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.

Media ignore important facts on immigration

The truth about immigration’s role in our prolonged population surge is ignored by the general media, leaving most citizens unaware of the underlying reason why traffic is increasing everywhere, why housing density is a threat even in historic residential districts in Portland and elsewhere  -- to say nothing about the problems with rising costs of public education for ever-expanding enrollments, welfare services for vast numbers of homeless and poor people, environmental degradation in Oregon, the U.S. and elsewhere. 

The rush to the U.S. by millions from around the world must be stopped if our nation is to have an acceptable quality of life here. 

Overcrowding and lack of economic opportunities drive desperate people from third-world countries to the U.S.  We’ve been giving financial and technical assistance to these countries for decades now, but population policy has not been adequately addressed.  

Negative Population Growth says: “We believe that the optimum rate of [world] population growth is negative.”  For the U.S., they recommend reducing immigration to not over 200,000 a year, causing a gradual decline in population, and stabilizing  at a sustainable level of around 150 million.  Fertility among native-born in the U.S. has been below replacement level for some time.

Where are the feminists when they’re needed to encourage women in other countries to demand the right to control reproduction in their own bodies, the right to decide whether to have children and if so, how many. 

Joe Guzzardi, a long-time supporter of reduced immigration, gives the media a good scolding for their silence on these issues.  Here are excerpts from his article:

Call to journalists: Return to your professional standards

by Joe Guzzardi, in Daily Citizen-News, Dalton GA, January 9, 2019

On New Year's Eve, The Washington Post published a shockingly biased (even as measured in the current shoddy journalism era) op-ed piece. Titled "The Demographic Time Bomb that Could Hit America," the commentary reflects columnist Catherine Rampell's opinion that declining population would represent many dramatic societal challenges.

Crucial details though are omitted, perhaps purposely. Specifically, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, by 2060 the United States is projected to grow by 79 million people, from today's 326 million to 404 million. Population is not in decline as the column infers. …

Calling all Post editors! Publishing a column about declining population's perils when population is in fact soaring is an example of why the mainstream media's trustworthiness remains well below poll numbers from decades back in the public's eye. …

Many Americans are conflicted about immigration, and deserve to know both sides of the argument. After all, the population increases between today and the mid-2060s represent about a 25 percent bump. If Americans were asked how they feel about 25 percent more people in their already overcrowded neighborhoods, schools and hospitals and on highways, most would be overwhelmingly opposed.

Instead of the full, unvarnished story, readers routinely get a set of cherry-picked facts that the media, abandoning its professional responsibilities, puts forward. Time for the truth, and let the nation come to its own conclusions.

Read the full article here: https://www.dailycitizen.news/opinion/columns/joe-guzzardi-call-to-journalists-return-to-your-professional-standards/article.html

or here: https://progressivesforimmigrationreform.org/call-to-journalists-return-to-your-abandoned-professional-standards/

The population explosion - cause and effect

A recent Gallup poll found that more than 750 million adults around the world say they would like to move to another country if they had the opportunity, and the U.S. is the most desired destination. 

Our country is already adding one international migrant (net) every 34 seconds, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Population Clock.  For some decades now, immigration levels here have been over 1 million annually.  SO … now people everywhere are complaining about traffic congestion, insufficient housing, overcrowded schools, etc. 

Consider that birth rates of native-born citizens have been at or below replacement level since the 1970’s.  It’s obvious that the true cause of the huge population growth is excessive immigration.  Social and business pressures have more or less silenced public discussion, but some intrepid souls continue to speak out.

Thanks to Jerry Ritter for writing and successfully getting this letter printed in the Eugene Register-Guard:

Sanctuary policy at the root of exploding class sizes, letter to the editor by Jerry Ritter, in the Register-Guard, Eugene OR, December 25, 2018.

There’s been a lot of ink lately on class sizes in Oregon.

Increased class sizes are primarily the result of population growth. Most of Oregon’s population growth is due to in-migration: domestic and foreign, legal and illegal.

Oregonians embraced continued encouragement of illegal immigration to our state by defeating Measure 105. So the welcome mat (sanctuary policy) stays out for people who have no right to be here. The Register-Guard’s editors proudly proclaimed on Nov. 27 that “Oregon has welcomed countless immigrants and refugees.”

