Welcome to the OFIR immigration topics section. Topics are presented in a list below. You can click on a topic to view information contained under the topic. When topics have several sub-sections, you will be able to "drill down" to read each section, then go back up to the main list of topics when you are finished.
Immigration topics:
This section covers various upcoming elections, as well as past elections.
For discussions of voting procedures, voter registration issues, election integrity, etc., search the OFIR website for terms such as election, voter registration, fraud, etc.
August 4, 2018
SEE ALSO: Update, Sept. 16, 2018
Information on candidates’ views about immigration issues is becoming available and convenient now thanks to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Survey for the General Election, November 6, 2018.
Also NumbersUSA has posted some information on Oregon candidates. It issued a questionnaire of its own which can be downloaded and presented to a candidate, or candidates can voluntarily complete one. Among Oregon candidates, Mark Callahan, candidate for U.S. House of Representatives, CD 5, returned the questionnaire and is rated a True Immigration Reformer on the basis of his replies. Callahan is the Republican candidate opposing incumbent Rep. Kurt Schrader (D), who seeks reelection.
See the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Survey’s Comparison Table on Immigration Issues, that displays the following questions for Oregon candidates with answers given by the candidates:
Supports repeal of Oregon's sanctuary state law?
Supports requiring employers use E-verify system for work eligibility?
Supports proof of US citizenship to register to vote?
Supports limiting sale of farm land to U.S. citizens?
Believes US Constitution includes support for Sharia Law?
****************************
Also the OAAVEP survey displays a complete list of candidates for each position: U.S. Representative, Governor, Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor & Industries, State Senate, State Representative, and various local offices. Usually the addresses for candidates’ campaign websites are displayed also. If the candidate has replied to the OAAVEP survey questions, that’s indicated by the embedded link “ANSWERS.”
There are differences in the questions asked of the types of candidates. For U.S. Representatives, these questions are asked:
10. Do you support sections 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act allowing the U.S. Military to arrest and detain ANY "suspected" terrorist without trial, legal counsel, or accusation of wrongdoing?
11. Do you support treating Antifa as a terrorist group?
22. Do you support requiring all employers to use the Federal E-Verify system to determine the employee's work eligibility status to work in the United States?
23. Do you support requiring proof that immigration law enforcement has been established before any form of amnesty is considered?
24. Do you support withholding federal funds to sanctuary cities that do not cooperate in federal immigration law enforcement?
25. Do you support spending public funds to benefit illegal aliens?
26. Do you support automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. when both parents are not legal residents?
For Governor candidates, there is a Comparison Guide listing questions but no direct replies from the candidates, as no Governor candidate replied to the Survey. The Guide cites a limited amount of information from public sources.
For more detailed information on Republican Party nominee Knute Buehler and Democratic Party nominee Kate Brown, see the OFIR summary from the May 2018 Primary election.
Candidate Knute Buehler recently announced that he supports IP 22, the Stop Oregon Sanctuaries initiative. Incumbent Gov. Kate Brown is well-known as a supporter of multiple benefits to illegal aliens and for her strong opposition to Pres. Trump’s immigration policies.
For State Senate and State Representative candidates, the particular questions are:
10. Do you support the repeal of Oregon's sanctuary state law?
11. Do you support sections 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act allowing the U.S. Military to arrest and detain ANY "suspected" terrorist without trial, legal counsel, or accusation of wrongdoing?
23. Do you support an Oregon Constitutional amendment to require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in Oregon?
42. Do you support requiring all Oregon employers to use the federal E-Verify system to determine the employee's work eligibility status?
Measure 105 would repeal Oregon’s sanctuary for illegal aliens law, ORS 181A.820
September 19, 2018
Candidates listed without an asterisk have specifically stated support for Measure 105.
Candidates listed with an asterisk are being credited with support for Measure 105 because they were in the Legislature in 2017 and voted NO on HB 3464, the Privacy for illegal aliens bill that further hampers cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. HB 3464 was filed on behalf of Gov. Kate Brown and Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum. It had only one public hearing, on June 8. On June 20, the House voted: 35 Yes, all by Democrats, and 23 No, all by Republicans. The Senate vote, held on July 6, the next-to-last day of the session, was 16 Yes, all by Democrats, and 13 No, all by Republicans. Two Representatives and one Senator did not vote.
This list is based primarily on the Comparison Chart on Immigration from the 2018 Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education questionnaire. If errors or omissions are found here, please alert Oregonians for Immigration Reform at ofir@oregonir.org
CANDIDATES FOR GOVERNOR:
Knute Buehler (R) He has announced publicly he will vote for Measure 105, and he also voted against HB 3464 in the Legislature.
Aaron Auer (C)
CANDIDATES FOR OREGON STATE SENATE:
SD 04 – Scott Rohter (R)
SD 10 – Jackie Winters (R)*
SD 13 – Kim Thatcher (R)
SD 19 – David Poulson (R)
SD 20 – Alan Olson (R)*
CANDIDATES FOR OREGON STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
HD 01 – David Brock Smith (R) *
HD 02 – David Lief (R)
HD 03 – Carl Wilson (R)*
HD 04 – Duane Stark (R)*
HD 05 – Sandra Abercrombie (R)
HD 07 – Cedric Hayden (R)*
HD 10 – Thomas Donahue (R)
HD 15 – Shelly B. David (R)
HD 17 – Sherrie Sprenger (R)*
HD 18 – Rick Lewis (R)
HD 21 – Jack Esp (R)
HD 22 – Marty Heyen (R)
HD 23 – Mike Nearman (R) (a sponsor of Measure 105)
HD 24 – Ron Noble (R)*
HD 29 – David Molina (R)
HD 30 – Dorothy Merritt (R)
HD 31 – Brian G. Stout (R)
HD 33 – Elizabeth Reye (R)
HD 34 – Michael Ngo (R)
HD 35 – Bob Niemeyer (R)
HD 37 – Julie Parrish (R)*
HD 48 – Sonny Yellott (R) (implied from 2016 candidacy)
HD 55 – Mike McLane (R)*
HD 56 – E. Werner Reschke (R)
HD 57 – Greg Smith (R)*
HD 58 – Greg Barreto (R) (a sponsor of Measure 105)
As of early April 2018, many candidates have replied to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project survey. We’re seeing a significant gain in numbers of candidates who agree that ending sanctuary policies for illegal aliens is necessary. Also, many candidates back additional measures for better immigration control.
This year these important offices which deal partly with immigration issues will be on the ballot: Oregon Governor, Oregon Commissioner of Labor and Industries, 16 Oregon State Senators, all 60 Oregon State Representatives, and all 5 U.S. Representatives in Congress. All of these are partisan offices except the Commissioner of Labor and Industries, which is non-partisan.
OFIR will try to share available information on candidates supportive of immigration policies that serve the interests of U.S. citizens. Illegal and excessive legal immigration must be ended.
Candidates generally have campaign websites; these can be found in an internet search by including in the search term the candidate’s name and the word candidate, or candidate Oregon. Often the campaign websites include an Issues section with statements on the issues the candidate considers important. The absence of a statement or a very vague statement on immigration policy is an indication that the candidate might be uninformed about it or prefers to avoid the issue. We encourage voters to write or call the campaign and ask that the subject of immigration be included on their website. If the candidate does not, or will not, one might be concerned that if elected, that candidate could not be counted on to support positions important for immigration controls.
The Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project survey included the following questions to candidates concerning their views on immigration policy. One can check through the lists of candidates to find their answers if the candidate replied to the survey.
