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.

ICE officers face grave danger in their work

ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents are on the front lines of national security in guarding citizens from those immigrants, illegal and legal, who come here to kill, create chaos, and weaken this country, or commit other crimes.

A new bulletin from ICE, excerpted below, describes the human smuggling racket in unforgettable detail, giving photographs.  ICE officers deal with this challenge daily.

Although Pres. Trump promised to improve immigration enforcement drastically, the ICE agents’ union is justifiably disturbed by the slow pace and the continuing influence of hold-over employees and supervisors from the previous Administration who are dragging their feet, undermining enforcement, and making the job of ICE agents unacceptably, unnecessarily dangerous.   See the report by Stephen Dinan of the Washington Times, “ICE agents rebel, say Trump ‘betrayed’ them by retaining Obama’s people.”

Below is an excerpt from the ICE bulletin on human smuggling.  Unfortunately, we don’t learn much about these important issues in the general media.

Human Smuggling Equals Grave Danger, Big Money

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sent this bulletin at 11/15/2017 01:54 PM EST

Moving human beings as cargo pays in the billions of dollars for transnational criminal smuggling organizations.

Human smuggling is the illegal importation of people into a country via the deliberate evasion of immigration laws. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) serves as the leading U.S. law enforcement agency responsible for the fight against human smuggling.

“They have no concern for humanity, none; it’s a money business,” said Jack Staton, acting special agent in charge for ICE Homeland Security Investigations El Paso, Texas, “they look at people as merchandise, as a way to make money.”

Staton most often encounters individuals crossing from the Juárez, Mexico area, into Texas and New Mexico.

Individuals seeking covert entry into the United States know they need to pay an organization for transport. Smuggling organizations, often associated with other transnational criminal organizations and able to take advantage of people in desperate circumstances, provide that transportation at a significant cost.

Human smuggling on the southwest border of the U.S. is a daily occurrence.

“The Rio Grande Valley is the busiest area for human smuggling activity in the U.S. right now,” said Staton, “from San Diego, California, to Brownsville, Texas, there is activity every day.”

Human smuggling operates as a contract business; an understanding exists among transnational criminal organizations, smugglers and individuals seeking transport that trying to cross the border independently is not an option. Smugglers escort the illegal aliens through the desert, across the border, to stash houses and onto their final destinations within the interior of the U.S. A portion of the smuggling fees paid to the transnational criminal organizations helps fuel their other criminal enterprises.

Endless ways exist in which to smuggle human beings and most of them don’t take into account personal safety or comfort.

Smugglers move humans as part of cargo transports, in vehicles, in boats, in tractor-trailers, in box cars on trains and in automobiles and trucks that are transported on trains as cargo. Smugglers also utilize legitimate transportation options such as commercial buses and flights.

Illicit migrants traveling to the U.S. often pay additional fees for certain types of transportation methods; for example, an individual may pay extra money for transport in a tractor-trailer because the chance of making it across the border is greater than on foot. If the trip takes place in the summer, temperatures can easily rise above 100 degrees in the truck and the situation can quickly become dangerous.

Underestimating the potential danger of human smuggling can have a deadly outcome.

Read the rest of the article here.

Absolutely worth the read - and excellent overview of immigration to America

Immigration in the National Interest

October 2017 • Volume 46, Number 10 • Tom Cotton

Tom Cotton
U.S. Senator from Arkansas

Tom Cotton was elected to the U.S. Senate from Arkansas in 2014, following one term in the U.S. House of Representatives. He serves on the Senate Banking Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the Senate Armed Services Committee. A graduate of Harvard College, he studied government at the Claremont Graduate School and received his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 2002. In 2005, he was commissioned as a 2nd Lieutenant in the U.S. Army, rose to 1st Lieutenant, and served deployments in Iraq with the 101st Airborne and in Afghanistan with a Provincial Reconstruction Team. His military decorations include the Bronze Star Medal, Combat Infantry Badge, and Ranger Tab.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on September 18, 2017, in Washington, D.C., at Hillsdale College’s Eighth Annual Constitution Day Celebration.

Last year, for the first time in our nation’s history, the American people elected as president someone with no high government experience—not a senator, not a congressman, not a governor, not a cabinet secretary, not a general. They did this, I believe, because they’ve lost faith in both the competence and the intentions of our governing class—of both parties! Government now takes nearly half of every dollar we earn and bosses us around in every aspect of life, yet can’t deliver basic services well. Our working class—the “forgotten man,” to use the phrase favored by Ronald Reagan and FDR—has seen its wages stagnate, while the four richest counties in America are inside the Washington Beltway. The kids of the working class are those who chiefly fight our seemingly endless wars and police our streets, only to come in for criticism too often from the very elite who sleep under the blanket of security they provide.

Donald Trump understood these things, though I should add he didn’t cause them. His victory was more effect than cause of our present discontents. The multiplying failures and arrogance of our governing class are what created the conditions for his victory.

Immigration is probably the best example of this. President Trump deviated from Republican orthodoxy on several issues, but immigration was the defining issue in which he broke from the bipartisan conventional wisdom. For years, all Democrats and many Republicans have agreed on the outline of what’s commonly called “comprehensive immigration reform,” which is Washington code for amnesty, mass immigration, and open borders in perpetuity.