I have no problem with legal immigrants, but I must ask sanctuary supporters, how does encouraging ILLEGAL immigration to Oregon help with class sizes? How does it reduce the gridlock on our roads? How does it lower our carbon footprint? How does it relieve the strain on social services (most immigrants receive some form of welfare)? How does it impact our housing crisis? Would they be willing to provide the funding to support one or more migrant families?

With the critical shortage of affordable housing in California and a continuing flood of illegal immigrants into that state, what do you suppose that means for Oregon and Washington with their welcome mats out?

Jerry Ritter, Springfield


Roy Beck, of NumbersUSA, has written for years about the need to curtail overall immigration.  See his updated summary at:  https://www.numbersusa.com/blog/new-projections-warn-much-more-congested-future-if-immigration-policies-arent-changed

Statement of DHS Secretary Nielsen, 12/26/2018: "Our system has been pushed to a breaking point by those who seek open borders. …”  

Immigration expedites the deadly drug trade; border wall necessary

Media reports often blame U.S. doctors and pharmaceutical companies for the opioid crisis, while knowingly or unknowingly, ignoring the main source.

We’ve been hearing this for years from people who’ve worked at the border with Mexico.  In a current analysis by Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona, he gives details about the operation of drug runners and how they’ve been able to build up a huge business delivering cheap, powerful drugs to customers in the U.S.  

Here are excerpts from Gosar’s article, which is online at:  https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/19/immigration-the-hidden-driver-of-the-opioid-epidemic/

“…The overwhelming source of the problem is cheap but powerful drugs coming in from Mexico by way of China.

“There is another core contributor to the problem that isn’t as widely known: the river of illegal aliens surging across our porous borders. As former LA Times reporter Sam Quinones’ award-winning book, Dreamland: The True Story of America’s Opioid Epidemic recounts, just as standards for the prescription of oxycodone and other painkillers were being tightened, a group of largely illegal Mexican immigrants from Xalisco, in the Mexican state of Nayarit, pioneered a new model of heroin distribution. It was in essence Uber for drug dealers, involving small franchises, with a nonviolent approach, carrying small amounts of drugs directly to addicts in their homes and neighborhoods, using a customer-first mentality and lots and lots of delivery drivers.

“From Dreamland, ‘The delivery drivers did tours of six months and then left. If they were arrested they were deported, not prosecuted, because they never carried large amounts of dope.’ With hundreds of new illegal aliens from the state entering the country every day, the police could arrest as many street-level dealers as they liked. As a DEA agent tells Quinones in another part of the book, ‘We arrest drivers all the time and they send new ones up from Mexico. They never go away.’ There would always be new dealers, and the model could continue. An essential part of the process was the dealers returning home, where their ill-gotten gains provided them with status in their rural, poor homeland. …

“There is also, of course, the fact that a porous border allows drugs to flow across the border, but people are much easier to interdict than fentanyl. That is why we must also deliver on the president’s border wall–providing $5 billion in unrestricted funding this year, immediately.  …”

The way to win

The push for a “wall” seems to have many backers who oppose illegal immigration.  But they need to think of the “wall” in broader terms.  A physical wall is only one way, and not necessarily the best way, to stop illegal immigration.

Let’s expand the goal to include both physical and new legal barriers.  The latter are desperately needed.

Van Esser of Numbers USA succinctly outlines several steps that would actually cut down on illegal immigration more effectively than “the wall.” 

… “It’s commonly accepted that around forty percent of illegal immigration is caused by people overstaying their visas. An effective entry-exit system with interior enforcement will solve that problem, not a wall.

“The prospect for jobs induces most illegal border crossings and visa overstays. And the draw increases for those inclined to have a family on U.S. soil since the wrongful interpretation of the 14th Amendment yields public benefits for their kids. Here too, a wall is of limited benefit compared to cutting off the jobs magnet through E-Verify and a legislative clarification of ‘birthright citizenship.’