OAAVEP Questions for candidates, Oregon Governor and Oregon Legislature:
10. Do you support the repeal of Oregon’s sanctuary state law?
23. Do you support an Oregon Constitutional amendment to require proof of citizenship to register to vote in Oregon?
42. Do you support requiring all Oregon employers to use the federal E-Verify system to determine the employee’s work eligibility status?
OAAVEP Questions for candidates, U.S. Congress, House of Representatives:
22. Do you support requiring all Oregon employers to use the federal E-Verify system to determine the employee’s work eligibility status?
23. Do you support requiring proof that immigration law enforcement has been established before any form of amnesty is considered?
24. Do you support withholding federal funds to sanctuary cities that do not cooperate in federal immigration law enforcement?
25. Do you support spending public funds to benefit illegal aliens?
26. Do you support automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. when both parents are not legal residents?
44. How would you propose screening war refugees to prevent potential terrorists from entering Oregon with them?
April 10, 2018
Candidates for Oregon Commissioner of Labor and Industries
Oregon Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries is a nonpartisan position; incumbents serve 4-year terms.
“The mission of the Bureau of Labor and Industries is to protect employment rights, advance employment opportunities, and protect access to housing and public accommodations free from discrimination.”-- http://www.oregon.gov/boli/Pages/about_us.aspx
The Commissioner’s decisions affect citizen workers, many of whom face unemployment or depressed wages because employers are allowed to hire illegal aliens, undermining wage and employment standards for all workers.
There are only 3 candidates for this office: Jack Howard of La Grande, Val Hoyle of Eugene, and Lou Ogden of Tualatin. None of them replied to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project survey which included questions on immigration policy. Candidate Hoyle is known to be a strong supporter of benefits to illegal aliens; see details below. Candidates Ogden and Howard appear not to have made, as of April 10, any statements on immigration policy.
Voters can visit the candidate websites of Ogden and Howard and contact them requesting information on their positions on immigration policy:
Lou Ogden: https://vote4louogden.com/
Jack Howard: https://votejackhoward.com/
Val Hoyle: http://www.valhoyle.com/
Lou Ogden has been Mayor of Tualatin since 1994 and is now completing his 6th term. According to his Facebook page, he was endorsed for his 1994 reelection race by both State Senator Richard Devlin and Congressman Greg Walden. Ogden’s 2018 filing paper with the Secretary of Labor’s office does not show a party affiliation.
Some of Ogden’s endorsements in the 2018 race: Congressman Greg Walden, Tualatin Chamber of Commerce, Oregon Small Business Association PAC, Oregon Family Farms Association PAC, Washington County Commission Chair Andy Duyck, Happy Valley Mayor Lori Chavez-DeRemer, and various elected leaders throughout the state. See full list on his website.
In a wide-ranging interview posted by the Oregon Catalyst, Ogden said: “Every decision the Commissioner makes has a consequence, and more often than not, those consequences are directly impacting front-line workers.”
Jack Howard is currently completing his first term (2015-2019) as a Union County Commissioner. His biography on the Council Commission’s website says: “Jack Howard’s previous work includes a decade as a freelance writer and researcher, five years as an English teacher, and a lawyer.” His website gives general statements about his political ideas. His filing paper with the Secretary of State indicates affiliation with the Democratic Party.
Val Hoyle, of Eugene, served as a State Representative for several years, beginning in 2009. She represented House District 14. She became House Democratic Leader, and later resigned in 2016 to run for Secretary of State, losing that race to Dennis Richardson.
Val Hoyle’s record on immigration issues is very poor. During her time in the Legislature, she had an influential role in the management of bills that favored illegal aliens.
Val Hoyle was originally appointed to the House to fill the unexpired term of Chris Edwards; then she was elected in 2010 and following years. She was named Assistant House Democratic Leader for the 2011 session, then became House Democratic Leader for the 2013 session and also for the 2015 session. In the 2015 session, besides being House Democratic Leader, she was Chair of the House Rules Committee, and a member of these committees: Joint Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Capital Construction; Joint Committee on Legislative Administration.
In the 2013 Legislative session, she voted to make SB 833, granting driver cards for illegal aliens, a special order of business, enabling fast-tracking of the bill through the House without a House hearing. The next day, April 30, the bill was voted on in the House, and she voted Aye to driver cards for illegal aliens. Also, in 2013, she was a sponsor of HB 2787, providing instate tuition for illegal aliens, and she voted for it.
In 2014, she almost certainly was a decisive voice in rewriting the ballot title of Measure 88; this measure (88) was the veto referendum on SB 833. The bill calling for a rewrite, HB 4054, was pre-session introduced at the request of the House Interim Committee on Rules. Rep. Hoyle was Chair of the House Rules Committee. She voted for the bill when it came before the House which passed it on Feb. 27. Because there was widespread disapproval of this attempt to hamper public understanding of the bill, the bill was not voted on by the Senate, and it died.
One of the first bills heard in the House in 2015 was HB 2177, automatic, universal voter registration which increases chances for illegal alien voting. It was also fast-tracked, with a public hearing on Feb. 2, work session on Feb. 4, Rules suspended on Feb.18 and House vote on Feb. 20. Rep. Hoyle voted Aye. Fast tracking continued in the Senate which held no hearing, and the bill became law on March 16.
She also voted in 2015 for SB 932, college tuition grants for illegal aliens.
All five of Oregon’s incumbent U.S. Representatives are running for reelection. All five have been in office long enough to create a clear record of their views and actions on immigration policy. NumbersUSA tracks voting records of members of Congress on immigration bills, and based on their voting histories as of April 2018, NumbersUSA gives Oregon’s incumbents the following overall grades for their voting records on immigration issues:
CD 1 – Suzanne Bonamici – F-
CD 2 – Greg Walden – C-
CD 3 – Earl Blumenauer – F-
CD 4 – Peter DeFazio – F-
CD 5 – Kurt Schrader – F-
NumbersUSA has questionnaires for candidates and rates candidates on their answers. Currently, Mark Callahan, candidate in CD 5, opposing incumbent Rep. Kurt Schrader, and Jo Rae Perkins, candidate in CD 4, opposing incumbent Rep. Peter DeFazio, have the highest rating that Numbers USA gives, labelling them both “True Immigration Reformers.”
OAAVEP 2018 candidate survey
No incumbents replied to the questionnaire of the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project, but several of the challengers to incumbents did reply. These candidates returned answers:
CD 1 – Ricky Barajas (D), Michael E. Stanfield (D)
CD 2 – Randy Pollack (R), Paul J. Romero Jr. (R)
CD 3 – Eric Hafner (D)
CD 4 – Jo Rae Perkins (R), Stefan G. Strek (R)
Arthur B. Robinson (R) - His answers from 2014 are listed.
CD 5 – Mark Callahan (R), Joey Nations (R), Robert L. Reynolds (R)
Jo Rae Perkins, Mark Callahan and Joey Nations all spoke at the OFIR meeting in February, giving their views on immigration. Callahan is a member of the Board of OFIR.
Individual candidates’ replies to the OAAVEP survey can be seen by clicking on the “Answers” links in the OAAVEP list of 2018 Congressional candidates. There are 45 questions in the survey; questions 22 through 26 and question 44 deal with immigration.