This approach was embodied most recently in the so-called Gang of Eight bill in 2013. It passed the Senate, but thankfully we killed it in the House, which I consider among my chief accomplishments in Congress so far. Two members of the Gang of Eight ran for my party’s nomination for president last year. Neither won a single statewide primary. Donald Trump denounced the bill, and he won the nomination.

Likewise, Hillary Clinton campaigned not just for mass immigration, but also on a policy of no deportations of anyone, ever, who is illegally present in our country. She also accused her opponent of racism and xenophobia. Yet Donald Trump beat her by winning states that no Republican had won since the 1980s.

Clearly, immigration was an issue of signal importance in the election. That’s because immigration is more than just another issue. It touches upon fundamental questions of citizenship, community, and identity. For too long, a bipartisan, cosmopolitan elite has dismissed the people’s legitimate concerns about these things and put its own interests above the national interest.

No one captured this sensibility better than President Obama, when he famously called himself “a citizen of the world.”  With that phrase, he revealed a deep misunderstanding of citizenship. After all, “citizen” and “city” share the same Greek root word: citizenship by definition means that you belong to a particular political community. Yet many of our elites share Mr. Obama’s sensibility. They believe that American citizenship—real, actual citizenship—is meaningless, ought not be foreclosed to anyone, and ought not be the basis for distinctions between citizens and foreigners. You might say they think American exceptionalism lies in not making exceptions when it comes to citizenship.

This globalist mindset is not only foreign to most Americans. It’s also foreign to the American political tradition.

Take the Declaration of Independence. Our cosmopolitan elites love to cite its stirring passages about the rights of mankind when they talk about immigration or refugees. They’re not wrong to do so. Unlike any other country, America is an idea—but it is not only an idea. America is a real, particular place with real borders and real, flesh-and-blood people. And the Declaration tells us it was so from the very beginning.

Prior to those stirring passages about “unalienable Rights” and “Nature’s God,” in the Declaration’s very first sentence in fact, the Founders say it has become “necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands” that tie them to another—one people, not all people, not citizens of the world, but actual people who make up actual colonies. The Founders frequently use the words we and us throughout the Declaration to describe that people.

Furthermore, on several occasions, the Declaration speaks of “these Colonies” or “these States.” The Founders were concerned about their own circumstances; they owed a duty to their own people who had sent them as representatives to the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia. They weren’t trying to free South America from Spanish or Portuguese dominion, much as they might have opposed that dominion.

Perhaps most notably, the Founders explain towards the end of the Declaration that they had appealed not only to King George for redress, but also to their fellow British citizens, yet those fellow citizens had been “deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity.” Consanguinity!—blood ties! That’s pretty much the opposite of being a citizen of the world.

So while the Declaration is of course a universal document, it’s also a particular document about one nation and one people. Its signers pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to each other, in English, right here in America—not in Esperanto to mankind in the abstract.

The Constitution affirms this concept of American citizenship. It includes only one reference to immigration, where it empowers Congress to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization.” It’s worth pondering a couple points here.

First, what’s that word uniform doing? The Constitution uses the word only three times, when requiring uniform rules for naturalization, bankruptcies, and taxation. These are things that could either knit our Union together or blow it apart—taxation by the central government, the system of credit upon which the free enterprise system depends, and the meaning of citizenship. On these, the Framers insisted upon a uniform, nationwide standard. Diverse habits and laws are suitable for many things in our continental republic, but not for all things. In particular, we can only have “one people” united by a common understanding of citizenship.

Second, the word naturalization implies a process by which foreigners can renounce their former allegiances and become citizens of the United States. They can cast off what accident and force have thrust upon them—race, class, ethnicity—and take on, by reflection and choice, a new title: American. That is a wonderful and beautiful thing, and one of which we are all justly proud. Few Americans love our land so much as the immigrants who’ve escaped the yoke of tyranny.

But our cosmopolitan elites take this to an extreme. They think because anyone can become an American, we’re morally obligated to treat everyone like an American. If you disagree, you’re considered hard-hearted, bigoted, intolerant, xenophobic. So the only policies that aren’t inherently un-American are those that effectively erase our borders and erase the distinction between citizen and foreigner: don’t erect barriers on the border; give sanctuary cities a pass; spare illegal immigrants from deportation; allow American businesses to import as much cheap labor as they want. Anything less, the elites say, is a betrayal of our ideals.

But that’s wrong. Just because you can become an American doesn’t mean you are an American. And it certainly doesn’t mean we must treat you as an American, especially if you don’t play by our rules. After all, in our unique brand of nationalism, which connects our people through our ideas, repudiating our law is kind of like renouncing your blood ties in the monarchical lands of old. And what law is more fundamental to a political community than who gets to become a citizen, under what conditions, and when?

While we wish our fellow man well, it’s only our fellow citizens to whom we have a duty and whose rights our government was created to protect. And among the highest obligations we owe to each other is to ensure that every working American can lead a dignified life. If you look across our history, I’d argue that’s always been the purpose of our immigration system: to create conditions in which normal, hard-working Americans can thrive.

