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.

Why block the traditional Census citizenship question?

On the last day of its recent session, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 to block the traditional citizenship question from America's 2020 Constitutionally-required Census. While the court ruled the question is indeed constitutional, Chief Justice Roberts apparently did not like the "tone" of the Trump administration's insistence the traditional citizenship question be reinstated.

Our government has demographic information on legal immigrants and visa holders. The Census citizenship question would provide demographic information on those who are not citizens.

If the citizenship question were to be asked, then it would be a rudimentary process to subtract the set of legal immigrants and visa holders from the set of those who are not citizens. The result would be the set of those who are illegal aliens, complete with address of residence.

This is the information that the Democrat party does not want revealed, as they benefit from a mass influx of illegal aliens - and their descendants - who ultimately will vote Democrat.

Excerpts from articles analyzing this decision follow:

 

Supreme Court Votes 5-4 To Block Citizenship Question on 2020 Census, by Ken Klukowski, Breitbart, June 27, 2019:

Chief Justice John Roberts was the swing vote in a sharply divided Supreme Court that voted 5-4 in deciding the U.S. census can ask about citizenship, but by a separate 5-4 vote is sending the case back to the lower court.

Consequently, the citizenship question cannot be asked on the 2020 census, because the additional hearing cannot take place before the cutoff for printing the census forms for next year.

This decision will immediately be compared to the 2012 decision saving Obamacare. Roberts was joined by the four conservative justices to say federal law permits asking about citizenship, but then switched over to join with the four liberal justices to remand the case to the federal trial court for further evidentiary hearings....

Roberts noted “demographic questions have been asked in every census since 1790, and questions about citizenship in particular have been asked for nearly as long.”...

Conservatives and the Trump administration will be deeply disappointed by this decision, and are likely to harshly criticize the chief justice....

The impact of today’s decision reaches far beyond the 2020 census. Justice Thomas concluded in his dissenting opinion for conservative justices:

The Court’s erroneous decision in this case is bad enough, as it unjustifiably interferes with the 2020 census. But the implications of today’s decision are broader. With today’s decision, the Court has opened a Pandora’s box of pretext-based challenges in administrative law.

Today’s decision marks the first time the Court has ever invalidated an agency action as “pretextual.” Having taken that step, one thing is certain: This will not be the last time it is asked to do so. Virtually every significant agency action is vulnerable to the kinds of allegations the Court credits today. These decisions regularly involve coordination with numerous stakeholders and agencies, involvement at the highest levels of the Executive Branch, opposition from reluctant agency staff, and—perhaps most importantly—persons who stand to gain from the action’s demise. Opponents of future executive actions can be expected to make full use of the Court’s new approach.

 

SCOTUS sides with Trump on constitutionality of census citizenship question, but the question is still unlikely to appear on 2020 forms due to remand, Conservative Review, June 27, 2019:

In a complicated 5-4 ruling handed down on its last day of its recent session, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration’s addition of a citizenship question to the census complied with the constitution, but also effectively blocked its implementation for the 2020 survey.

In short, the ruling finds that the executive branch has a right to reinstate a question about citizenship, but that it needs to come up with a better explanation for adding it....

 

Upshot of today’s SCOTUS rulings: Courts are God except for one ‘rare circumstance’, by Daniel Horowitz, Conservative Review, June 27, 2019:

Today’s Supreme Court ruling in the gerrymandering cases was a victory for those who believe in the proper role of courts, irrespective of political outcome. It’s a refreshing change of pace from judicial supremacy. Unfortunately, what the chief justice giveth in the redistricting case, he taketh in the census citizenship case where he reaffirmed the power of the courts to get involved in every other political question and litigate it to death....

in the census case, while recognizing that “our interpretation of the Constitution is guided by a Government practice [asking a citizenship question] that “has been open, widespread, and un-challenged since the early days of the Republic,” he refuses to reverse the lower court’s interference with its enactment.

In a complex and defragmented plurality ruling that morphed into a unanimous order, Chief Justice Roberts helped give liberals a majority in keeping the litigation against the census question alive by remanding the case back to the courts. Meanwhile, rather than rebuking the lower courts for getting involved in a political dispute in such an unprecedented way, he legitimized much of their ruling. Moreover, with this ruling, he gave them endless ammo to shut down any common sense and lawful executive actions governing the enforcement of many critical laws, which will reverberate in other spheres of policy such as border security.

The 2010 Census under the Obama administration was the first time since 1840 that the citizenship question was not asked in any form. The same way Obama decided to extirpate it from the Census without question, Trump had the power to reinstate it....

In comes Roberts and admits that nothing in the Constitution or statute could possibly preclude the secretary of commerce from adding the citizenship question. But in what has become a pernicious pattern of the courts over the past few years, Roberts decided that he didn’t like the administration’s motivation behind it and feels it requires further litigation in the district court. He didn’t even agree with the plaintiffs that the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by promulgating a regulation that is “arbitrary and capricious,” another favorite of the lower courts....

In reality, 13 U.S.C. §221 states very clearly that every resident is required to answer any question under penalty of fine unless it’s a question about religion. That is the only question walled off by Congress....

The Trump administration lawyers are going to have to come to terms with defending the prerogatives of the executive branch of government or risking the implementation of Obama’s third, and perhaps, fourth term in office....

 

Why the Citizenship Question Is So Important, Kris W. Kobach, Breitbart, June 27, 2019:

... From 1820 to 2000 a version of the citizenship question was asked in every census but one (in 1840). After the 1950 census, the Census Bureau decided to create two census forms—a short, basic form that all households would receive and a long form (which about 1/6 to 1/4 of households would receive) that would ask all of the information that the federal government needed. Thereafter, the citizenship question remained on the long form until the long form was terminated after the 2000 census. At that point the long form was replaced by the annual American Community Survey, which still contains the citizenship question. But only a tiny percentage of the population receives it.