“For some time now, the prospect for jobs also has induced migrants to game our asylum system. Loopholes in the asylum law, combined with related court rulings, virtually guarantee release for ‘family units’ that present themselves at ports of entry. And if the numbers remain high, others must be released due to limited detention space. A wall can’t fix this problem because most are using ‘doors.’ … “ 

Van Esser calls for a change in campaign strategy:

“The battle we face is one to protect American lives and livelihoods, our quality of life, the National Treasure and, ultimately, our sovereignty. In a sense, it’s a modern-day equivalent of the founding fathers protecting our unalienable rights of ‘Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.’ They fought for our independence and it’s time we defend ours. We need to wall ourselves off from illegal border crossers, visa overstayers and asylum gamers.”

That means a wall of effective, well-enforced immigration controls not limited to a physical structure.  Chiefly we need:  mandatory E-Verify, an end to birthright citizenship, closing of loopholes in the asylum and refugee rules.  Also, with modern electronic technology, we can now set up the much-needed, effective entry-exit system that will screen travelers coming in by air and sea, as well as those crossing land borders, and ensure that they depart on schedule. 

Why the extra mileage in caravan route?

Little attention has been paid by the media to the planning of the caravan, but examination of the chosen route shows deliberate strategy in selection of the route.  Besides prolonging maximum publicity, the chosen route brought migrants to the state most likely to welcome them, California.

Coming from Guatemala, they could have reached the U.S. much more quickly had they headed for McAllen TX, as Kris Kobach points out in his article, Understanding the caravan – the map says it all.

“… The path to McAllen is approximately 1,300 miles long; whereas the path to San Diego is approximately 2,700 miles long. So the caravan travelled more than twice as far as it needed to.

“Why in the world would they do that? They didn’t have their own vehicles, and they weren’t carrying enough food or resources to justify the longer journey.

“…Travelling the extra 1,400 miles to Tijuana/San Diego would take the migrants to the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, with its numerous judges willing to minimize the President’s statutory authority to restrict entry of aliens into the United States. And the presence of similar federal judges at the district level in California would increase the probability that the migrants’ attorneys would obtain an initial ruling in their favor.

“… The second reason for travelling twice the distance is that California is a sanctuary state with dozens of sanctuary cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco. Those jurisdictions will actively seek to protect the migrants who enter illegally from deportation.

“…  In contrast, in Texas, law enforcement agencies like the Texas Department of Public Safety cooperate with federal officials to improve border enforcement. To be sure, there are some sanctuary cities in Texas too; but it’s nothing like California.

“In short, the migrants’ attorneys made sure that the caravan went the extra mile—or extra 1,400 miles—to arrive where the rule of law is the weakest in the United States. And their advice appears to be paying off. Federal immigration enforcement personnel can still prevail, but the playing field is tilted against them.”

Read the entire article here: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/05/kris-kobach-understanding-the-caravan-the-map-says-it-all/

Article’s i.d. for author:  “Kris W. Kobach is the elected Secretary of State of Kansas. An expert in immigration law and policy, he coauthored the Arizona SB-1070 immigration law and represented in federal court the 10 ICE agents who sued to stop Obama’s 2012 DACA executive amnesty. During 2001-03, he served as U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft’s chief adviser on immigration and border security at the U.S. Department of Justice. His website is kriskobach.com.” 

Migrant caravans – refugees or job-seekers?

Many newspapers portray the migrant caravans as refugees escaping rampant crime and corruption in their home countries.   But are these migrants truly refugees?   Here’s a more realistic report from the Dallas News, with commentary from Neil Munro, one the most knowledgeable writers on immigration issues.  The article shows that most of the migrants are job-seekers and will be competing with citizens for jobs, undercutting wage levels in the U.S. and adding to the already-unsustainable population growth that is triggered primarily by immigration.

Dallas News: U.S. Job Offers Pull Caravan Migrants to the Border

By Neil Munro, Breitbart.com, November 14, 2018

https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2018/11/14/dallas-news-u-s-job-offers-pull-caravan-migrants-to-the-border/

Caravan migrants in Mexico told the Dallas News they are migrating towards blue-collar jobs in the United States.