Look no further than what James Madison said on the floor of the House of Representatives in 1790, when the very first Congress was debating our very first naturalization law. He said, “It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours.”  “The worthy part,” not the entire world. Madison continued, “But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community.”

“To increase the wealth and strength of the community.” That’s quite a contrast to today’s elite consensus. Our immigration system shouldn’t exist to serve the interests of foreigners or wealthy Americans. No, it ought to benefit working Americans and serve the national interest—that’s the purpose of immigration and the theme of the story of American immigration.

When open-borders enthusiasts tell that story, it sounds more like a fairy tale. The way they tell it, America at first was a land that accepted all comers without conditions. But then, periodically, the forces of nativism and bigotry reared their ugly head and placed restrictions on who could immigrate. The forces of darkness triumphed, by this telling, with the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924. But they were defeated with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which again opened our shores and is still the law governing our immigration system today. Since 1965, everyone has lived happily ever after.

If I were to grade these storytellers, I would give them an F for history and an A for creative writing. The history of immigration in America is not one of ever-growing tides of huddled masses from the Pilgrims to today. On the contrary, throughout our history, American immigration has followed a surge-and-pause pattern. The first big wave was the Irish and German immigrants in the 1840s and 1850s. Then immigration tapered off during the Civil War. The second big wave was the central and southern European immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. That wave ended with the 1924 Act and the years of lower immigration that followed. And now we’re in the longest wave yet, the surge of immigration from Latin America and East and South Asia, which has followed from the 1965 Act.

In this actual history—not the fairy tale history—the 1924 Act is not an aberration, but an ebb in the regular ebb and flow of immigration to America. After decades of unskilled mass immigration, that law responded by controlling future immigration flows. One result of lower levels of immigration was that it allowed those earlier immigrants to assimilate, learn new skills, and move up the economic ladder, creating the conditions for mass affluence in the post-war era.

Now, there’s no denying that the story of American immigration has its uglier chapters: the Chinese Exclusion Act, the national-origins quota system imposed by the 1924 Act, the indifference to Jews in the 1930s. We ought to remember and learn from this history. One important lesson, though, is this: if the political class had heeded the concerns of working Americans during the second big wave, the 1924 Act would likely have passed earlier and been less restrictionist. The danger lies not in addressing the people’s legitimate, reasonable concerns about immigration, but in ignoring those concerns and slandering the people as bigots.

But then, we shouldn’t be surprised when politicians fail to understand fully the implications of their actions. Take the 1965 Act. That law ended the national-origins quota system, and at the time its importance was minimized. When President Johnson signed it into law, he said, “This bill . . . is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives, or really add importantly to either our wealth or our power.”

How wrong he was.

The economy we’re living in today is in no small part a result of the 1965 Act, which opened the door to mass immigration of unskilled and low-skilled workers, primarily through unlimited family chain migration. And that’s not an economy anyone should be satisfied with.

Today, we have about a million immigrants per year. That’s like adding the population of Montana every year—or the population of Arkansas every three years. But only one in 15—one in 15 of those millions of immigrants—comes here for employment-based reasons. The vast majority come here simply because they happen to be related to someone already here. That’s why, for example, we have more Somalia-born residents than Australia-born residents, even though Australia is nearly twice the size of Somalia and Australians are better prepared, as a general matter, to integrate and assimilate into the American way of life.

In sum, over 36 million immigrants, or 94 percent of the total, have come to America over the last 50 years for reasons having nothing to do with employment. And that’s to say nothing of the over 24 million illegal immigrants who have come here. Put them together and you have 60 million immigrants, legal and illegal, who did not come to this country because of a job offer or because of their skills. That’s like adding almost the entire population of the United Kingdom. And this is still leaving aside the millions of temporary guest workers who we import every year into our country.

Unlike many open-border zealots, I don’t believe the law of supply and demand is magically repealed for the labor markets. That means that our immigration system has been depressing wages for people who work with their hands and on their feet. Wages for Americans with high school diplomas are down two percent since the late 1970s. For Americans who didn’t finish high school, they’re down by a staggering 17 percent. Although immigration has a minimal effect overall on the wages of Americans, it has a severe negative effect on low-skilled workers, minorities, and even recent immigrants.

Is automation to blame in part? Sure. Globalized trade? Yes, of course. But there’s no denying that a steady supply of cheap, unskilled labor has hurt working-class wages as well. Among those three factors, immigration policy is the one that we can control most easily for the benefit of American workers. Yet we’ve done the opposite.

I know the response of open-border enthusiasts: they plead that we need a steady supply of cheap unskilled labor because there are “jobs that no American will do.” But that just isn’t so. There is no job Americans won’t do. In fact, there’s no industry in America in which the majority of workers are not natural-born Americans—not landscapers, not construction workers, not ski instructors, not lifeguards, not resort workers, not childcare workers—not a single job that over-educated elites associate with immigrants. The simple fact is, if the wage is decent and the employer obeys the law, Americans will do any job. And for tough, dangerous, and physically demanding jobs, maybe working folks do deserve a bit of a raise.