The Trump Administration in early 2018 made the entirely-correct decision to restore the citizenship question to the census....

In a rational world, the Court would have issued a 9-0 decision rejecting each of these arguments. Instead, the Court ruled by a narrow 5-4 vote that asking the citizenship question was consistent with both the Constitution and the Census Act....

There are so many additional reasons for the United States to know how many citizens it has, that it is difficult to select any single one as the most important. Here’s my list:

1. The number of citizens is something that every sovereign country should know. Canada, Mexico, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and dozens of other modern countries ask the question....

2. The principle of one person, one vote is at stake. Right now, state and federal legislative districts are drawn up simply based on the number of warm bodies in each district. Not only are legal aliens counted, but illegal aliens are counted too. As a result, citizens in a district with lots of illegal aliens have more voting power than citizens in districts with few illegal aliens.

3. The assumption behind moving the citizenship question to the long form turned out to be wrong. It was hoped in the 1950s that a recent federal statute requiring all aliens to register and notify the federal government whenever they moved would be followed and enforced. That data could be substituted for the information lost by moving the citizenship question to the long form. However, the assumption turned out to be incorrect....

4. The citizenship question provides important information about voting. Knowing who is a citizen and who isn’t allows the government to make a more accurate determination of what percentage of eligible citizens are voting in each state and each county.

5. It yields a wealth of valuable information about immigration. The question allows the government to determine which regions of the country see greater naturalization rates among aliens. This in turn reflects the assimilation of aliens into the American community. Citizenship data also enables the government to better calculate the number of illegal aliens in the country. Right now, estimates range from 11 million to 30 million. The open-borders Left doesn’t want the American people to know the true number.

And the list goes on....

 

SCOTUS Loses Its Census over Citizenship, by Daniel John Sobieski, American Thinker, June 28, 2019:

Supreme Court Justice John Roberts may go down in judicial history as the worst Republican SCOTUS pick ever. The man who found ObamaCare constitutional by inventing the fiction that it was a tax has joined the court’s four liberals to block a citizenship question on the 2020 Census, not because it is unconstitutional, but rather because he didn’t like the Trump administration’s reasons for asking for it.

The man who supervises the FISA Court, which blindly accepted every lie and fake document the Obama FBI and DoJ put before it to justify the deep state coup against the Trump presidency, says the reasons Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross presented for requesting its inclusion, well, didn’t smell right....

Asking this question is necessary to the functioning of a modern state and is an international norm, not the wet dream of white supremacists. As Hans von Spankovsky writes in the Washington Examiner:

To have an informed debate, shouldn’t we have accurate information about the citizen/noncitizen population of the country? In fact, even the United Nations recommends that its member countries ask a citizenship question on their census surveys, and countries ranging from Australia to Germany to Indonesia all ask this question. Only in the U.S. is this considered at all

Restoring the citizenship question to the Census is not unprecedented, not unconstitutional and absolutely necessary to help restore our national identity watered down by the “we are the world” globalists and denounced by the 2020 Democrats who want to decriminalize illegal border crossing and throw the borders open....

The importance of the Electoral College

Oregon Governor Signs Bill Granting State’s Electoral Votes to National Popular Vote Winner, D.C. Clothesline, June 20, 2019:

Fifteen states in total have jumped on the bandwagon to grant their state’s electoral college votes to  the winner of the national popular vote, in an attempt to try and elect a candidate from their own party.  Oregon Governor Kate Brown has now made her state the fifteenth to join the National Popular State Compact....

The Electoral College is established by Article II of the United States Constitution. It is important to understand why Democrats want to abolish the electoral college, as discussed below.

From the article Abolish the electoral college? Dream on, Democrats, The Washington Post, November 16, 2016:

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), as she has before, introduced a bill this week to get rid of the electoral college. In the below post from the wee hours of the day after Election Day, we discuss why it's not happening.... For the second time in 16 years, Democrats appear to have won more votes than Republicans, but lost the presidency. And while it was close in 2000, it may be a chasm in 2016....

So you can bet that are a whole bunch of Democrats right now that would like to put an end to this whole electoral college thing.

The bad news: They have virtually no power to make that happen -- and even they did have any power, it'd be immensely difficult.

The electoral college, after all, is enshrined in our Constitution, which means getting rid of it requires a constitutional amendment. That's a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate and the ratification of three-fourths (38) of the 50 states....

Back in 1934, a vote to abolish the electoral college failed in the Senate by just two votes. At the time, then-Sen. Alben Barkley (D-Ky.), who would later become vice president, labeled the system "useless." "The American people are qualified to elect their president by a direct vote, and I hope to see the day when they will," he said.

By 1966, Sen. Birch Bayh (D-Ind.) led hearings on the prospect of repealing the electoral college. He was a passionate advocate for the change for years. In 1979, the Senate debated a direct-election alternative, but it failed 51-48 -- shy of the two-thirds it needed.

More recent efforts have focused on workarounds, rather than repeal.

The National Popular Vote interstate compact has been assembling states who pledge to award all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national vote if and when they all combine for a majority of electoral votes (270). The effort has gained support from 11 states combining for 165 electoral votes, but so far only blue states have jumped on-board -- suggesting the red and swing state problems described above apply here too....

The Electoral College is an integral component of America's election process. From History Central: Why the Electoral College:

The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.

The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief....

Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped. Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice. The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others....