OAAVEP has prepared a comparison guide for answers of Congressional candidates which simplifies comparing their views. See the comparison chart for candidates here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRnRjF2H90OaQ-zMb4iw4ge-5vCxA__Ex3olL3V36ZtISlVJwOE1JaQjNk1tgoBFmyNzXrBRarPa3JT/pubhtml?gid=252468302&single=true
The immigration questions in the 2018 OAAVEP survey asked Congressional candidates:
22. Do you support requiring all employers to use the Federal E-Verify system to determine the employee’s work eligibility status to work in the United States?
23. Do you support requiring proof that immigration law enforcement has been established before any form of amnesty is considered?
24. Do you support withholding federal funds to sanctuary cities that do not cooperate in federal immigration law enforcement?
25. Do you support spending public funds to benefit illegal aliens?
26. Do you support automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. when both parents are not legal residents?
44. How would you propose screening war refugees to prevent potential terrorists from entering the country with them?
CANDIDATES FOR GOVERNOR
Updated April 26, 2018
As of April 26, six candidates for Governor (2 R’s, 2 D’s and 2 Ind.) have replied to the 2018 Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project survey, which asked governor candidates these questions on immigration:
10. Do you support the repeal of Oregon’s sanctuary state law?
23. Do you support an Oregon Constitutional amendment to require proof of citizenship to register to vote in Oregon?
42. Do you support requiring all Oregon employers to use the federal E-Verify system to determine the employee’s work eligibility status?
You can click here to see a comparison guide to replies: http://bit.ly/OAA2018-ComparisonOnImmigration
ANSWERS OF REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES FOR GOVERNOR
Sam Carpenter – Yes to all 3 questions. Jonathan I Edwards III – 10, No; 23 and 42, Yes.
Sam Carpenter also replied to the 2016 questions when he was running for U.S. Senate. Here are his 2016 answers:
22. Do you support requiring all employers to verify employee eligibility to work in the United States? Yes. 23. Do you support securing the borders before any form of amnesty is legalized? Yes. 24. Do you support spending public funds to benefit illegal immigrants? No. 25. Do you support automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. when both parents are not legal residents? No.
Carpenter spoke at the February OFIR meeting, giving his views on immigration. He has a campaign website at https://www.makeoregongreatagain.com/ with a page describing in full detail his positions on immigration policy.
A Republican Party candidate for Governor, Greg C. Wooldridge, who has not so far provided answers to the OAAVEP survey, does support strict immigration controls. He spoke to the OFIR meeting in February, making his views clear. His website at https://wooldridgefororegon.com/ includes, in the Issues section, a strong statement on immigration reform.
A candidate reputed to be a prominent Republican contender for Governor, Representative Knute Buehler of Bend (House District 54), does not mention immigration on his campaign website and is not known to have issued any specific statement on this issue. He did not reply to the OAAVEP survey. However, his voting record while in the State legislature from 2015 to present shows that he consistently voted against bills that accommodate illegal immigrants (SB 932 in 2015, SB 558 and HB 3464 in 2017, and HB 4111 in 2018).
Two other Republicans, Bruce Cuff and Jack Tacy, originally filed as candidates for Governor, and replied to the OAAVEP survey, but they dropped out recently. On Cuff’s campaign website, he now endorses Greg Wooldridge. On Tacy’s Facebook page he calls for support to Sam Carpenter.
DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATES FOR GOVERNOR
Two of the three Democratic Party candidates replied to the 2018 OAAVEP survey. Ed Jones – Yes to all 3 questions. Candace Neville – No to all 3 questions.
The incumbent Governor, Kate Brown (D), seeks re-election. She did not reply to questions in the OAAVEP survey.
As Governor, on April 4 of this year she announced that she will refuse to let Oregon National Guard troops be stationed at the U.S.-Mexico border, should President Trump seek to dispatch them there.
Brown served as Secretary of State before becoming Governor, and prior to that she was a member of the Legislature for several years. While in the Senate, in 2003 she sponsored SB 10 granting instate tuition to illegal aliens, which passed the Senate but not the House. In 2007 she voted for SB 424, a bill which had been gutted of the original text and filled with a prohibition against “state agency or program from expending funds to implement Real ID Act of 2005 unless federal funds are received by state to cover estimated costs and certain other conditions are met by Dept. of Transportation.” In 2008 she voted against SB 1080 requiring proof of citizenship to obtain driver license.
In 2015, HB 2177, the automatic voter registration bill, which makes voting by illegal aliens more likely, was introduced in the State Legislature at the request of Secretary of State Kate Brown. Also in 2015 she announced unlimited support for bringing refugees to Oregon, saying "Clearly, Oregon will continue to accept refugees. They seek safe haven and we will continue to open the doors of opportunity for them. The words on the Statue of Liberty apply in Oregon just as they do in every other state."
INDEPENDENT PARTY CANDIDATES FOR GOVERNOR
Skye J. Allen replied to the OAAVEP questionnaire, saying Yes to question 22 (repeal of Oregon’s sanctuary law), and Yes to question 23 (requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote in Oregon.) He said No to question 42 (requiring all Oregon employers to use the federal E-Verify system to determine the employee’s work eligibility status.)
Dan Pistore answers: 10. Yes. Let illegals stay, deport the criminals, close the gate, then everyone comes in the legal way. 23. Yes. Very strong on this - most states are lax. 42. Declined to answer.
House District 9 (Coos Bay)
There are 3 candidates in this race: 2 Democrats and 1 Republican. The incumbent Representative, Caddy McKeown (D) seeks reelection; her opponent in the primary is Mark Daily (D). The Republican candidate is Teri Grier.
Teri Grier, of North Bend, Republican candidate, had extensive experience in political work in Arizona and Washington DC before coming several years ago to Oregon.
In 2016, she replied to these questions related to immigration from the 2016 Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project’s survey:
19. Do you support restricting the "emergency clause" in legislation as true emergencies? Yes.
22. Do you support a constitutional amendment to require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in Oregon? Yes.
36. Do you support requiring all Oregon employers to use the federal E-Verify system to determine the employee's work eligibility status? Yes.
She did not reply to the 2018 OAAVEP questionnaire. In the Issues section of her campaign website for the 2018 primary, she includes this paragraph which refers to Oregon’s sanctuary law:
SAFE COMMUNITIES
The Oregon Legislature recently voted to reduce the punishment for the possession of hard drugs like methamphetamine, cocaine and heroin. On top of that, lawmakers reduced penalties for invasion of privacy crimes like property and identity theft. And to make matters even worse, Portland politicians led an effort to expand the state’s sanctuary state immigration policy.
As your voice in Salem, I’ll stand up for South Coast families by rejecting policies that put the safety and security of our communities at risk. Protecting our children and families will always be a priority for me.
Incumbent Rep. Caddy (Catherine) McKeown, of Coos Bay, is the nominee of the Democratic Party. She was first elected in November 2012 and is now running for a 4th term in the Legislature. Her voting record there follows that of the Democratic Party leadership which favors benefits for illegal aliens and lax enforcement of the immigration laws.
In 2018, she voted for HB 4111 giving driver licenses to a group of illegal aliens, in disregard for the citizens’ verdict in the 2014 Referendum rejecting driver licenses for illegal aliens.