“No American will do that job.” Let me just pause for a moment and confess how much I detest that sentiment. In addition to being ignorant of the economic facts, it’s insulting, condescending, and demeaning to our countrymen. Millions of Americans make our hotel beds and build our houses and clean our offices; imagine how they feel when they hear some pampered elite say no American will do their job. And finally, I must say, that sentiment also carries more than a whiff of the very prejudice of which they accuse those concerned about the effects of mass immigration.

But the harmful impact on blue-collar workers isn’t the only problem with the current system. Because we give two-thirds of our green cards to relatives of people here, there are huge backlogs in the system. This forces highly talented immigrants to wait in line for years behind applicants whose only claim to naturalization is a random family connection to someone who happened to get here years ago. We therefore lose out on the very best talent coming into our country—the ultra-high-skilled immigrants who can come to America, stand on their own two feet, pay taxes, and through their entrepreneurial spirit and innovation create more and higher-paying jobs for our citizens.

To put it simply, we have an immigration system that is badly failing Madison’s test of increasing the wealth and strength of the community. It might work to the advantage of a favored few, but not for the common good, and especially not the good of working-class Americans.

This is why I’ve introduced legislation to fix our naturalization system. It’s called the RAISE Act: Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy.

The RAISE Act will correct the flaws in the 1965 Act by reorienting our immigration system towards foreigners who have the most to contribute to our country. It would create a skills-based points system similar to Canada’s and Australia’s. Here’s how it would work. When people apply to immigrate, they’d be given an easy-to-calculate score, on a scale of 0 to 100, based on their education, age, job salary, investment ability, English-language skills, and any extraordinary achievements. Then, twice a year, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services would invite the top scorers to complete their applications, and it would invite enough high-scoring applicants to fill the current 140,000 annual employment-based green-card slots.

We’d still admit spouses and unmarried minor children of citizens and legal permanent residents. But we’d end the preferences for most extended and adult family members—no more unlimited chain migration. We’d also eliminate the so-called diversity visa lottery, which hands out green cards randomly without regard to skills or family connections, and which is plagued by fraud. We’d remove per-country caps on immigration, too, so that high-skilled applicants aren’t shut out of the process simply because of their country of origin. And finally, we’d cap the number of refugees offered permanent residency to 50,000 per year, in line with the recent average for the Bush era and most of the Obama era—and still quite generous.

Add it all up and our annual immigrant pool would be younger, higher-skilled, and ready to contribute to our economy without using welfare, as more than half of immigrant households do today. No longer would we distribute green cards essentially based on random chance. Nor would we import millions of unskilled workers to take jobs from blue-collar Americans and undercut their wages. And over a ten-year period, our annual immigration levels would decrease by half, gradually returning to historical norms.

Given current events, this legislation is timelier than ever. Earlier this month, President Trump announced that he would wind down, over six months, the unconstitutional Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, also known as DACA. President Obama abused his authority with DACA—which purported to give legal status to illegal immigrants who arrived here as children and who are now in their twenties and thirties—because, as we’ve seen, the Constitution reserves to Congress the power to make uniform laws of naturalization.

Because of President Obama’s unlawful action, about 700,000 people are now in a kind of legal limbo. President Trump did the right thing as a matter of law by ending DACA, though as a matter of policy he’d prefer its beneficiaries don’t face deportation. Democrats agree, as do a lot of Republicans. So the question isn’t so much about deportation, but rather if and what kind of compromise Congress can strike.

Here’s where the RAISE Act comes in. We can, if we choose, grant citizenship to those illegal immigrants who came here through no fault of their own as kids and who’ve otherwise been law-abiding, productive citizens. But if we do, it will have the effect of legalizing through chain migration their parents—the very people who created the problem by bringing the kids here illegally. Some like to say that children shouldn’t pay for the crimes of the parents, but surely parents can pay for the crimes of the parents. And that’s to say nothing of their siblings and spouses, and then all the second- and third-order chain migration those people create. So simply codifying DACA without ending chain migration would rapidly accelerate the wave of unskilled immigrant labor that’s been depressing the wages of working Americans.

An obvious compromise, then, is to pair any attempt to codify DACA with reform of the green card system to protect American workers. A stand-alone amnesty will not do. Nor will an amnesty with vague promises of “border security,” which never seem to materialize or get funded once the pressure is off Congress. But if we codify DACA along with the reforms in the RAISE Act, we will protect working Americans from the worst consequences of President Obama’s irresponsible decision.

President Trump has said that chain migration must be ended in any legislative compromise, and he’s highlighted the RAISE Act as a good starting point for those negotiations. I support that approach, and I’m committed to working with my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, on a deal that protects American workers and strengthens our community.

Immigration has emerged in recent years as a kind of acid test for our leaders—a test they’ve mostly failed. Our cosmopolitan elite—in both parties—has pursued a radical immigration policy that’s inconsistent with our history and our political tradition. They’ve celebrated the American idea, yet undermined the actual American people of the here and now. They’ve forgotten that the Declaration speaks of “one people” and the Constitution of “We the People.” At the same time, they’ve enriched themselves and improved their quality of life, while creating a new class of forgotten men.