One aspect of the electoral system that is not mandated in the constitution is the fact that the winner takes all the votes in the state. Therefore it makes no difference if you win a state by 50.1% or by 80% of the vote you receive the same number of electoral votes. This can be a recipe for one individual to win some states by large pluralities and lose others by small number of votes, and thus this is an easy scenario for one candidate winning the popular vote while another winning the electoral vote. This winner take all methods used in picking electors has been decided by the states themselves. This trend took place over the course of the 19th century....

In the January 8, 2019 article, The Electoral College Must Remain, Elad Hakim states:

Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., recently introduced a proposed constitutional amendment that would eliminate the Electoral College. This was obviously done in response to the fact that Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election despite winning nearly 3 million more votes than President Trump....

Cohen's position is clearly partisan, will almost certainly fail, and will face stiff resistance from many smaller states.

According to HistoryCentral, "[t]he Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states." The first reason revolved around the possibility that a candidate could manipulate public opinion to such a great extent that it would lead him to secure the presidency. In other words, the Founders did not believe that the citizens could make the right decision on their own. Therefore, the electorate served as a system of checks and balances. This does not appear to be as much of a concern today.

The second reason, however, is still relevant. Generally speaking, the number of electorates in a given state directly correlates to the number of congressional representatives in the state. The minimum number of electorates for a given state is three. Therefore, the "value" of a vote in a smaller state with a lower population would "count" more than it would in a state with a higher population. For example, if a state had 90,000 votes and had three electorates, each electorate would represent 30,000 votes. On the other hand, a large state with 10,000,000 votes and 54 electorates would mean that each electorate would represent approximately 185,000 votes. Therefore, this system was initially used to appease the smaller states....

While the Electoral College is not perfect, it is the most legitimate system.  It is in line with the intent of our forefathers, protects the smaller states, and helps to protect against the possibility that several very densely populated cities will decide the presidential election for the entire nation.

Hakim's conclusion bears repeating: The Electoral College as established in Article II of the U.S. Constitution is the most legitimate system. It protects against the likelihood that densely populated cities - that tend to vote Democrat - could decide the presidential election for the entire country.

 


Related

2016 U.S. Presidential Electoral votes by county:

2016 electoral votes by county

 

 

Update: The Mob Is Right Outside the Constitution’s Wall, Breitbart, May 24, 2019:

On Tuesday, Nevada became the 15th state, along with the District of Columbia, to pass a measure that would grant its electoral college votes to the candidate that won the nationwide popular vote....

This movement is being led by an organization called National Popular Vote. The 501(c)(4) was co-founded by election law expert and attorney Barry Fadem and John Kaza (co-inventor of the scratch off lottery ticket).

The objective is to have a group of states that in total control 270 electoral votes (the number needed to win the presidency) form a compact wherein each of them will agree to cast those votes based on the nationwide popular vote, regardless of how their own state’s citizens voted....

Our Founding Fathers had the debate at the beginning of our nation as to how our system of election and governance would be structured. Democracy was rejected because of the well understood tendency of a majority to act as a tyrant. While much of what was created by our Founders was original, this concept wasn’t.

The critique of democracy dates back to Plato and the Republic. The demos, as they were called in Greek, couldn’t be trusted; they would just vote to satiate their voracious appetites at the expense of others or the nation at large....

In Madison’s mind, the structure of government and the process for electing the chief executive were designed to try to fragment the power of majority.

When you read Federalist 9> (Hamilton), Federalist10, and Federalist 51 (Madison), three key elements they felt existed to help give the new United States a chance for success were its population size, geographic size, and the differing interests of the independent states. Back in the late 1700’s, these factors would all make it more difficult for minority factions to attain the sort of critical mass required to do real damage....

We need these controls to prevent the very kind of efficiency in voting that can lead to majority dominance. The electoral college is one of those most fundamental controls. If we effectively neuter it through state collusion, then we move one step closer to a world our Founders feared, and that Plato described.

For those who are wondering, Plato’s next stage was total tyranny....

The Electoral College is still right for America, by Rob Natelson, Complete Colorado, January 29, 2019:

... it is not true, as some claim, that the Founders acted only out of distrust of democracy. Rather, the system was a brilliant response to...

Having created a unique office, the Founders needed an adequate process for choosing its occupant. They set forth several criteria:

  • The electoral process had to produce presidents competent to discharge their extensive responsibilities. Not only must the president be qualified for the job, but he must be able to exercise judgment independent of Congress and of the states. Thus, those directly choosing among the candidates should either know them personally or have reliable knowledge of their character and qualifications.
  • The process should give great weight to popular preferences, while minimizing dangers of “stampeding” and other mob-like behavior.
  • It should reduce the risks of foreign and other secret influence.
  • It should balance state and national interests.
  • It should produce presidents of national stature. A purely regional executive could tear the country apart, either by his election or by policies favoring some parts of the country at the expense of others.
  • The process should discourage states from trying to increase their influence by artificially inflating their vote levels....

Did the Electoral College worked as intended in 2016? Yes and no.

It worked insofar as it denied election to Hillary Clinton, who, although the popular vote choice, was largely a regional candidate. But it failed to work insofar as state statutes prevented electors from voting for any candidates other than two widely seen as unacceptable. Those statutes also discouraged qualified people from seeking the office of presidential elector.

An end-run around the Electoral College, by Peter Skurkissm, American Thinker, February 28, 2019.

Prelude to a Revolution, National Popular Voting, by Don Mellon, Canada Free Press, March 16, 2019.

Don’t let Colorado be an Electoral College dropout, by Mike Rosen, Complete Colorado, February 5, 2019.

The One-Two Punch to Knock Out Electoral Democracy, by Michael S. Kochin, American Greatness, June 16, 2019.