In 2017, she voted for HB 3464, the Privacy for illegal aliens bill which shields illegal aliens from questions about their immigration status. Also she voted Yes in favor of SB 229, “relating to elections,” a bill which changed the process for initiatives enabling the Legislature to control the timing of the initiative, the ballot title and other features that take power away from voters and centralize it in the hands of legislative leadership. Further, she voted for SB 558, “Cover All Kids,” a bill extending tax-paid medical care coverage to children brought into the country illegally by their parents
In 2015 she voted for SB 932, which gave Oregon Opportunity Grants to illegal aliens. American citizens will now have to compete against illegal aliens for the limited Oregon State Opportunity Grants for college tuition assistance. In the same session, she also voted for House Bill 2177, which requires mandatory voter registration. Because of the passage of this bill, the state will use drivers’ license data to automatically register voters, making it much more likely that illegal aliens will be voting.
Earlier, in 2013, she voted in favor of SB 833, granting driver licenses to illegal aliens, and in favor of HB 2787, granting instate tuition to illegal aliens. In 2014 he voted in favor of HB 4054 which would have rewritten the ballot title for the Referendum on SB 833 to mislead voters about the Referendum. Fortunately, HB 4054 aroused such wide opposition throughout the state that the Senate dropped consideration of the bill, and it did not pass. Thus, the Referendum on which OFIR worked so hard kept its understandable ballot title, and SB 833, the bill giving driver licenses to illegal aliens was overturned by voters, despite efforts led by Democrats in the House and supported by Rep. McKeown, to thwart the Referendum.
Websites of the three candidates:
Mark Daily (D) - https://www.facebook.com/dailyfordistrict9/. No other website was found for Mr. Daily. He did not reply to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project survey. His views on immigration are unknown.
Teri Grier (R) - https://www.terigrier.org/
Caddy McKeown (D) - http://caddymckeown.com/
House District 18 (Silverton, Aurora, Molalla, Mt. Angel, Sublimity)
In the May primary, there are 3 candidates in House District 18.
Doug L. Culver (D) faces Barry Shapiro (D) for the Democratic Party’s nomination. Culver replied to questions in the OAAVEP survey. Shapiro did not. Here are Culver’s answers:
10. Do you support the repeal of Oregon's sanctuary state law? No.
23. Do you support an Oregon Constitutional amendment to require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in Oregon? Yes.
42. Do you support requiring all Oregon employers to use the federal E-Verify system to determine the employee's work eligibility status? Yes.
Culver maintains a Facebook page for his campaign at: https://www.facebook.com/culver4repdist18/.
The Republican Party candidate, incumbent Rep. Rick Lewis, has no opposition. He was appointed to the position in Feb. 2017 after the resignation of Rep. Vic Gilliam, and now seeks election. The biography on his Legislative website says:
Prior to joining the legislature, Lewis served as the Mayor of Silverton and as the Chief of Police for Silverton.
Rep. Lewis is a life member of the Oregon Association Chiefs of Police and served as the organization's President in 1991. In 2005, he took a six month leave of absence from the Silverton Police Department to teach the Executive Leadership Program for the Iraqi Police leadership during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
After spending three years in the United States Army and two years in the Wyoming National Guard, he graduated from the University of Wyoming with a Bachelors Degree in Criminal Justice.
While in the Legislature in 2018 he voted No on HB 4111 the bill extending driving licenses to certain illegal aliens. In 2017 he voted No on SB 558, “Cover All Kids,” a bill extending Medicaid coverage to children brought into the country illegally by their parents, and No on HB 3464, the Privacy for illegal aliens bill which shields illegal aliens from questions about their immigration status. He also voted No on SB 229, “relating to elections,” a bill which changed the process for initiatives enabling the Legislature to control the timing of the initiative, the ballot title and other features that take power away from voters and centralize it in the hands of legislative leadership.
House District 19 (Salem, Aumsville, Turner)
There are 4 candidates in the primary, 3 Republicans and 1 Democrat. The incumbent, Rep. Denyc Nicole Boles (R), was appointed in January 2018 to complete the term of Rep. Jodi Hack (R), and Rep. Boles now seeks election. The 2 Republican challengers are Michael Hunter and Satya Chandragiri. The Democrat, who is unchallenged within the party and is the presumable nominee in November is Mike Ellison.
The only one of the 4 candidates who replied to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project survey was Michael Hunter, who replied Yes to these questions:
10. Do you support the repeal of Oregon’s sanctuary state law? Yes.
23. Do you support an Oregon Constitutional amendment to require proof of citizenship to register to vote in Oregon? Yes.
42. Do you support requiring all Oregon employers to use the federal E-Verify system to determine the employee’s work eligibility status? Yes.
Rep. Boles began serving in the House on January 24, 2018, and she voted No, along with all other Republicans present, on HB 4111, a bill giving driver licenses to a group of illegal aliens. The bill was passed on March 3 by questionable methods in the waning hours of the “short” session. Her campaign website does not mention immigration, and she did not reply to the OAAVEP survey.
These excerpts, below, from Rep. Boles’ campaign website give some insight into her thinking:
Agriculture
Agriculture is the heart and soul of Marion County. I grew up picking berries, working in the cannery, “putting up” peaches, strawberries, applesauce, and more, for the winter. When I was a college student in Seattle, I asked my employer where she got her strawberries. I was expecting directions to a local farm or even a farmers’ market. She looked at me blankly and said...Safeway. That’s when I began to realize the uniqueness of the place where I was raised. I believe we need to continue to support our family farms and help navigate the myriad of issues that affect them.
Safe Communities
Keeping our homes and families safe is a team effort. Providing a safe place for families to live, work and play is a primary function of the state government. Partnerships with key leaders and organizations in Marion County are important, and I have strong relationships and working understanding of projects and efforts that address public safety issues. If elected, I will advocate for adequate funding and work towards innovative solutions to make sure our communities remain safe.
Here are the websites of candidates in the HD 19 primary election. None of the websites includes discussion of immigration issues.
Denyc Nicole Boles (R) – http://www.vote4boles.com/portfolio/
Satya Chandragiri (R) – https://satyafororegon.com/
Michael Hunter (R) – https://hunterhousedistrict19.com/
Mike Ellison (D) – http://mikeellisonfororegon.com/
House District 20 (Independence, Monmouth, Salem, West Salem)
Rep. Paul Evans (D) seeks to win a third term in the Legislature. He has no opposition from within his party. There are 2 Republican challengers: Kevin S. Chambers and Selma Pierce.
Rep. Evans voted on several key bills related to immigration during his years in the State Legislature, creating a record of favoring illegal immigration. With other Democrats, he voted Yes on these bills:
2015 – SB 932, instate tuition for illegal aliens
2017 – SB 558, “Cover all kids,” a bill extending tax-paid health care to illegal alien children.
HB 3464, Privacy for illegal aliens, a bill which shields illegal aliens from questions about their immigration status.
SB 229, “relating to elections,” a bill which changed the process for initiatives enabling the Legislature to control the timing of the initiative, the ballot title and other features that take power away from voters and centralize it in the hands of legislative leadership.
2018 – HB 4111, the bill extending driver licenses to certain illegal aliens.
Only one of the 3 candidates replied to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project survey: Kevin S. Chambers, of Monmouth. He replied Yes to all 3 OAAVEP questions:
10. Do you support the repeal of Oregon’s sanctuary state law? Yes.
23. Do you support an Oregon Constitutional amendment to require proof of citizenship to register to vote in Oregon? Yes.
42. Do you support requiring all Oregon employers to use the federal E-Verify system to determine the employee’s work eligibility status? Yes.
The other Republican candidate is Selma Pierce, wife of Dr. Bud Pierce who ran for Governor in 2016, losing to Kate Brown.