The economic explanations contradict the claims by pro-migration lawyers, progressives and by most reporters that the migrants are helplessly fleeing from crime in their homelands. …

[Following are the concluding 6 paragraphs of the article]

Americans have long assumed that companies and investors who are trying to fill lower-wage jobs in a tight national labor-market would be pressured to offer higher wages and to invest in labor-saving machinery.

But investors do not need to offer higher wages or raise productivity if the government allows them to employ mobile workers from outside the national labor market and also supplements the migrants’ low wages with hidden taxpayer subsidies of aid, welfare and free schooling for their children. Also, the extra inflow of migrants provides investors and government agencies with many extra customers for food, autos, apartments, and government services.

A tacit alliance of progressives and investors, Democrats and Republicans, has largely blocked Trump’s efforts to help ordinary Americans by curbing migration into U.S. workplaces and neighborhoods.

Washington’s economic policy of using migration to boost economic growth shifts wealth from young people towards older people by flooding the market with cheap white-collar and blue-collar foreign labor. That flood of outside labor spikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees.

The policy also drives up real estate prices, widens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least five million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions.

Immigration also pulls investment and wealth away from heartland states because coastal investors can more easily hire and manage the large immigrant populations living in the coastal states.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions: a true Immigration Reformer

In a recent newsletter, NumbersUSA lists all the steps that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has taken to turn our muddled immigration system around and make it work again for the best interests of U.S. citizens.

Of course, a lot remains to be done, and any progress at all depends on elected officials in Congress and The White House.  President Trump criticizes his AG at times, but looking at what Jeff Sessions has accomplished, Sessions deserves citizens’ praise and encouragement.  Let’s hope Mr. Sessions gets strong support from the public, the Department of Justice, and elsewhere in government.

From the NumbersUSA Newsletter of September 21, 2018:

No person in the Administration has done more to advance Pres. Trump's immigration agenda than Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Here's an overview of some of the areas in which AG Sessions has taken bold action over the last 21 months.

END DACA -- AG Sessions authored the legal defense for the Trump Administration's decision to end the illegal DACA executive amnesty. The Department of Justice has also defended the decision to end DACA in a number of legal challenges filed by several states and pro-amnesty groups.

END SANCTUARY CITIES -- AG Sessions has taken several actions to discourage states and local jurisdictions from providing sanctuary to illegal aliens. He's blocked Department of Justice grants for sanctuary jurisdictions and sued the state of California over the state's passage and implementation of laws that block both law enforcement and employers from working with federal immigration officers. AG Sessions has also supported a Texas state lawsuit that seeks to eliminate sanctuary jurisdictions in the Lone Star state.

REDUCE ASYLUM FRAUD -- Earlier this year, AG Sessions took action to reduce the growing number of illegal border crossers who exploit the asylum system to avoid prosecution for illegal entry. He strengthened the credible fear standard by clarifying that the law does not allow individuals to receive asylum for fear of gang violence or domestic abuse perpetrated by non-governmental actors. He ruled that credible fear claims should only be approved when the alien has a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country because of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. This single action should help reverse the dramatic rise of defensive asylum claims entered by illegal aliens over the last decade.

INCREASE IMMIGRATION JUDGES -- AG Sessions has taken steps to eliminate the enormous backlog of cases that are bogging down the immigration courts. Just last week, AG Sessions announced that the DOJ would be increasing the number of immigration judges by 50% to help deal with the more than 746,000 immigration cases that await a ruling. This major new expansion would be on top of the additional judges AG Sessions sent to the Southern border region earlier this year to help deal with the ongoing border surge. He's also issued new guidelines to immigration judges to ensure the fair and expeditious treatment of cases and placed limits on judges' ability to postpone hearings that allow illegal aliens to live and work in the United States.

ZERO-TOLERANCE POLICY -- AG Sessions issued a zero-tolerance policy for illegal border crossers, ordering the prosecution of all foreign nationals apprehended crossing the border illegally. The policy also covers illegal aliens who enter a defensive claim for asylum -- approximately 80% of illegal border crossers from Central America who claim asylum have their claims eventually denied.

In his State of the Union speech earlier this year, Pres. Trump said "Struggling communities, especially immigrant communities, will be helped by immigration policies that focus on the best interests of American workers and American families."