Colorado Moves To Bypass Electoral College: Will Assign Electoral Votes To Popular Vote Winner, by Marc Slavo, Freedom Outpost, February 28, 2019.

Colorado Gov. Polis signs national popular vote bill into law, March 16, 2019.

Democrats Want To Kill The Electoral College Because They Fear The Constitution - The Left is increasingly comfortable attacking foundational ideas of American governance, by David Harsanyi, the Federalist, March 20, 2019.

See the 270 To Win website for an interactive electoral college map (included below) and electoral college maps of Historical Presidential Elections.


Interactive 2020 electoral college map - 270 to win

 

 

Books:

 

Moving Closer to Mob Rule: No Choice, No Voice, by Ray DiLorenzo, Canada Free Press, May 25, 2019:


Half of the U.S. population lives in these counties

 

Deadly consequences of Oregon’s official protection of criminal aliens

The Oregon Legislature has just added yet another law, HB 2932, protecting criminal aliens, putting their welfare above the welfare of citizens.  HB 2932 requires that information on a prisoner’s immigration status be withheld from courts. The bill was passed in the Oregon Legislature on a party-line vote with Democrats voting Aye and Republicans Nay.

Oregon’s sanctuary policies deliberately risk the safety of citizens.  These policies tie the hands of local law enforcement causing them not to cooperate with ICE, a simple step only requiring sufficient advance notification when an identified illegal alien is to be released from jail.  

See this report by ICE showing examples of the results of such policies:

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) - News Release, June 17, 2019

Excerpts only – read the full article here.

COOPERATION BETWEEN ICE, LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT MAKES FOR SAFER COMMUNITIES

SEATTLE – U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) relies upon the cooperation of local law enforcement officials to expeditiously remove dangerous criminals from our communities. ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations’ (ERO) mission is to identify, arrest and remove aliens who present a danger to national security or are a risk to public safety.

Without the cooperation of local officials, EROs ability to perform its federally mandated mission is hindered and dangerous criminal aliens, like those described below, could remain in our communities to reoffend.

  • Illegal alien arrested for murdering, dismembering victim after local police fail to notify ICE of his release.  In October 2017, ICE identified Rosalio Ramos-Ramos who is an illegally present Honduran citizen with prior criminal convictions and four prior removals from the United States at a city jail in Washington. ICE lodged a detainer, but he was released without notification to ICE. In January 2018, Ramos-Ramos was arrested again and booked at a local county jail for murder. ICE has lodged another detainer with local jail officials.
  • County jail ignores ICE detainer, illegal alien suspected of killing wife after release.
    In March 2018, ICE located and lodged a detainer on Martin Gallo-Gallardo, a citizen of Mexico who was unlawfully present in the United States, after locating him in an Oregon county jail. Jail officials did not honor the immigration detainer and released the convicted criminal two days later, without notifying ICE. Following his release, ICE made multiple, unsuccessful attempts to locate and arrest the man. In October 2018, Gallo-Gallardo was arrested again, this time on a felony murder charges for allegedly killing his wife.
  • County jail refuses to honor ICE detainer of man who sexually assaulted dog
    In February 2019, an illegally present Mexican citizen was encountered by ICE officials at a local Oregon county jail. ICE lodged an immigration detainer on the man the same day for violating immigration laws. In April 2019, the man was convicted of multiple charges involving animal abuse. The county jail did not honor the immigration detainer and released him without notice to immigration officials. ICE apprehended the man at his residence and served him a notice to appear. He is currently being held at the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma pending immigration proceedings.

A detainer is a request to local law enforcement agencies that ICE be notified as early as practicable – ideally at least 48 hours – before a removable alien is released from criminal custody and then briefly maintain custody of the alien for up to 48 hours to allow ICE to assume custody for removal purposes. ICE lodges detainers on individuals who have been arrested on local criminal charges and are suspected of being deportable, so that ICE can take custody of that person when he or she is released from local authorities. When law enforcement agencies fail to honor immigration detainers and release serious criminal offenders onto the streets, it undermines ICE’s ability to protect public safety and carry out its mission.

------

Read the full news release at:  https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/cooperation-between-ice-local-law-enforcement-makes-safer-communities

Congress ignores the calamity at the border

The U.S. is being invaded while Congress, with a few brave exceptions, argues about fraud in past political campaigns, does nothing to stop the thousands of uninspected migrants pouring into the country, and denies our Border Protection agents the resources needed to control this flood of people.

Congress has the power to stop massive illegal immigration. Oregon’s Congressional delegation isn’t helping.  Note that in its records of Congressional votes on immigration issues in the current session, NumbersUSA rates the entire Oregon Congressional delegation F-

Read excerpts below from a detailed account that gives figures on the scope of the current problem and spotlights Congressional failure to protect the sovereignty and safety of this country:

McAleenan Details the Scope of the Disaster at the Border

By Andrew R. Arthur, Center for Immigration Studies, June 1, 2019

Excerpts only.  Read the full article here.

Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan and acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney held a phone briefing on Thursday with members of the press. It revealed, in shocking detail, the scope and the effects of the disaster that is unfolding along the U.S.-Mexico border. Among the points therein:

"Over the past 21 days, an average of over 4,500 people have crossed our border illegally or arrived at ports of entry without documents. In May of 2017, that number was less than 700 a day. The month of May is on pace to be the highest month in crossings in over 12 years and will significantly surpass the record 109,000 in April."

"U.S. immigration authorities now have over 80,000 people in custody, a record level that is beyond sustainable capacity with current resources. Over 7,500 single adults are in custody at the border and Immigration and Customs Enforcement is holding over 50,000."