Here are the websites of candidates in the HD 20 primary election. None of the websites includes discussion of current immigration issues.
Kevin Chambers (R) - https://kevinfororegon.com/
Selma Pierce (R) - https://selmapierce.com
Paul Evans (D) - http://www.paulevans.org/
House District 23 (parts of Benton, Marion, Polk, and Yamhill counties)
There are 3 candidates in the primary, 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat. The Republicans are incumbent Rep. Mike Nearman and challenger Kris Morse Bledsoe. The Democratic candidate is Danny Jaffer, who, being unopposed, presumably will also be the Democratic candidate in the November general election.
Rep. Mike Nearman is completing his second term in office. He is a member of the OFIR Board of Directors, and he staunchly supports immigration law enforcement. He completed the 2018 questionnaire of the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project. Here are the questions and his answers:
10. Do you support the repeal of Oregon’s sanctuary state law? Yes. Ha! I’m one of the chief petitioners on this initiative.
23. Do you support an Oregon Constitutional amendment to require proof of citizenship to register to vote in Oregon? Yes. Ha! I’m one of the chief petitioners on this initiative.
42. Do you support requiring all Oregon employers to use the federal E-Verify system to determine the employee’s work eligibility status? Yes.
His campaign website’s Issues section also has a statement on immigration policy.
Challenger Kris Morse Bledsoe did not reply to the OAAVEP survey. Her website includes this statement on immigration:
Let me start this discussion by declaring up front that I love our immigrant neighbors. That is my bias.
We should be working on ways to help hard working undocumented workers have a path to citizenship. They play a key role in our economy. Our vineyards need them. Our vegetable and nursery farmers need them. They are honorable, skilled people who need to feel safe.
I support Oregon being a sanctuary state. I support the DACA young people who are already integrated in to our economy. We will all lose if they leave.
In January 2018 she organized the “Women of Yamhill County March,” staged to protest the election of President Donald Trump. On her campaign website is a blog, “Racism is not the path to greatness,” supporting amnesty for DACA registrants and showing no consideration for any validation of claims.
She has also written a more general article supporting illegal immigration, “So who do you think is taking your job?” published in the McMinnville News-Register, Aug. 22, 2014.
Websites of the candidates in House District 23:
Rep. Mike Nearman – http://nearmanfororegon.com/
Kris Morse Bledsoe – http://krismorsebledsoe.com/
Danny Jaffer – https://dannyjaffer.com/
Jaffer did not respond to the OAAVEP survey. His campaign website has an Issues section but there is no mention of immigration in it. Presumably he will follow Democratic Party leadership on immigration issues.
House District 26 (Sherwood, Wilsonville, King City, et al)
There are 3 candidates in the primary, 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat. The Republicans are incumbent Rep. A. Richard Vial and challenger Dan Laschober. The Democrat is Ryan Spiker. As of April 20, none of the three had replied to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project survey.
The Republican challenger to incumbent Rep. Vial, Dan Laschober, spoke at OFIR’s April meeting, emphasizing how important the “rule of law” is to America and why our immigration laws should be enforced.
Rep. Vial is completing his first term as a legislator and seeks re-election. In July 2018 he was the only Republican in the Oregon House to vote in favor of HB 4111. HB 4111 gives an Oregon driver license to certain illegal aliens. Despite the fact that in 2014 Oregon voters overwhelmingly voted against giving driver cards to illegal aliens, in the 2018 session of the Legislature, Vial voted, along with all Democrats, for doing just that.
Earlier in the session, he had voted with most other Republicans against HB 3464, Privacy for illegal aliens, which protects aliens from questions about their immigration status. Also he voted against SB 558, “Cover All Kids,” which extended publicly financed health care to illegal alien children, and against SB 229, “relating to elections,” a bill that changes the process for initiatives, enabling the Legislature to control the timing of initiatives, the ballot title and other features that take power away from voters and centralize it in the hands of legislative leadership.
Websites of the candidates for Oregon House District 26:
Daniel Laschober (R) – http://danlaschober.com/
A. Richard Vial (R) - http://www.richvial.org/
Ryan Spiker (D) – http://www.ryanspiker.com. He is the only Democratic candidate, thus is expected to be the party’s nominee in the November general election.
Oregon Legislature – Senate – Candidates in 2018 Primary
Only half of the Oregon Senate will be on the ballot this November because Senators’ terms of office are 4 years.
Among candidates in the 2018 primary, three responded to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Survey: Curt Ankerberg (R) and Julian Bell (D) in Senate District 3, and Scott Rohte (R) in Senate District 4.
Below is a report on Senate District 3. Scroll down to see the report on Senate District 4 which follows District 3.
Senate District 3 (Ashland, Jacksonville, Medford, Phoenix, Talent)
The incumbent, Sen. Alan DeBoer (R), chose to retire; this is an open seat. In SD 3, there are 6 candidates running, 4 Democrats and 2 Republicans.
Two of the candidates for Senate District 3 replied to the OAAVEP survey: Curt Ankerberg (R) and Julian Bell (D).
Answers of Curt Ankerberg (R):
10. Do you support the repeal of Oregon’s sanctuary state law? Yes. The U.S. Attorney General should prosecute Kate Brown for intentionally violating U.S. immigration laws.
23. Do you support an Oregon Constitutional amendment to require proof of citizenship to register to vote in Oregon? Yes. Elections are more prone to fraud due to the motor voter laws, and thus we need more election security controls.
42. Do you support requiring all Oregon employers to use the federal E-Verify system to determine the employee’s work eligibility status? Yes. Illegal aliens are a threat to our country. We need E-Verify to combat this problem.
Answers of Julian Bell (D):
10. Do you support the repeal of Oregon’s sanctuary state law? No.
23. Do you support an Oregon Constitutional amendment to require proof of citizenship to register to vote in Oregon? No. At the moment there is essentially zero voter fraud. I want more people voting not less. Make it easy.
42. Do you support requiring all Oregon employers to use the federal E-Verify system to determine the employee’s work eligibility status? No. The E-Verify system doesn’t work.
The second Republican candidate in the primary is Jessica L. Gomez. The only indication found about her positions on immigration issues is this statement on her Facebook page:
“I have received many comments on Facebook regarding my positions on Sanctuary Cities, Abortion, and the Second Amendment. Each of these issues illicit strong emotions on both sides of the argument. First and foremost, my primary goal is to bring people together, not divide them. For this reason I feel that Facebook is not the right forum to have an in-depth conversation about these issues. I strongly encourage you to call me so that we can have an open honest discussion. 541-200-7016.”
When candidates will not speak publicly about immigration issues, even when asked, and there is no other evidence, voters are left wondering whether the candidate would support the repeal of ORS 181A.820 or any significant measures for stopping illegal immigration.
Websites of Candidates in Senate District 3
No website was found for Curt Ankerberg (R).
Jessica L. Gomez (R) website: www.Jessicafororegon.com
Julian Bell (D) – www.drjulianbell.com
Athena Goldberg (D) – www.athenagoldberg.com
Jeff Golden (D) – www.goldenforsenate.org
Kevin Stine (D) – www.kevinstine.com
The immigration positions of Athena Goldberg and Kevin Stine are unknown. No references to immigration were found on their websites. Julian Bell’s positions, as posted on the OAAVEP candidate website, are cited above.