It's clear that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has done more to implement those policies than any other individual in the Trump Administration.

We encourage you to call the White House comments line at (202) 456-1111 and tell Pres. Trump that you stand with Attorney General Sessions and support the actions he's taken to return America's immigration system back to one that serves the national interest.

Have time for a laugh? Read this

Matt O’Brien, of FAIR, does a great put-down on academic discussions of immigration, in PhDs Take 800 Words to Say Absolutely Nothing About Immigration.

Excerpts:

… a recent op-ed in the Washington Post, “Like it or Not, Immigrant Children Are Our Future,” reveals just how far off the rails twenty-first century academics have drifted.

The essay was authored by Marcelo M. Suárez-Orozco, the Dean of the Graduate School of Education at UCLA and Carola Suárez-Orozco, the co-director of the Institute for Immigration, Globalization and Education at UCLA. Both hold PhDs. And both have had lengthy careers in academia. Yet, even working as co-authors, neither seems to be able to say anything relevant about immigration.

They begin with this jargon-laden nonsense: “An entirely new cartography of immigration is unfolding in real time.” If you’re scratching your head, don’t beat yourself up. I have almost as many degrees as the Suárez-Orozcos – and two decades of practical experience dealing with immigration issues – and I have no idea what that means either.

And, over the course of roughly 800 words, it doesn’t become any clearer. According to the Professors Suárez-Orozcos, “there are a cluster of impediments to integration that are particular to the current era of globalization.” But fear not, “scholars, educators and practitioners are coming together in a global ‘network of networks,’ endeavoring to move the needle in supporting immigrant youth.”

So…what’s the actual conundrum being addressed? It appears to be some vague riff on the standard far-left narrative: Developing-world immigrants are somehow more motivated than the current populations of the nations they seek to enter, and therefore essential to the continued success of those countries. Citizens of receiving nations who believe in borders and sovereignty are racist, rather than merely patriotic or practical. It is malice that blinds the citizens of Western democracies to all of the benefits of “diversity” that come with unchecked mass migration. We need immigrants to “fix” Judeo-Christian culture and save it from itself. Ergo, any limits on immigration are “racist” or “xenophobic” rather than reasonable or practical.

That narrative is absurd on its face. And the lack of coherence behind the argument is exactly why it must be expressed using highfalutin gobbledygook, instead of clear, analytical prose. ...

Thus, we live in a world where average citizens regularly make substantive, useful observations about immigration policy in 280-character tweets but two PhDs drone on for 800 plus words and succeed only in saying absolutely nothing about the very same issues.

Another innocent American girl murdered by an illegal alien

An illegal alien who should have never been allowed to remain in the United States has taken the life of yet another US citizen - this time in Iowa - 20 year old Mollie Tebbitts.  Cristian Bahena Rivera, presumed to be a citizen of Mexico, was charged on August 21 with her murder. How many more innocent American families will suffer the anguish of losing a precious family member because of our dangerous sanctuary policies?
 
Currently there are 137 illegal aliens JUST in the Oregon State Penitentiary serving time for homicide.  That means that 137 families will be separated forever because Oregon is a sanctuary state that protects illegal alien criminals.  There is a significant cost to taxpayers, as well.  Josh Marquis, the recently retired Clatsop County District attorney estimates that each murder trial in Oregon costs about $ 1 million dollars to prosecute.  That means Oregon taxpayers are out $137 million just for court costs plus millions more for the incarceration of individuals who had no right to be here in the first place.
 
We must Vote YES on Measure 105 and end the insanity of Oregon’s sanctuary law.

Read the full article.
 

Responding to The Oregonian on Measure 105

On Sunday, August 5, The Oregonian published an editorial supposedly giving “facts” about Oregon’s sanctuary law and attacking Governor-candidate Buehler for supporting its repeal. 

The editorial presented an unfair, inaccurate picture of Measure 105, a measure supported by OFIR which would repeal Oregon’s illegal alien sanctuary law – ORS 181A.820.

According to the editorial, “one incident (Sergio Martinez’s rape of one woman and the sexual assault of another”), is no reason to toss a state law that has served us well over the past three decades.”