"Over 2,350 unaccompanied children – the highest level ever – are currently in custody waiting for days for placements in border stations that cannot provide appropriate conditions for them because Health and Human Services is out of bed space and Congress has failed to act on the administration's emergency supplemental request for more than four weeks."

… More than 75,000 families have already transited through Mexico to the Southwest border this month alone.

More than 4,000 foreign nationals appeared at the border this year with children that they fraudulently claimed were their own, a number that is increasing.

"At any given moment, up to 100,000 migrants are transiting Mexico on their way to the U.S. border."

These are massive numbers, and require context. The flow of aliens twelve years ago consisted primarily of single adult Mexican males, who could be processed by the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) quickly and returned to Mexico with little or no expense. The statistics above demonstrate that the current flow consists primarily of family units (FMUs), largely from Central America, who require significant humanitarian assistance and take almost ten times as long for USBP to process (for reasons I explained in a February 2019 post).  …

Ultimately, … the responsibility for stopping this disaster is with Congress, as McAleenan alluded to: "We've also asked Congress to close the gaps in our laws that incentivize this unlawful flow." Incentivize? "Precipitated" would be the more accurate term.

Congress has the power to provide the resources to handle the current flow, and to fix the loopholes that these aliens are exploiting to limit that flow in the future. Don't hold your breath waiting, however. Congressional Democrats appear to be quite comfortable with this wave and the tragedy that it brings with it, and congressional Republicans failed to act when it was apparent that this wave was building in the last Congress. …

Read the full article here.

Reply to Rep. Bonamici on H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act

Below is a letter sent to constituents by Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon Congressional District 1, in support of H.R. 6. It contains many statements that can be challenged. See rebuttal comments in italics, inserted in indented paragraphs below each of her questionable statements.

June 7, 2019

Dear [constituent],

Thank you for contacting me about H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act.  I appreciate hearing from you.

I spoke on the floor about this crucial legislation. I shared the stories of two Oregonians, both Dreamers, that are living in and serving Northwest Oregon. It’s long past time for Dreamers like Brenda and Gustavo, Americans in every way except on paper, to live out of the shadows.

They are only “Americans” in the sense that they came from somewhere in the Americas, but not from the USA, and they are living here in violation of our immigration laws.  Furthermore, they do not “live in the shadows” – many and their supporters flaunt their presence very publicly.

The U.S. immigration system is broken and our existing policies are hurting families, communities, and the economy in Oregon.

That is true but it’s because excessive immigration and illegal immigration have depressed wages and destroyed job opportunities for citizens, allowing employers to hire illegal aliens who can be easily exploited instead of citizens not so easy to exploit and underpay. 

We continue to operate under an antiquated system that has left millions in the shadows, unable to fully contribute.  

Those truly “left in the shadows” are the homeless, destitute citizens who cannot get a job because of the easy availability of illegal labor, or who may hold a job, but must accept less than a living wage because of competition from illegal labor. Many citizens are having to live in RV’s; many have no shelter at all.

The United States is a country of immigrants, and our nation has grown stronger because of its diversity.

That is her opinion of the history of the U.S., not a universal opinion or a complete statement of fact.  

Unfortunately, instead of developing a smart, humane, and efficient immigration system, President Trump has issued Executive Orders, made statements, and promoted policies that have caused chaos and fear in our immigrant communities and throughout our country.

It’s high time a president did “cause fear” in illegal immigrant communities.  Legal immigrants have nothing to fear.

I am a proud cosponsor of the American Dream and Promise Act, which would expand protections for vulnerable members of our communities facing deportation by the Trump Administration. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), Deferred Enforced Departure (DED), and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) are all critical protections that provide legal immigration status to eligible individuals and families.

Her description of the bill fails to disclose the enormity of the numbers that would receive amnesty.  Read this for a more realistic description.

The American Dream and Promise Act creates a clear and achievable path to citizenship for those currently living under the threat of deportation,

 If they are here illegally, they should be deported asap.

as well as for those seeking to reunite with their families.

For legal immigrants, there is already a legal way to do that.

We should allow those who came here seeking refuge from war and strife, or who were brought to the U.S. as infants or children, to expeditiously obtain lawful status.

Note that she is not concerned with any verification of claims by persons claiming to be refugees, nor with the widespread abuse of young children as free tickets for admission, often by unrelated adults. In her view, anyone in the world who wants to come here should be able to enter at any time.  Has she ever advocated reducing the overall levels of immigration? 

Rescinding the legal status of these individuals and targeting them for deportation divides families, spreads fear among an already vulnerable population, and drives people into hiding.

If they are here legally, they have no need to fear deportation unless they’ve committed serious crimes or falsified their applications.

This bill passed the House of Representatives with my support on June 4, 2019, and was sent to the Senate for further consideration. Dreamers, TPS, and DED recipients are contributing members of communities across the country.

Let them contribute to their own countries.  Let them build the kind of country that U.S. citizens have built, not try to crowd in here and do nothing about problems in their own countries.

Deporting hardworking people with children, businesses, and longstanding ties to this country does not make us any safer.

A significant number of illegal aliens have committed terrible crimes here; some have been terrorists causing massive damage; many are involved in expediting movement of illegal drugs that trigger the current “drug crisis.”

Please know that I stand ready to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass commonsense, compassionate comprehensive immigration reform that will strengthen our economy, enhance our security, and reflect our core values as Americans.  

Immigration control is too complicated to’‘reform” in one sweeping bill.  See a good lineup of necessary reforms here.

Thank you again for writing to me. If you would like to know more about my work in Congress, please sign up for my newsletter at http://bonamici.house.gov or visit my Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/CongresswomanBonamici.