The website of Jeff Golden (D), in its Social Justice section, includes several statements among which are scattered a few related to immigration policy:
“Do everything possible to end the atrocity of human trafficking along Interstate 5 and elsewhere, beginning with strong support for citizen groups who've taken the lead.”—"Oppose federal immigration enforcement activity that violates established law and internationally-recognized human rights.”—"Immigration brings new skills and ideas that strengthen our economy and culture. Diversity is an asset and inclusion is core to Oregon’s values.”
Senate District 4 (Cottage Grove, Oakland, Sutherlin, Eugene, Veneta, et al)
There are only 2 candidates for Senate District 4, incumbent Sen. Floyd Prozanski (D) who seeks re-election, and Republican Party challenger Scott Rohter.
Sen. Prozanski has been in the Legislature for many years and has a long voting record showing him to favor benefits for illegal aliens and lax enforcement of the immigration laws. He did not reply to the OAAVEP survey.
Scott Rohter’s answers:
10. Do you support the repeal of Oregon’s sanctuary state law? Yes.
23. Do you support an Oregon Constitutional amendment to require proof of citizenship to register to vote in Oregon? Yes.
42. Do you support requiring all Oregon employers to use the federal E-Verify system to determine the employee’s work eligibility status? Yes.
Rohter maintains a website at http://www.lessgovisthebestgov.com/ and a Facebook page at: http://facebook.com/scott.rohter
The other 2 Presidential candidates are Gary Johnson, Libertarian Party, and Jill Stein, Green Party. NumbersUSA’s overall assessment of Gary Johnson is that he favors more foreign workers and champions less enforcement of immigration laws. Stein’s views also are assessed as favoring more foreign workers and less enforcement of immigration laws. See the NumbersUSA report for details about their immigration positions here.
Pierce said handling refugees used to be a private matter. He said the federal government didn’t seize control until the end of World War II. While he said it is now a federal matter, it was his opinion that Oregon could not handle any more right now. “The plight of the true refugees is God-awful,” Pierce said. “My heart goes out to them. But we can’t afford them.”
Alley said the plight of the refugees was close to his heart, as three of his grandparents were immigrants. “My heart bleeds for them,” he said. “But our number one priority is the safety of the people here,” he said.
This petition began more than a year ago, in March 2015, with filing of Initiative no.37, Citizen Workers and Legally Authorized Workers. The petition called for employers to use the free federal E-Verify program to verify the legal status of new hires. Verification of the legal status of workers is a necessary step in preserving job opportunities for citizens and legal immigrants.
2014 General Election
This section focuses on the 2014 primary election.
April 22, 2014
April 23, 2014
April 23, 2014
March 20, 2014, updated April 28, 2014
April 24, 2014
April 24, 2014
April 26, 2014
This section discusses amnesty for illegal aliens. Read more about the issue below:
The following document is the official directive to enforcement sections of the DHS outlining policies they are to follow. President Obama has not issued an Executive Order, although he has made it clear this directive reflects his position on "individuals [immigrants] who came to the United States as children."
Secretary
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528
June 15, 2012
MEMORANDUM FOR:
David V. Aguilar, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Alejandro Mayorkas, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
John Morton, Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
FROM: Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security
SUBJECT: Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children
By this memorandum, I am setting forth how, in the exercise of our prosecutorial discretion, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should enforce the Nation's immigration laws against certain young people who were brought to this country as children and know only this country as home. As a general matter, these individuals lacked the intent to violate the law and our ongoing review of pending removal cases is already offering administrative closure to many of them. However, additional measures are necessary to ensure that our enforcement resources are not expended on these low priority cases but are instead appropriately focused on people who meet our enforcement priorities.
The following criteria should be satisfied before an individual is considered for an exercise of prosecutorial discretion pursuant to this memorandum:
Our Nation's immigration laws must be enforced in a strong and sensible manner. They are not designed to be blindly enforced without consideration given to the individual circumstances of each case. Nor are they designed to remove productive young people to countries where they may not have lived or even speak the language. Indeed, many of these young people have already contributed to our country in significant ways. Prosecutorial discretion, which is used in so many other areas, is especially justified here.
As part of this exercise of prosecutorial discretion, the above criteria are to be considered whether or not an individual is already in removal proceedings or subject to a final order of removal. No individual should receive deferred action under this memorandum unless they first pass a background check and requests for relief pursuant to this memorandum are to be decided on a case by case basis. DHS cannot provide any assurance that relief will be granted in all cases.
1. With respect to individuals who are encountered by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS):
2. With respect to individuals who are in removal proceedings but not yet subject to a final order of removal, and who meet the above criteria:
3. With respect to the individuals who are not currently in removal proceedings and meet the above criteria, and pass a background check:
For individuals who are granted deferred action by either ICE or USCIS, USCIS shall accept applications to determine whether these individuals qualify for work authorization during this period of deferred action.
This memorandum confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship. Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights. It remains for the executive branch, however, to set forth policy for the exercise of discretion within the framework of the existing law. I have done so here.
From FAIR:
Amnesty 2013 resources. http://www.fairus.org/legislation/amnesty/s-744-bill-resources
Data Shows Border Security Metric in S.744 Subject to Political Manipulation. By Julie Kirchner, June 19, 2013. http://immigrationreform.com/2013/06/19/data-shows-border-security-metric-in-s-744-subject-to-political-manipulation/
Gang of Eight: Broken Promises & Special Deals; Did the Gang of Eight live up to all of their promises to make this bill tougher on border security than any previous legislation? What special interests benefit from the bill? What opportunities has the Senate rejected to strengthen it? http://www.fairus.org/legislation/amnesty/broken_promises
Amnesty issue briefs. http://www.fairus.org/issues/amnesty-issue-briefs
Legislation in the 113th Congress: H.R. 1417: Border Security Results Act of 2013. Bill comparison – H.R. 1417 and S.744. http://www.fairus.org/_blog/Legislation_in_the_113th_Congress/post/hr-1417-border-security-results-act-of-2013/ [Click on "Download PDF"]
Top 40 reasons to oppose the Gang of Eight Amnesty bill (S.744). June 5, 2013. http://www.fairus.org/_blog/amnesty_updates/post/top-40-reasons-to-oppose-the-gang-of-eight-amnesty-bill---s-744/. [Click on "Click here to view in a new page" and see PDF document.]
Real immigration enforcement; S.744 doesn't do the job. Sept. 2013. http://www.fairus.org/publications/real-immigration-enforcement-and-how-s-744-doesn-t-do-the-job Click on "in PDF format" to see the full report.