There’s probably no issue that calls more for an “America first” approach than immigration. After all, the guidepost of our immigration policy should be putting Americans first—not foreigners and not a tiny elite. Our immigration policy should serve the “wealth and strength” of our people, as Madison said in that first Congress. It should not divide our nation, impoverish our workers, or promote hyphenated Americanism.

Citizenship is the most cherished thing our nation can bestow. Our governing class ought to treat it as something special. We ought to put the interests of our citizens first and welcome those foreigners best prepared to handle the duties of citizenship and contribute positively to our country. When we do, our fellow Americans will begin to trust us once again.

A million here, a million there - and the billions mount up fast for school costs

FAIR writer Kenric Ward dissects the figures from a new report on expenditures resulting from large numbers of immigrant children in the public schools.  Overly-generous immigration policies of recent administrations are costing state taxpayers in the U.S. nearly $60 BILLION this year alone in education expenses for immigrant children.

“Five states — Arkansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee — each saw their English Learner populations more than double between 2000 and 2014.” 

See excerpts from the FAIR blog below.


Immigration Policies ​Weigh Heavily on U.S. Schools

by Kenric Ward, Federation for American Immigration Reform,  Nov. 7, 2017

America’s immigration policies are amplifying the perennial pleas for more public school funding.

Each year, an estimated 5 million refugees and immigrants – legal and illegal – are enrolled at K-12 campuses with a variety of special needs. More than 175,000 unaccompanied children settled in the U.S. since 2014, with some 18,000 arriving in just 10 counties last year.

A new report by the Migration Policy Institute runs down these pupils’ high-cost needs. Going far beyond the basics of learning English, the list includes mental-health care, legal representation, “socioemotional services,” even “housing rights.”

This naturally necessitates a growing phalanx of providers inside and outside the classroom. Surveying widely varying literacy rates among the new arrivals, “Beyond Teaching English” advises districts to check the “linguistic and cultural competence of staff.”

 How big is the challenge? FAIR estimates that public schools will spend $43,396,433,856 serving children of illegal aliens this year – a massive unfunded mandate. Folding in the costs of legal immigrant pupils, FAIR said the tab totaled $59.8 billion.

A recent sampling of 27 high schools found 9,000 refugee/immigrant students speaking 170-plus languages. “Foreign languages are a cause for celebration,” an MPI researcher said, echoing the mantra of Washington’s immigration enthusiasts.

Amid the celebration, however, the MPI study never addresses the actual costs of the party. Not a single dollar sign appears in the 36-page report

The failure to address the fiscal impact of immigration is shared by federal politicians and policymakers who craft immigration policy with little or no regard to the downstream financial consequences. Under U.S. Department of Education edicts for minimum language proficiency, high school graduation cycles are creeping up to five or even six years among immigrants, according to the MPI report.

The federal Office of Refugee Resettlement issues modest School Impact Grants to 39 state and charitable agencies.

It’s mere chump change compared to the $59.8 billion spent educating immigrant children. a cost shouldered almost exclusively by state and local taxpayers.

Doubling down on the unsustainable situation, Sugarman’s Migration Policy Institute and like-minded groups are busy building a cottage industry to lobby for evermore immigration-induced entitlements, at whatever cost. Expect tax bills to rise accordingly.

Prince William Breaks a Taboo: Speaks Out Against Overpopulation

ImmigrationReform.com

Posted by

On November 2, England’s Prince William spoke in London and warned about the dire consequences of overpopulation worldwide, especially as it relates to wildlife protection and species preservation. The event was sponsored by the Tusk Trust. The Tusk Trust protects African wildlife.

“We are going to have to work much harder, and think much deeper, if we are to ensure that human beings and the other species of animal with which we share this planet can continue to co-exist,” he said. Prince William is courageously venturing into the oft-ignored issue of overpopulation.

We should take our cues from Prince William’s leadership.

According to the United States Census Bureau, the current U.S. population totals over 326 million. Shockingly, unless immigration is reduced, the nation’s population will climb to nearly 400 million by 2050. That’s a 22 percent increase in just 33 years! America does not have enough available resources to sustain a population this size without further damaging the environment from growing development related pressures. Though rarely discussed, the reality is that we must curb future immigration in order to save our country’s remaining wildlife for future generations.

Which is one reason why the RAISE Act, now pending in the Senate, makes such good sense.

Phasing down levels of legal immigration will help stabilize the U.S. population in time. The RAISE Act would reduce legal immigration by 50 percent. Immigration would become manageable because the RAISE Act ends chain migration and restores our nation’s ability to determine its demographic destiny. Prince William understands the need for population stabilization – why can’t our own congressional leadership?

http://immigrationreform.com/2017/11/03/prince-william-breaks-taboo-speaks-overpopulation/

There was no promise to DACA recipients

 
Democrats and allies rail against “breaking a promise” to DACA recipients who, they say, were led to believe they’d be shielded from deportation indefinitely, allowed to work and benefit from all public services.  Beaverton Mayor Denny Doyle argues at length how “unfair” it is to “pull the rug out from under them.”
 