Apparently The Oregonian is unaware that there are close to 1000 criminal aliens with ICE holds on them, now serving time in the Oregon State Prison.  No one gets sent to the state prison for a minor infraction.   136 are in for homicide and 474 for sex offenses (sex abuse, rape, sodomy). 

A respected expert in law enforcement would certainly not agree with The Oregonian’s assertion that the state’s sanctuary law is “common sense.”  U.S. Attorney for Oregon Billy Williams condemns the sanctuary law as a major hindrance in enforcing federal immigration laws  He said in an article in The Oregonian last year: “Simply put, Oregon's sanctuary status declaration directly contravenes federal immigration law and threatens public safety. This has put many sheriffs in the position of choosing whether to violate state or federal law. It's an untenable position. …”

Furthermore, The Oregonian’s editorial statement that illegal entry is not a crime is very misleading.  A single illegal entry is a misdemeanor but if repeated after being deported, becomes punishable as a felony.  Also, Immigration and Nationality Act Section 237 (a)(1)(B) says: "Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this Act or any other law of the United States is deportable."  This means that any illegal alien and any immigrant who overstays a visa is lawfully subject to deportation at any time.

The Oregonian objects to use of a single offender to illustrate problems with Oregon’s sanctuary law, but the newspaper itself repeatedly uses examples of specific illegal aliens to milk the sympathies of gullible readers and influence them to accept illegal immigration generally.

There have been hundreds of sob stories about the woes suffered by individual illegal aliens and how cruel people are to object to their presence.  Where are equivalent reports of the sufferings of the hundreds of Oregonians who’ve been killed, raped, robbed or maimed by alien criminals now sitting in our jails with ICE holds on them for likely being in this country illegally?

What would happen to the “drug crisis” if there were not an ample supply of illegal aliens to expedite international drug trafficking?  What would happen to the homeless population if they did not have to compete with illegal aliens for living space and jobs at living wages?

Hopefully, voters in Oregon will see that, contrary to the views of The Oregonian, true “common sense” requires repeal of Oregon’s outdated sanctuary law, and they will stop Oregon sanctuaries by voting YES on Measure 105 in November.

Paying the bill for illegal immigration

Our conflicting immigration policies and rules in the U.S. can lead to some amazing true-life stories. Here’s a shocker that wouldn’t have happened had Congress not passed so many loopholes and dodges in immigration laws, making immigration law enforcement extremely complicated and often misreported in the media.

How about a little sympathy for the needs of U.S. citizens, and not so much for the millions of foreign nationals who enter and stay in the country illegally? 

1. Check out the immigration voting records of your members of Congress here.

2. Vote YES on the Stop Oregon Sanctuaries initiative (Measure105) in the Oregon general election, November 6, 2018.

LOOK WHAT THIS ILLEGAL ALIEN IS COSTING THE U.S.:

Paying the Cost — Literally — for Alien Criminals in the United States

By Dan Cadman, Center for Immigration Studies,  on July 31, 2018

[Excerpt only.  For emphasis, we’ve put some parts into bold font.  Read the full article here.]

I've been reading about the case of an illegal alien from Mexico who was arrested and criminally charged in a county in Utah for serial sexual abuse of his 8-year-old stepdaughter. He has also been charged with multiple counts of document fraud and identity theft, almost certainly because once arrested for the pedophilia crimes, law enforcement officials determined that he was living and working in the United States with phony documents involving someone else's Social Security number or name.

The alien, 49-year-old Gerardo Valerio-Romero, since being jailed, has been diagnosed with cancer and run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills. Worse, the treatments have necessitated postponements of his trial, which results in the need for more treatment, and so forth, in a downward financial spiral that is bankrupting the county sheriff's office.

Two media accounts show some of the troubling aspects that crop up in such cases.