Sincerely,

Suzanne Bonamici, Member of Congress

 

The nightmare on the border is real

To get a shocking, unvarnished picture of what’s happening on the U.S.-Mexican border now, look at this account by John Wahala, of the Center for Immigration Studies, who for several years has been leading annual group tours to the border to see activity there first-hand.

 He describes findings of this year’s tour in vivid detail. It’s a long article, worth reading in full.

 Here are some excerpts:

Most of the families that are being released into the United States are simply not eligible for asylum. What is worse is that some of the "family units" are not families at all. A top Border Patrol agent told us they apprehend men traveling with children who have either been kidnapped or bribed along the way.

… the only reason the Tucson Sector has yet to experience the volume of asylum seekers that are arriving at other areas of the border is because the local drug cartel on the Mexican side has started turning them away. Sources on both sides of the border told us that the cartel is redirecting the migrants who are heading north to Nogales and Agua Prieta because they do not want the attention on the area. …

…  But what everyone did acknowledge is that no institution in Mexico can effectively challenge the cartels. Drug money drives the local economy, creating wealth and corruption that has spilled over into neighboring Douglas, Arizona, where U.S. customs agents and others have been reportedly bribed over the years.  …

… Approximately 40 percent of drug seizures nationwide are conducted in this [Tucson] sector and, according to a top Border Patrol official, there was enough fentanyl seized in the past year to kill the entire population of the United States, twice. Since marijuana became legal in parts of the United States, authorities have increasingly been dealing with hard narcotics. …

… February saw the highest apprehension rate ever for the Tucson Sector. We were told that smugglers pay close attention to the enforcement techniques and adjust accordingly. For example, most of the crossings used to occur at night until the National Geographic "Border Wars" television show revealed how effective night vision was in spotting incursions. Smugglers realized that crossing during the day neutralized this technology, giving them a better chance to evade the apprehension. Now most of the crossings occur during the day. …

… Today, agents encounter a high volume of illegal crossers and also "rip crews," which are armed groups of bandits who rob the migrants as they make their way north. Most of the bandits are American citizens but some are foreign nationals who come across the border to commit various crimes before returning to Mexico. All of this activity poses a danger to the agents and other law enforcement officials, whom we were told are more likely to get assaulted while making an apprehension the closer they are to Mexico because migrants know they can escape prosecution if they can just make it back across the border. Smugglers and other criminals often go right through the southbound port of entry with drugs and other contraband, easily bribing Mexican officials. There are no southbound checks by the United States.

The relentlessness of this illegal influx heading north can be defeating for those who have dedicated years of their life to securing the border. Even young agents, who signed up for the excitement of being out in the field, get discouraged. Their frustration stems mostly from the persistent lack of political will to enforce the law. Morale was excellent when President Trump took office but the agents have not seen enough change. They know the steps that are needed to stop the influx, which are more extensive than simply erecting a wall, but for complex social and political reasons these steps have not been implemented. This has led to cynicism and contributed to attrition within the ranks. We were told that five hundred new agents are being hired each year but eight hundred are leaving.  …

… East of Nogales, we visited ranchers who deal with the fallout from the illegal influx every day. They explained that the situation is constantly changing and that things there are simply not normal. A theme of the discussion, which we have heard repeated elsewhere, is that the border region is a country unto itself with its own laws and customs. Illegality often goes unprosecuted and certain societal norms cannot be taken for granted. They gave us a string of anecdotes in support of this claim: vandalism and burglaries are common and there have even been murders; raw sewage flows from Mexico into the United States at several points along the border, a local hospital closed because it could not cover the costs of treating illegal crossers; a group of teenagers just got paralyzed by a batch of tainted cocaine; a group of men from India seeking asylum jumped on the top of one of their vehicles as they were driving down the road. One of the most poignant moments of our visit was when one of the ranchers asked rhetorically, "How do you raise a daughter in such lawlessness?"

The ranchers cited a study finding it costs 33 percent more to raise cattle on the border and another claiming it costs 75 percent more per animal.  … That rancher told us that the cartels cut right through the steel border wall. In the last three years, 54 trucks have driven right through his land, ripping up pastures and destroying fences.  …

… whether people can see it or not, failing to secure the border is not just a problem for overwhelmed federal agencies or migrant shelters or hospitals or schools or ranchers along the border. It is a moral, social, and political problem for the entire nation, one that threatens the very idea of nationhood.

 

-- A Growing Border Crisis; A report from Arizona, by John Wahala, Center for Immigration Studies,  May 24, 2019.   https://cis.org/Wahala/Growing-Border-Crisis

The answer to ag labor shortages

Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies makes a persuasive pitch for mechanization in agriculture, ending dependence on humans to do stoop labor and other exhausting manual chores on farms.

In his blog of April 26, “A Robot in Every Field, he says:

“… An individual farmer is understandably concerned with the next crop, but policymakers should have a longer time horizon. Americans get wealthier when productivity grows, and in agriculture that means, among other things, the development and adoption of labor-saving technologies.  …

“Foreign-worker programs that import stoop labor represent an intervention by government specifically designed to prevent the inevitable rise in farm-labor costs in modern societies caused by urbanization and increased employment opportunities elsewhere.

“Increasing wages and benefits will undoubtedly help draw some people into (or back into) the farm-labor force, but it's true that few Americans are going to cut broccoli all day in the hot sun. Even Mexicans aren't going into farm work anymore; as two scholars write, 'Mexico is following the pattern of countries around the world: as its income rises, workers shift out of farm work into other sectors.'

“The solution isn't to give in to the lobbyists and scour ever-more remote corners of the world for people still willing to submit to a medieval-work regime. Instead, we need to allow Julian Simon's scarcity/innovation dance to proceed, so that robots continue to replace humans in the fields. In fact, if the White House feels the need to service the ag lobby, why not propose mechanization-loan guarantees to help small farmers wean themselves off stoop labor? Rather than promise a chicken in every pot, why not a robot in every field?”

