levels of immigration. Also, many smaller businesses cheat Americans by encouraging illegal immigration and profiting from the depressed wages that follow.
 
The path Ms. Prosise advocates would be disastrous for Oregon and this country.  Most citizens understand this instinctively.  They were not “misled” by the Referendum on driver licenses for illegal aliens.  They voted for their own interests, and for the preservation of our country.  The purpose of immigration laws is to protect the interests of citizens. All advanced countries have immigration laws, and those that don’t enforce their immigration laws face ever-increasing chaos.
 

Sheriff Arpaio speaks at grassroots rally in Salem

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.

 

 

Facebook founder promotes illegal immigration

 
Facebook, the social media program, is wildly popular, but how many users know that the billionaire head of the company that runs Facebook is a leading promoter and cheerleader for illegal immigration?  Maybe there are other programs that could be used instead of Facebook?
 
Mark Zuckerberg, like some other illegal alien cheerleaders, depends on the stability and honesty of U.S. institutions to protect his business and his wealth, while undermining these institutions with his campaign on behalf of illegal aliens.
 
Here, Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, discusses the illogic of Zuckerberg’s actions and the damage Zuckerberg is doing to this country.
 
-------------
Zuckerberg Continues To Promote, Encourage And Reward Illegal Immigration
 
June 18, 2015, By Dan Stein, President, Federation for American Immigration Reform
 
Mark Zuckerberg and his wife are giving $5 million to something called “TheDREAM.US” scholarship fund. This is pocket change to Zuckerberg, but his decision to give to a fund that gives only to illegal aliens underscores everything that’s wrong with Zuckerberg’s approach.
 
To get the money, you must have broken the law and be here in violation of federal law. To quality you must be a citizen of a country other than the United States. To qualify, your parents must have evaded detection and deportation over several years. To qualify, you cannot be someone patiently waiting outside the U.S. and respecting our borders and law.  You must be a line-jumper and law breaker whose parents are scamming the system and taxpayer.
 
The Facebook founder says “We ought to welcome smart and hardworking young people from every nation, and to help everyone in our society achieve their (sic) full potential.”
 
Isn’t it possible someone could reach their full potential in their home country – the country where the person is regarded as a citizen? What is accomplished by explicitly discriminating against American citizens?
 
Zuckerberg himself relies upon respect for law in his own personal and commercial affairs. He benefits by living within a civil society in which the rule of law prevails. All his property relies upon civil protections that ensure title to his land, stock and vast wealth is protected from theft.
 
Yet Zuckerberg thumbs his nose at the borders, and chooses to encourage and reward lawbreaking at the expense of our common understandings of fair play and justice in order to curry favor with a political constituency and make his “cheap labor” grab appear high-minded. What gives him the right to pick and choose and make those moral judgments for the rest of us.
 
For disadvantaged Americans who can trace through their ancestry generations of sacrifice and suffering to build this nation, this kind of arrogance is a bitter pill to swallow.
 
 
 

Ann Coulter questions media's news coverage of immigration

Read Ann Coulter's letter in the Human Events publication and learn why we never seem to hear any bad news about immigrants.  Ann cuts right to the heart of it.
 

Not everything is an emergency

Please read the Guest Column written by Oregon Senator Betsy Johnson, (D–Scappoose) that appeared in the Daily Astorian newspaper.

Senator Johnson exposes the misuse of the “emergency clause” by the Oregon Legislature.  She uses the vote on Measure 88 as the prime example of why bills should not have an emergency clause unless there is a true emergency.

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

Guest Column: Not everything is an emergency

By State Sen. Betsy Johnson

Published: May 21, 2015

Any law with an emergency clause is protected from the people’s veto power.

The Oregon Legislature is beginning to resemble a 9-1-1 call center. Almost everything is an emergency.

Increasingly these are the words you find in the House and Senate bills coming out of the Legislature: “An emergency is declared to exist, and this act takes effect on its passage.”

Any law with an emergency clause is protected from the people’s veto power. Voters cannot challenge it through the referendum process.

You might be surprised what constitutes an emergency. In this session so far, it includes bills like “banning the box,” which makes it unlawful for employers to ask job applicants to check a box if they’ve been convicted of a felony. Why would ex-felons’ job hunts constitute an emergency? There are many non-felons who endure extended job searches.

Or how about the “motor voter” law, HB 2177, which automatically registers licensed drivers to vote. What kind of an emergency exists that requires drivers to be automatically registered to vote?

Then there’s the recently approved gun law, SB 941, which requires licensed gun dealers to conduct background checks for private sales of legal firearms. (If you buy or sell on the black market, you’re exempt from this emergency.)

Soon to come is SB 822, an emergency bill requested by criminal defense attorneys, who want grand jury proceedings tape-recorded. Criminal defense attorneys, apparently, can’t wait to find out the identities of victims and witnesses.

At the rate we’re going, all bills will be deemed emergency acts. It will become routine. Perhaps that’s the point. If citizens complain that a controversial bill has been labeled an emergency to protect it from the people’s veto power, legislators can quell any suspicion by simply saying, “Most bills have an emergency clause.”

Voters still have some constitutional protection. Tax bills, for example, cannot be enacted as an emergency.

If you’re a citizen curious about the number of bills that were passed as emergencies in the last regular session, the information may not be readily available. If you call the legislative assembly office, they may direct you to the state legislature’s website and a section called “Citizen Engagement.”

There you’ll find a 190-page document called the “2013 Summary of Legislation.” One caller I know prowled through that, read the brief descriptions and effective dates of each bill that passed, and found that about half of the roughly 300 bills listed there were emergencies.

One bill that slipped through without an emergency clause was SB 833, and its fate is a lesson in why referendum power is important.

SB 833 allowed illegal immigrants to obtain driver cards. Since it wasn’t an emergency, opponents had 90 days after the end of the legislative session to exercise the power of referendum. They collected enough signatures from qualified voters and forced SB 833 onto the November 2014 ballot. As Ballot Measure 88, voters rejected driver cards for illegal immigrants by almost a 2-to-1 margin.

The people’s veto power exists for a reason. It serves as a check on legislators who can become so focused on what happens inside the state Capitol building that they forget there’s an entire state outside the door.

We work in a grand, majestic building. It’s open to the public. But once the legislature is in session, a legislator’s time is often consumed talking to other legislators and lobbyists. We don’t always notice things like emergency clauses and whether they are really needed. Some of my bills have carried emergency clauses.

Our state’s frequent use of the emergency clause is not unique.

Former Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire, concerned about similar abuse in her state, began vetoing emergency clauses on bills, leaving intact the rest of the legislation. One of her first such vetoes was an emergency clause on a bill adding porphyria to the list of disabilities for special parking privileges.

The Olympian newspaper praised her in an editorial: “The Legislature’s overuse of the emergency clause should incense the public because it takes away their right to reject laws adopted by the Legislature. Where’s the outrage?”

Oregon’s constitution also allows the governor to veto an emergency provision in new bills without affecting the rest of the bill.

Governor Kate Brown should use this power. As Secretary of State, she pushed for the “motor voter” bill, ostensibly to make it easier for more voters to exercise their right to vote.

The emergency clause does exactly the opposite.

It takes away the people’s right to vote.

Betsy Johnson, D-Scappoose, represents District 16, covering Clatsop and Columbia counties and parts of Multnomah, Tillamook and Washington.

The people’s veto power exists for a reason.

http://www.dailyastorian.com/columns/20150521/guest-column-not-everythin...

From:  The DailyAstorian

THE COLUMBIA-PACIFIC REGION’S NEWS SOURCE SINCE 1873

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.
 

Pages