But Pres. Obama said repeatedly that he had no Constitutional authority to provide an amnesty, and he made plain that DACA was a temporary program – subject to change or termination by future Administrations.
 
Dreamers are portrayed in the media sympathetically, with glowing reports about the valedictorians and other achievers.  We’re not supposed to notice the criminals  among them.  However, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said that just this year, 622 have had their deferred action status pulled due to criminal activity, a 30% surge over previous years.
 
Any illegal alien is eligible for DACA if when illegally entering the U.S., he/she was under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012, so the eligibility group consists mainly of adults, not children.
 
How can the date of entry be proven without expensive investigation?  So, applications were accepted without proper verification or interviews.  There likely is widespread fraud.
 
Most people don’t realize the consequences of mass amnesties.  Each immigrant can petition to bring in extended family members, and each one of those can then petition to bring in his or her family members in an endless chain.  While Oregon and other states are struggling to keep up with population growth’s effects, we should not be adding millions more people through overly generous immigration policies.
 
PolitiFact erred in claiming that amnesty for DACA recipients would not result in a huge wave of extended family immigrants, because that estimate was based on the number of persons currently enrolled in DACA.  However, the proposal is to amnesty all who are DACA-eligible, a much larger number, estimated to be 1.76 million.  Statistics show that each new immigrant in recent years has sponsored an average of 3.45 additional immigrants.  In the most recent five-year cohort of immigrants studied (1996-2000), each new Mexican immigrant sponsored 6.38 additional legal immigrants.
 
The parents of DACA “children” brought them here illegally; the entire family illegally here should be deported together, thus not “tearing families apart.”  
 
Public discussion of this amnesty has already triggered an increase in illegal border crossings. 
 
Illegal immigration enables employers to get cheap, exploitable labor, reducing job opportunities for citizens and depressing their wages, leading to greater need for financial assistance to poor families, homelessness and desperation among citizens.  Nearly one-in-four Americans of working-age does not have a job, according to government data.
 
The worst thing to do in the present situation is to pass yet another amnesty for illegal aliens.  Rolling amnesties over recent decades have undermined respect for immigration law and all law generally.  Americans’ historic respect for law is what enabled the U.S. to achieve the prosperity, cohesion, and stability that set us apart from many other countries.
 
The DACA “youths,” now many in their 30’s, should return to the countries where they are citizens and help those countries develop acceptable living conditions.

The free pass for criminal aliens bill

There was such a whirl of activity in the final days of the late, unlamented session of Oregon’s Legislature that further wounds to citizenship and the rule of law slipped through with very little notice.

Looking into the history of HB 2355, “Relating to public safety; and declaring an emergency,” we find that the innocent-sounding summary says:  “Directs Oregon Criminal Justice Commission to develop method for recording data concerning officer-initiated pedestrian and traffic stops.” 
 
The bill was said to be aimed at “racial profiling” – the claimed unfair treatment by police of racial minorities.  It was introduced on January 9, 2017. But because of amendments that conveniently came much later, HB 2355 might as well now be called the free pass for criminal aliens bill.
 
At a July 4 session of the House Ways and Means Committee which was considering HB 2355, a majority of Committee members voted to reduce the penalty for a Class A misdemeanor from the standard 365 days to 364 days.  What a difference a day makes!  Now aliens who may or may not be here legally can escape the federal rule that makes deportable those aliens convicted of Class A misdemeanors.
  
HR 2355 was pre-session filed at the request of Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum.  There was little publicity, and most voters were probably unaware of the contents of the bill, especially the addition of the part benefitting criminal aliens.  The bill sailed through House hearings with almost no public opposition.
 
The House vote was 36 Ayes and 23 Nays. All Democrats voted Aye except Rep. Boone who was excused.  All Republicans voted Nay except Reps. John Huffman and A. Richard Vial.
 
News of the bill’s passage on July 5 by the House appeared in some Oregon newspapers, referring to it as an anti racial profiling bill.
 
The bill went to the Senate the very next day, July 6, where it passed quickly without any hearing, and the Legislature adjourned on July 7.
 
The Senate vote was 20 Ayes and 9 Nays. Sen. Knopp (R) was excused. All Democrats voted Aye except Sen. Betsy Johnson, who voted Nay.  Republicans were split, 8 Nays to 4 Ayes. Republicans voting Nay were:  Sens. Baertshiger, Boquist, Ferrioli, Girod, Kruse, Linthicum, Olsen, Thatcher.  The Aye-voting Republicans were: Sens. DeBoer, Hansell, Thomsen, Winters.
 
An account of final passage was published on July 11 by the Portland Tribune, written by Paris Achen of the Capitol Bureau.  Like her account of House passage, it ended with this paragraph: 
 
“Another provision reduces maximum penalty for a Class A misdemeanor from 365 days of imprisonment to 364 days. That change was meant to prevent federal deportation of legal immigrants who are convicted of a Class A misdemeanor and may be a refugee, enrolled in school in the United States, or are the spouses or family members of a U.S. citizen, said Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland. A sentence of 365 days triggers mandatory federal deportation.” 
 