Read the complete blog here.

Later, Neil Munro, of Breitbart.com, gathered comments on Krikorian’s proposal, and, in his article of April 28, also describes the current progress of mechanization in agriculture.  His article can be viewed here.

Mass Migration Harms the Environment – Earth Day Message

OFIR was founded partly because of the need to alert Oregonians and U.S. citizens to the environmental consequences of excessive immigration levels.

Following is an excellent summary reminding us of the destructive effects on our environment caused by mass migration.  The statement was issued by the Immigration Reform law Institute, on the occasion of Earth Day, 2019Earth Day is observed annually on April 22, throughout the world.

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

“On Earth Day, we should all recognize our responsibility to be good stewards of our environment,” said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI. “Those who advocate against borders and reasonable immigration controls are acting irresponsibly and causing great damage to our planet. An effective plan to protect our environment must recognize the role that mass migration plays in boosting CO2 emissions and pollution to dangerous levels.”  

637 million metric tons of CO2 emissions annually

Immigration-generated population growth is fueling an increase in energy demand and the waste product that accompanies it. Immigrants to the United States alone produce about four times more CO2 in the United States as they would have in their countries of origin. U.S. immigrants produce an estimated 637 million metric tons of CO2 emissions annually — equal to Great Britain and Sweden combined. Strangely, governments that stress the urgency of addressing climate change are also some of the biggest opponents of border enforcement and immigration limits.

Mass migration grows America’s carbon footprint

One of the most popular talking points of climate change advocates is that the United States has less than five percent of the world’s population, yet consumes about a quarter of the world’s fossil fuel resources. If that is true, then why do some of the same people support immigration policies that significantly increase American fuel consumption as well as its carbon footprint? The two positions are wildly inconsistent.

Global climate hypocrisy 

While issuing apocalyptic warnings about climate change, the United Nations simultaneously encourages countries to accept even more migrants. After the Trump administration pulled the United States out of the UN’s Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria followed suit. Austria and Slovakia have also indicated they will act similarly. Their objection is that the pact may encourage more illegal alien arrivals and is not in the interests of the host country. 

Border trash is piling up

The environmental damage from mass migration extends beyond just increased CO2 output. The land around our southern border is riddled with trash, and it is directly proportional to the numbers of those who make the perilous journey to enter our country illegally. 

According to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, in fiscal years 2011 and 2012, when Arizona was experiencing over 120,000 border apprehensions, over 65,000 pounds of border trash was being collected annually. That’s more than 32 tons of garbage—plastic water bottles, abandoned vehicles, human waste, medical products and much more—on the ground. In the following years, as apprehensions fell as low as 70,000, border trash collections dropped as well – reaching a low of just 19,000 pounds in fiscal year 2015 before jumping back up in 2016. This is only one of our four southern border states, and not even the largest.

Our government needs to act

With this kind of pollution caused by mass migration, surely our federal government is on the case. That assumption would be wrong. IRLI has argued that federal immigration-regulating agencies—in particular, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security—have ignored the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), our nation’s preeminent environmental law, for decades. Since it became law nearly a half century ago, NEPA has required any agency, before implementing actions or programs that will affect the environment, to issue an Environmental Impact Statement analyzing and publicizing those effects. The federal government’s immigration programs are probably the most environmentally consequential programs there are, yet no such analysis has ever been done.

See the news release as issued by IRLI at:  https://www.irli.org/single-post/2019/04/21/Earth-Day-Message-Mass-Migration-Harms-the-Environment

Unchecked immigration brings dangerous health risks to U.S.

With the unending caravans of migrants overwhelming U.S. law enforcement, there are huge risks to the health of U.S. citizens.  In earlier waves of high immigration, the health of incoming migrants was a chief point of concern.  There was a careful watch to exclude those with communicable diseases.  Now migrants are pouring in completely uninspected.

Some independent voices are trying to raise the alarm, warning of the epidemics of sickness that might spread quickly through our population.

Contagion invasion, by Daniel Horowitz (Part 1):  What ever happened to the principle of protecting our borders against dangerous diseases?  April 17, 2019.  (Part 2):  The untold public health endemic at our borders and beyond   April 18, 2019.

Here are some other good reports on the situation:

Infectious Diseases Making the Border Crisis Worse, by Andrew Arthur, Center for Immigration Studies, March 13, 2019.

Mumps and Other Infectious Diseases Know No Borders, by Matt O’Brien, Federation for American Immigration Reform, March 6, 2019.

“Crisis” of Seriously Ill Migrants Slams Border Patrol — TB, Pneumonia, Influenza, Parasites, report issued by Judicial Watch, Jan. 7, 2019. 

 

Statue of Liberty Declares: STOP IMMIGRATION!

by  Tim Murray

Maybe you haven’t heard the terrible news. The United States, like almost every nation on the planet, is in serious population overshoot. This is a vastly different world than the one Emma Lazarus lived in. Hers was an America of seemingly unlimited resources. Ours is one of Limits to Growth.

Yes, there are still vast tracts of America that are sparsely populated. But it is not about how many people a nation can contain but how many it can sustain. The United States has a limited ecological carrying capacity, and there is every indication that it has been exceeded.

That is not only a disaster for us, but a catastrophe for the world. Put it this way. The very last thing that Mother Nature needs is another American consumer. Migration from less developed countries to developed nations like ours has a “multiplier” effect. The average migrant to the United States, for example, quadruples his GHG emissions upon arrival, and this applies to the consumption of resources as well. This is not surprising. After all, most immigrants come here precisely because they want to consume more. They want to enjoy the good life, or at least a materially better life, for themselves and their children.