KUER public radio, for instance, quotes his lawyer as suggesting that the sheriff's office simply drop the charges and let him be deported to Mexico (Immigration and Customs Enforcement, "ICE", that much-reviled agency of late, has filed a detainer seeking custody after the disposition of Valerio-Romero's criminal charges.) The sheriff's office responded that they don't wish to, because of the uncertainty that he will actually be deported should that occur. Almost as an afterthought, the sheriff suggested that such a recourse permits the man to avoid accountability.  …

It seems to me that criminal accountability is vitally important in this case. As a retired ICE official, it's something I'm confident current ICE agents also feel strongly about, because they know the system. The truth is that, even if he were removed, policing our border is such a difficult proposition these days — with resistance to border barriers, continual pushes to play the catch-and-release game, and the big money to be made in human smuggling — it's entirely likely that Valerio-Romero would illegally return in a relatively short period of time and simply relocate someplace else with new fraudulent documents bought cheaply from a storefront vendor.

As to the sheriff's assertion that he "does not believe Immigration and Customs Enforcement will push to deport Romero should the county release him", that needs put into context:

If the Utah County district attorney's office foolishly drops the charges, then Valerio-Romero may be an illegal alien, but he's not a criminal alien. He drops to the bottom of the priority list not only for ICE, but also for the immigration court. If ICE attempts to detain him without bond, or with a high bond, his immigration attorney will undoubtedly at that point say, "But judge, he's not a convict, he's simply illegally in the United States like the other 11 million or so aliens in his circumstance." ICE is consistently hammered for allegedly deporting aliens who have no criminal convictions. That sometimes is so, but Valerio-Romero is exactly the kind of case that gets statistically misreported by the hundreds in the press or by opportunistic migrant advocates, who choose to obfuscate the facts behind each of those cases, leaving the public with serious misunderstandings of the work going on behind the scenes.

The other article about the case, in the Daily Caller, quotes Utah County Commissioner Nathan Ivie as saying:

We're looking to the federal government and federal delegation to step up. It's their responsibility to enforce these laws. It's their failure to act that's created this situation.

Oh? How does that follow? Does Utah County step up and take responsibility for the medical cost of victims of violent crimes since it is clearly "their responsibility" to enforce laws against such crimes?

How about pedophiles? Putting aside the man's immigration status, isn't it Utah County's job to protect children against predators, which they failed to do in this case? Will they be paying for the years of psychological treatment that the victimized child should receive? If not, why not?

I don't want to suggest that I'm without sympathy for the plight of the county sheriff's office. On the contrary, they have been caught in the cross-hairs of a myopic county commission that apparently was too foolhardy to obtain catastrophic inmate health care insurance on one hand, and a federal Congress on the other hand that even now cannot bring itself to pass overdue and sorely needed immigration enforcement reforms.

Instead, Congress is reduced to such foolishness as introducing bills to abolish ICE on the Democratic side of the House, and nonbinding resolutions "in support" of ICE on the Republican side, even as their Appropriations Committee adopts a series of measures in the 2019 budget that would turn a bad situation even uglier.

Who stands up for immigration law enforcement?

On Wednesday, July 18, the public got a clear picture of which among Oregon’s U.S. Representatives support enforcement of immigration laws and which do not.  The House voted on H. Res. 990, “Supporting the officers and personnel who carry out the important mission of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” 

The Resolution was introduced in response to the current national campaign for abolishing ICE and immigration law enforcement.  The text of the Resolution lists many specific reasons why ICE is necessary and has served our country well.

It comes as no surprise that Rep. Earl Blumenauer, Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, and Rep. Peter DeFazio chose to avoid disclosure of their positions. In the roll call vote, they answered only “Present.”

Thanks to Rep. Kurt Schrader and Rep. Greg Walden for voting YEA.

Control over the entry of non-citizens is essential for the survival of any nation. It’s useful for citizens to know where our legislators stand on this fundamental issue of national sovereignty. 

We now know for sure that Rep. Blumenauer, Bonamici and DeFazio put the interests of illegal aliens and the employers that hire them, above the best interests of citizens.  Their records of betrayal are detailed further at NumbersUSA.com, which has tracked Congressional actions on immigration since 1997, and issues grades for all members of Congress, including Senate and House.

Oregonians, please vote to repeal Oregon’s sanctuary statute this November when IP 22 will be on the ballot.  A Measure number for IP 22 will be available soon, and if passed, it will free up local law enforcement to cooperate with ICE as they should.

Pages