However, HB 2355 as amended and passed will benefit all criminal aliens legally and illegally here, not just a favored few.  This bit of legislative history illustrates how Oregon’s legislative leadership and allies deceptively manipulate human sympathy to expand benefits, incentivize illegal immigration, degrade the value of citizenship, and endanger public safety.
 

End DACA now

Alan Gallagher, of Canby, writes in the Capital Press of September 21 that “Systematic breaking of American law should not be rewarded. Illegal aliens and DACA recipients have broken American law by illegal entry or overstay, and violated American law every day — every day — by using false/forged/stolen documents to obtain work and benefits, by lying and using false documents on I-9 forms, by tax fraud, driving without licenses and insurance, and so on. These are not minor crimes, and are deeply corrupting to America’s Rule of Law.”

His article is titled “Congress has already passed an immigration law” and subtitled “DACA recipients, and their parents, have no respect for rule of law, and believe that they may pick and choose which laws to obey.”  Gallagher presents a strong case for immediately ending DACA as well as DAPA.
 
He concludes:  “ … We would not be sending DACA recipients or illegal aliens to Hell, but to a great country, which needs and wants them (in spite of the potential loss of billions of dollars in remittances, $120 billion in total, $23 billion to Mexico).
 
“Mexico exports its problems to the U.S., and receives $23 billion in remittances annually, while U.S. employers gain cheap employees. The economic advantages to some are clear, but it is morally wrong.”
 
Read the full article here.
 
Gallagher’s letter resulted in editorial comments clarifying the newspaper’s position.  See their editorial here.
 
 

Pres. Trump, What kind of deal is this?

 
In Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, he said if elected he’d end the DACA program on day one, and having gained office largely on that and other promises to stop illegal immigration he’s now reversing course and advocating amnesty for Dreamers!  This is a bitter disappointment to voters.
 
His tweet of September 5: “Congress now has 6 months to legalize DACA (something the Obama Administration was unable to do). If they can't, I will revisit this issue!” shows all too well what his true position is.
 
Listen to a veteran of immigration law enforcement, Dan Cadman, who knows the consequences of leniency and weakness in immigration controls.  He has good advice on what should be done now:
 
“ …As I've said before, anything that grants amnesty to people who were smuggled as minors into the United States acts to ensure a future filled with waves of new smuggled minors because it acts as a beacon. The mere talk of an amnesty is often enough to set feet into motion south of our border. I see a perpetuation of this situation as immoral, and the greater sin. Alien minors and family units coming north from the Central American ‘triangle’ countries must traverse jungles, mountains, and deserts; will confront searing heat and bone-chilling cold, usually with inappropriate clothing and supplies; they will face hypothermia and dehydration; and they will be exposed along the way to venomous insects and reptiles, as well as predatory animals and humans, the latter being the worst of all.
“With one short tweet, the president has undercut the political pressures Democrats and Dreamer advocates themselves face in making a deal to get what they want. For a man who touts himself as master of the art of the deal, it's inexplicable.
 
“My advice in response would be simple and twofold:
 
1. Congress should call his bluff and do nothing. It would be hard for a president who campaigned for the job by calling the program an unconstitutional abuse of executive power to reverse course once again in six months time if nothing is done. The cost to him as his base abandons him in droves would be far too dear.
 
2. Texas and the other states need to take heed of this tweet, and pursue the lawsuit; it's clear that the president can't be trusted to be true to his word.”
 

Ritter answers Rep. Barnhart’s smear attack on OFIR and IP 22

OFIR member Jerry Ritter has written a great exposé of the vicious attack on our organization and our efforts to advance Initiative Petition #22.  We clearly have the deep-state opposition to immigration controls worried. 

Friends, let’s keep on collecting signatures!  As with Measure 88 - the driver card bill, we know we can do this.  Request some 10 line signature sheets, ask your friends and neighbors to sign the petition, when mail them in!  It's as simple as that!

We need your help!  To Request signature sheets call 503.435.0141 or go to the campaign website and click on the link to request signature sheets.

Mail filled sheets to:

Stop Oregon Sanctuaries

PO Box 7354

Salem, OR 97303

 

 

Importing high-tech students and workers

 
A former Senior Special Agent with 30 years of INS service warns that “The notion of flooding America with increasing numbers of foreign high-tech students and foreign high-tech workers is a ‘Lose/Lose’ for America and Americans.”
 
Michael Cutler, writing on the Californians for Population Stabilization website, points out the problems in admitting large numbers of high-tech students who may or may not plan to use their knowledge for peaceful endeavors.  He notes that:
 
“ …today more than 500,000 foreign students are enrolled in universities in the United States to study the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) curricula.
 
“While not all of these students are studying disciplines that have a direct nexus to nuclear technology, many disciplines do intersect with aerospace and nuclear technology. 
 
“Foreign students are permitted to engage in Optional Practical Training to put their education to use and learn how to apply what they have learned in the classrooms and university laboratories in the ‘real world.’ Sometimes these students work for companies that engage in military-related work. …”
 
China sends the second largest number (152,002) of foreign students to the U.S. after India which leads with 173,258, according to current statistics. 
 