To prospective immigrants I would say this. Our working poor and IT workers do not need your competition. Our bulging prisons and crowded classrooms cannot accommodate you. Our fruit and vegetable crops do not need you to harvest them. Our service and hospitality sector does not need your labour, nor does the home construction industry. We have Americans to do those jobs. All they need is a decent wage, and without immigration, there is a good chance that they would get it.

The era of smokestack industries and family farms is over. The era of A. I. and robots is soon to unfold. The demand for menial labor will plummet. We will be hard put to employ our working poor, never mind the global poor that Emma Lazarus and her modern day equivalents would welcome. In other words, your services will not be required.

So here’s some advice. Turn around and go back from whence you came. If things are still too rough at home, chances are that you can find suitable sanctuary in a country located in the same region. And if you do manage to make it back, could you please convey this message to your compatriots: Take responsibility for your family size. Understand that scarcity and the conflict that issues from it are in a large part a consequence of your nation’s runaway population growth. If your nation cannot grow the pie, it can, through aggressive family planning programs, increase the size of per capita “slices” by reducing the number of diners at the table.

I think you are a victim of a misunderstanding. The Statue of Liberty was meant to tell you that liberty, democracy and the rule of law can set the citizens of your country free. It was a prescription for good government, not an invitation to come and settle here. The Lazarus poem was an add-on twenty years after the statue was erected, and not congruent with the statement that the Statue was making. Immigration and liberty are apples and oranges.

In fact, higher population density requires more regulations and laws. Population growth is inversely correlated to liberty. As Isaac Asimov said in his famous “bathroom” metaphor. If there is only one tenant and one bathroom in an apartment, the tenant has “freedom of the bathroom”. He can access the bathroom at any time. But once another tenant or tenants come to share that same apartment, the original occupant must compete to use the bathroom. Rules of use or etiquette ensue. Tenants have no unrestricted freedom to use the bathroom whenever they like. And the more tenants who move in, the more restricted the residents will be.

Perhaps a name change would clarify the message. You have heard of the Statute of Limitations. I think Lady Liberty should be rechristened as the Statue of Limitations, and her torch be replaced by a stop sign.


Published by the Council of European Canadians
Read the full article here.

Illegal immigration problem bursting at the seams

An investigation by the Immigration Reform Law Institute found that over 1.7 million illegal aliens from Central America and Mexico living in the United States have been ordered removed or have pending final orders of removal, but are still living here.

  “Among the roughly 12 to 22 million illegal aliens living in the United States, we have a population greater than the City of Philadelphia’s that has been ordered removed or has pending final removal orders—from Central America and Mexico alone. Instead of taking on more aliens from caravans, our country should expedite the removal of those who have already received due process and been given removal orders.” 

At the southern border thousands of migrants continue to appear, claiming asylum.

“Once released, asylum seekers receive work permits while their often-meritless claims go through the backlogged immigration court system, which often delays hearings for years. Last year, nearly half of the completed asylum cases that involved aliens who claimed credible fear resulted in the alien failing to appear in court or file an application for asylum. Before 2013, around 1 in every 100 arriving aliens claimed credible fear and sought asylum, but today, that number has spiked to 1 in 10 as a result of encouragement and coaching by unscrupulous anti-borders groups.”

Read the full release here:  https://www.irli.org/single-post/2019/03/12/America-‘Bursting-at-the-Seams’-from-Illegal-Immigration

A real national emergency: U.S. besieged by persons defying immigration law

Why do we send our military to protect countries half way around the world while neglecting the safety and well-being of our own citizens by allowing millions of persons to enter and remain here in disregard of our immigration laws?  Their character and purposes are unknown, and events of recent decades show that many have committed terrible crimes against citizens.

President Trump’s declaration of a national immigration emergency has brought high-decibel cries of alarm from open-borders advocates, whose views are generally reflected in the complicit media.  Critics attack the declaration as something unheard of, a grossly inappropriate action.  They want to deflect attention away from the reasons for the declaration, so they claim procedural impropriety and talk about that instead.

Actually, declarations of national emergency are not as exceptional as alarmists claim.  Several reports give background.  Kris Kobach, former Kansas Secretary of State and an expert on immigration law, has spoken clearly on the subject recently. 

Here are excerpts from an article about the National Emergencies Act by Ken Klukowski, senior legal editor for Breitbart News:

              “… Congress enacted the National Emergencies Act on September 14, 1976, two months before Jimmy Carter was elected president. Since that time and beginning with Carter, presidents have declared 58 states of emergency. …

              “…, the longest-running state of national emergency was the first one ever declared under the National Emergencies Act. On November 14, 1979, President Carter signed Executive Order 12170, declaring a national emergency responding to Iran-sponsored terrorism.

              “That emergency is 39 years old, with no end in sight.

              “There are currently 31 national emergencies. These include President Bill Clinton’s declaration of emergency on October 21, 1995, dealing with narcotics traffickers, to President George W. Bush’s declaration of emergency on September 14, 2001, dealing with the 9/11 terrorist attacks, to President Barack Obama’s declaration of emergency on March 9, 2015, blocking property and suspending entry from certain people causing trouble in Venezuela. …

              “Under the National Emergencies Act, President Trump has full authority to declare an emergency regarding the crisis on the U.S. border for many reasons, such an drug trafficking. For example, most of one of the deadliest drugs killing Americans right now, fentanyl, is made in China, but fully 85 percent of that lethal drug enters the United States through the Mexican border. Such a declaration would be consistent in scope and effect with many of the 31 current emergencies.”

Pages