From Center for Immigration Studies:
Must-Read Articles on the Schumer-Rubio Bill; Highlighting the Flaws of S.744. By CIS June 2013 http://cis.org/Must-Read-Articles-Schumer-Rubio-s744-Amnesty
Hoeven-Corker Amendment – Long on Amnesty, Short on Everything Else. By Ronald W. Mortensen, June 24, 2013. http://cis.org/mortensen/hoeven-corker-amendment-long-amnesty-short-everything-else
Foreign-Born Share Would Hit Historic High in Seven Years Under S.744; One in Seven U.S. Residents Would Be Immigrants by 2020. By Steven A. Camarota June 2013. http://cis.org/Foreign-born-historic-high-by-2020
Five Myths about Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants in Senate Bill. By Jon Feere, May 15, 2013. http://cis.org/feere/5-myths-about-amnesty-illegal-immigrants-senate-bill
Questions for Lawmakers on Immigration. By Jon Feere August 2013. http://cis.org/questions-for-lawmakers-on-immigration
Widening Existing Vulnerabilities; National Security Implications of S.744, Part 1. By Janice Kephart, July 8, 2013. http://cis.org/kephart/widening-existing-vulnerabilities-national-security-implications-s744-part-1
From NumbersUSA:
The FACTS on S.744. This webpage includes live links to the following topics, all very useful in learning about the bill. One must scroll far down on the page to see these topics. The links listed below are not active but must be accessed through the NumbersUSA webpage at: https://www.numbersusa.com/solutions/stop-amnesty
33 Million Green Cards in First Decade
Heritage: Amnesty will cost taxpayers $6.3 trillion
National poll finds little support of Gang of Eight
FAIR: Top Reasons to Oppose S.744
Marco Rubio: "First comes the Legalization"
Gang of Eight opposes Enforcement First
CIS: S.744 doubles guest-worker flows
USCCR Commissioner Peter Kirsanow op-ed: S.744 hurts low-skilled workers
S.744: More than 400 waivers and exemptions
S.744: Gang of Eight's Broken Promises
State-by-state U-6 unemployment rates. For 2013 updates, see http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm
Opposition to S.744
Congressional Opposition to the Gang of Eight's bill
Letter to Congress Opposing Gang of Eight Amnesty bill
Law Enforcement Organizations Opposed to Gang of Eight's bill
Conservative Coalition Opposes Gang of Eight's bill
National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers statement on Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment
USCISLetter of opposition to Corker-Hoeven amendment
Letter of opposition from Evangelicals for Biblical Immigration
In a letter sent to President Obama on June 19, a group of Senators led by Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, asked for written responses to a list of detailed questions and a briefing from the administration officials who will be responsible for the program. They described their concerns about President’s circumvention of Congress in issuing the directive and questioned the impact of allowing work authorizations for illegal immigrants at the same time young Americans face record-high unemployment rates.
See text of the letter, with its detailed questions, below.
United States Senate
Washington DC 20510
June 19, 2012
President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear President Obama:
We are extremely concerned by your announcement last week that the Department of Homeland Security plans to implement a program that grants deferred action to an untold number of illegal immigrants in the United States, and to allow them to receive work authorization during this time of record unemployment. Not only do we question your legal authority to act unilaterally in this regard, we are frustrated that you have intentionally bypassed Congress and the American people.
As President, you swore to uphold and defend the Constitution and enforce the laws. Your recently announced directive runs contrary to that responsibility. Not only is your directive an affront to our system of representative government and the legislative process, but it is an inappropriate use of Executive power.
Your position on whether you have the legal authority to act unilaterally has changed dramatically. Just last year, you personally disputed the. notion that the Executive Branch could act on its own and grant benefits to a certain class of illegal immigrants. Specifically, you stated,
"This notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. The fact of the matter is there are laws on the hooks that I have to enforce. And I think there's been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It's just not true. We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it."
• Why has your position on the legal authority of the Executive Branch changed?
• Did you consult with attorneys prior to the announcement about your legal authority to grant deferred action and work authorizations to a specific class of illegal immigrants?
• Did you obtain a legal opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel or anyone else in the administration about your legal authority to implement such a program?
• Please provide copies of any documentation, including any and all legal opinions, memoranda, and emails, that discusses any authority you have or do not have to undertake this immigration directive.
We are also concerned that the directive being implemented allows individuals under the age of
30 to obtain a work authorization. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the
unemployment rate for young adults aged 16-24 has been nearl y 17% for the last year. According to a Gallup poll conducted in April of this year, 32% of 18 to 29 year-olds in the U.S. workforce were underemployed. Your directive runs contrary to the premise that American workers must come before foreign nationals. It is astonishing that your administration would grant work authorizations to illegal immigrants during this time of record unemployment. Your directive will only increase competition for American students and workers who struggle to find employment in today's economy. Moreover, under current law, some foreign students and other legal visa holders are prohibited from obtaining work authorizations, giving illegal immigrants an advantage over those who play by the rules.
The implementation of your directive raises several serious questions.
• What will happen if your directive is challenged in court?
• Will individuals who have applied for deferred action be required to leave the U.S. if such a challenge is upheld?
• How will the administration handle family members, specifically the parents who violated federal immigration law?
• Will individuals who entered the U.S. on their own volition - either by crossing the border illegally or overstaying a visa - be eligible for deferred action?
• Why does the directive allow individuals up to age 30 to benefit from deferred action if the directive is aimed at helping young people and students?
• How will federal officials who process the applications ensure that information provided by the individual is accurate and how will they verify that one truly entered the country before the age of 16 or are currently under the age of 30?
• Will evidence submitted in support of deferred action applications be limited to independently verifiable government-issued docu ments (e.g., school records, W-2s, tax returns)? If not, why not? If affidavits will be accepted, will they be required to be made under penalty of perjury? If not, why not?
• Will illegal immigrants be required to appear in person for an interview by the federal government before deferred action is granted?
• How will the agency implementing the program ensure that fraud and abuse is prevented?
• What will the consequences be for individuals who intentionally defraud the government?
• Which databases will be used and how will background checks be conducted to ensure that individuals do not have a criminal history or pose a threat to public safety?
• What would constitute a "significant" misdemeanor offense, which is one of the criteria for eligibility for deferred status?
• Will individuals with final orders of removal be eligible for deferred action?
• What action will the administration take if an individual is denied deferred action?
• What action will be taken if an individual is granted deferred action, but subsequently abuses that grant, is arrested, is found to be a member of a criminal gang, or does not actually attend school?
• Absent congressional action, what will happen in two years to the individuals who are granted deferred action?
• Will recipients of deferred action be eli gible for receipt of advance parole?
• What criteria will be used to decide who gets work authorizations and who does not?
• Which other departments and agencies will be consulted and will work with the
Department of Homeland Security on the implementation of this directive?
We also believe that taxpayers deserve to know how this program will be funded.
• Can you assure us that the total implementation cost of the program will be paid for by the individuals seeking to benefit, or will U.S. taxpayers subsidize any part of the program?
• How much, if anything, will an illegal immigrant be required to pay in order to obtain deferred action?
• What legal authority does the Executive Branch have to mandate a fee for this service?
We understand that the Department has never previously charged a fee for the processing of a request for deferred action.
• Do you plan to reprogram funds at the Department of Homeland Security or any other
Executive Branch agency to help fund the implementation of the directive?
• If you plan to use funds that already have been appropriated or other funds from the Department, please explain which programs will be reduced in order to cover the costs associated with the directive.
• If USCIS adjudications staff will be diverted from their normal duties to handle the millions of potential deferred action applications, what will be the impact on other USCIS programs?
Given that this directive is effective immediately and that many questions remain unanswered, we ask that you immediately make available Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service Director Alejandro Mayorkas to respond to our concerns.
We would appreciate responses to our questions, including any relevant documentation related to this directive, no later than July 3, 2012.
Sincerely,
[Signed by: Senators Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Mike Crapo of Idaho, James Risch of Idaho, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, John Boozman of Arkansas, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, David Vitter of Louisiana, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Pat Roberts of Kansas, Mike Lee of Utah, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, John Barrasso of Wyoming, and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.]
Attrition Through Enforcement means that as existing immigration laws are enforced, more and more illegal aliens will find it difficult to work in the United States. Likewise, enforcement of existing immigration laws will make the United States less enticing for illegal aliens to sneak into in order to earn higher wages.
It is not necessary to spend money and law enforcement effort to round up the millions of illegal aliens who have taken jobs from Americans. By enforcing our existing laws, illegal aliens will self-deport - meaning that they will pay their own way to voluntarily go back home and reunite with their families.