Cutler says that China provides technical assistance to North Korea, a country continuously hostile to the U.S.
 
As well as endangering national security, the over-use of student and employee visa programs hurts U.S. citizen workers, which unfortunately is not a concern of some business interests.  Cutler quotes this testimony to Congress in 2009 by Alan Greenspan, the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank:
 
“…Greatly expanding our quotas for the highly skilled would lower wage premiums of skilled over lesser skilled. Skill shortages in America exist because we are shielding our skilled labor force from world competition. Quotas have been substituted for the wage pricing mechanism. In the process, we have created privileged elite whose incomes are being supported at noncompetitively high levels by immigration quotas on skilled professionals. …”
 
Should immigration policy serve to increase profits for businesses or to protect the safety and well-being of citizens?
 
Besides the safety factor, foreign students have a high rate of overstaying their visas.
 
Click here to read Cutler’s entire article,  America Undermines Its National Security By Educating Its Adversaries.
 

"Get a warrant"? NO!

 
Why should ICE officers have to go to a court and request a warrant to take custody of an illegal alien who’s being released from a local jail?
 
There should be seamless cooperation and communication between the two branches of law enforcement, local and federal, on immigration matters, as there usually is in federal laws on other subjects.
 
Unfortunately, there are powerful political groups in the U.S. resisting enforcement of immigration law generally, who think in globalist terms, discounting the importance of nationhood and citizenship.  The entire Democratic Party, as well as an influential faction of the Republican Party, seem to have this view. Honest polls show that U.S. citizens disagree.
 
In a look back at how immigration law enforcement has been eroded, Dan Cadman, retired INS / ICE official with thirty years of government experience, asks:
 
“…Is it unreasonable to ask police and correctional officials to hold alien criminals they have in their custody long enough for immigration agents to respond and arrest them, given that there are hundreds of thousands of federal, state, and local law enforcement and correctional officers serving in thousands of organizations, but only about 1,300 immigration agents for the entire country?”
 
The attempt to force ICE agents to go to a court and obtain a warrant before detaining an illegal alien upon the alien’s release from jail is a deliberate attempt to impede ICE’s work and help illegal aliens remain comfortably in the U.S.
 
As Oregon’s top US Attorney, Billy J. Williams, pointed out, how is ICE even to know the alien is in jail if that information is not communicated to ICE?
 
“This requirement [for a court warrant] is inherently unreasonable as illegal aliens are frequently held for only a matter of hours. Furthermore, it is nearly impossible to obtain a federal criminal arrest warrant without basic identifying information.
“Simply put, Oregon's sanctuary status declaration directly contravenes federal immigration law and threatens public safety.”
 
All local law enforcement and jails should regularly communicate with ICE when local enforcement encounters an illegal alien, and be dependable in alerting ICE punctually about release dates from jails. Oregon is a part of the U.S.; it derives multiple advantages from being part of this nation, and there is no excuse for not cooperating in national law enforcement.
 
Cooperation with ICE does not turn local police into ICE agents.  The time taken simply to communicate information to ICE would be minimal, and the results huge in greater safety for the public and better control of illegal immigration.  Illegal alien advocates’ claim that local police cooperation with ICE has a chilling effect on crime reporting is spurious.
 
The toleration of illegal immigration is extremely harmful to citizens; it undermines respect for law generally, allows unlimited global competition for jobs, overloads our social service and educational facilities, triggers rapid population growth that endangers the health of the natural environment, and causes many other significant problems.
 
Help ICE do its job! 

What sanctuaries would cost Oregonians under new DOJ rule

A new day is dawning for sanctuary jurisdictions that have taken advantage of grant money from the federal government but declined to cooperate as they should with federal immigration law enforcement.
 
Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a new rule July 25 for jurisdictions applying for Byrne grants to assist state and local law enforcement. Byrne grants, formally called Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Programs (“Byrne JAG”), are the largest source of federal criminal justice funds for state, local, and tribal authorities.
 
There are quite a few jurisdictions in Oregon that used money from these grants in 2016, so now they need to take another look at their uncooperative policies with federal authorities in regard to immigration.
 
Taxpayers could be hit with bigger bills than ever if the affected jurisdictions fail to meet Department of Justice requirements for the grants and do not receive any.  And citizens in these locations can expect increases in numbers of illegal aliens in their communities, if a jurisdiction chooses to “go it alone” and continues its sanctuary policies.
 
Thanks to the Center for Immigration Studies for their detailed examination of which jurisdictions could lose how much money each year by losing the Byrne grants.
 
In Oregon, jurisdictions that received significant amounts from the Byrne program in 2016 and now must show proper cooperation with DOJ or lose the grants, are:
 
City of Portland $465,810 
Lane County $84,217 
City of Salem $69,968 
County of Washington $39,976 
Deschutes. County of $33,730 
Clackamas County Juvenile Department $25,771 
City of Grants Pass $17,547 
City of Beaverton $17,239  
City of Redmond $11,874 
 

Pages