May 1, 2018
References on Fiscal Costs of Illegal Immigration to Oregon Taxpayers
Note: Illegal immigration is the cause of many ill effects in Oregon and the U.S. in addition to the fiscal costs accruing to taxpayers. This list is limited to the fiscal costs.
1. Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers (2017). Report by Matt O’Brien and Spencer Raley, September 27, 2017. A pdf version which contains fuller information is here. The pdf publication updates some of the figures given in the 2012 report listed below.
On page 33 of the 2017 pdf report there is a chart, State by state costs of illegal immigration (Excluding federal costs), including columns for Cost of illegal aliens to state taxpayers, and Cost of illegal aliens & their kids to state taxpayers. The figures given for Oregon are $913,046,575, cost of illegal aliens to Oregon state taxpayers, and $1,219,830,224, cost of illegal aliens & their kids to Oregon state taxpayers.
2. Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Aliens on Oregonians (2012). 24p. See the pdf version here.
Partial contents: Educational expenditures.-Limited English proficient (LEP) student enrollment.-LEP expenditures.-In-state tuition.-Health care expenditures.- Medicaid births.-Medicaid for U.S.-born children of illegal aliens.-Healthy kids.-Other emergency medical care.-Judicial expenditures.-Social assistance costs.-TANF-CCDF.-Other fiscal costs.-Remittances.-Tax collection.-Income tax.-Net fiscal costs.
This FAIR report is several years old now, and costs have probably increased since then with continued illegal immigration and expansions of some benefits.
3. Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). Oregon Taxpayers Foot $1 Billion Annual Bill for Illegal Immigration. Dec. 12, 2012.
This is a press release containing a summary of the longer report.
4. FAIR has produced a colorful flyer with summarized information for 2013.
5. Oregon Department of Corrections Criminal Alien Report, by David Olen Cross.
Mr. Cross compiles statistics monthly on prisoners with ICE detainers held by Oregon Dept of Corrections, including the costs of incarceration. These and related reports are posted on his website at: https://docfnc.wordpress.com.
6. Center for Immigration Studies, Washington DC.
The Center has issued many reports on national costs of immigration. A complete list is available at http://cis.org/Costs.
7. The Heritage Foundation, Washington DC. The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer, by Jason Richwine and Robert Rector, May 6, 2013. 102 p.
See the pdf version here.
The individual testimonies are posted online as pdf documents. They can be accessed through this webpage: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Committees/SBT/2013-04-11-15-00/SB833/Details, which lists the testifiers in alphabetical order, or through this page, https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Measures/Exhibits/SB833,which doesn’t alphabetize those listed but includes 2 names not in the other list.
Following is a list of persons who gave opposition testimony either in person or by written documents sent to the Committee. To read these testimonies, click on the links below, or visit the webpages linked above and click on the icon in left column beside the individual entry.
Crino, Art, Exhibit 17
Cross, David, Salem, Exhibit 9, Exhibit 10, Exhibit 11
Dane, Peter, Salem, Exhibit 19
DeCourcey, David & Christy, Bend, Exhibit 33
Dysinger, Janice, Exhibit 34
Edwards, K., Oregon Citizens Lobby, Exhibit 49
Eidem, Mike, Aloha, Exhibit 16
Fox, Todd, Exhibit 36
Hallgrimson, Daryl and Brenda, Exhibit 21
Hubbard, Jim, Wallowa County, Exhibit 3
Johnson, Dale, Salem, Exhibit 15
Kendoll, Cynthia, Salem, Exhibit 6
Ludwick, Jim, McMinnville, Exhibit 8
Mawhinney, Amber, student at OSU, Exhibit 22
Morgan, Catherine, NOLA Neighborhood Association, Exhibit 45
Morrise, Judy, Exhibit 60
Morrongiello, Gabriella, student at OSU, Exhibit 7
Nash, Don, Lake Oswego, Exhibit 18
O’Brien, Lois, Portland, Exhibit 27
Oregon State Sheriffs Association, by Darrell Fuller (testimony is neutral but points out weaknesses in the bill) – Exhibit 37
Poole, Don, Salem, Exhibit 25
Rowe, Kim, Corvallis, Exhibit 4
Teuscher, Sheryl, Rainier, Exhibit 55
Torres, Maureen, Exhibit 56
Van Staaveren, Elizabeth, McMinnville, Exhibit 58
Cocaine Incorporated;
How the World’s Most Powerful Drug Traffickers Run Their Business
By Patrick Radden Keefe
in The New York Times Magazine, June 15, 2012
[Following is the first part of a lengthy, detailed description of how Mexican drug cartels operate. To read the entire shocking account, see illustration and map, view the article on the New York Times website.]
One afternoon last August, at a hospital on the outskirts of Los Angeles, a former beauty queen named Emma Coronel gave birth to a pair of heiresses. The twins, who were delivered at 3:50 and 3:51, respectively, stand to inherit some share of a fortune that Forbes estimates is worth a billion dollars. Coronel’s husband, who was not present for the birth, is a legendary tycoon who overcame a penurious rural childhood to establish a wildly successful multinational business. If Coronel elected to leave the entry for “Father” on the birth certificates blank, it was not because of any dispute over patrimony. More likely, she was just skittish about the fact that her husband, Joaquín Guzmán, is the C.E.O. of Mexico’s Sinaloa cartel, a man the Treasury Department recently described as the world’s most powerful drug trafficker. Guzmán’s organization is responsible for as much as half of the illegal narcotics imported into the United States from Mexico each year; he may well be the most-wanted criminal in this post-Bin Laden world. But his bride is a U.S. citizen with no charges against her. So authorities could only watch as she bundled up her daughters and slipped back across the border to introduce them to their dad.
Known as El Chapo for his short, stocky frame, Guzmán is 55, which in narco-years is about 150. He is a quasi-mythical figure in Mexico, the subject of countless ballads, who has outlived enemies and accomplices alike, defying the implicit bargain of a life in the drug trade: that careers are glittering but brief and always terminate in prison or the grave. When Pablo Escobar was Chapo’s age, he had been dead for more than a decade. In fact, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Chapo sells more drugs today than Escobar did at the height of his career. To some extent, this success is easily explained: as Hillary Clinton acknowledged several years ago, America’s “insatiable demand for illegal drugs” is what drives the clandestine industry. It’s no accident that the world’s biggest supplier of narcotics and the world’s biggest consumer of narcotics just happen to be neighbors. “Poor Mexico,” its former president Porfirio Díaz is said to have remarked. “So far from God and so close to the United States.”
The Sinaloa cartel can buy a kilo of cocaine in the highlands of Colombia or Peru for around $2,000, then watch it accrue value as it makes its way to market. In Mexico, that kilo fetches more than $10,000. Jump the border to the United States, and it could sell wholesale for $30,000. Break it down into grams to distribute retail, and that same kilo sells for upward of $100,000 — more than its weight in gold. And that’s just cocaine. Alone among the Mexican cartels, Sinaloa is both diversified and vertically integrated, producing and exporting marijuana, heroin and methamphetamine as well.
Estimating the precise scale of Chapo’s empire is tricky, however. Statistics on underground economies are inherently speculative: cartels don’t make annual disclosures, and no auditor examines their books. Instead, we’re left with back-of-the-envelope extrapolations based on conjectural data, much of it supplied by government agencies that may have bureaucratic incentives to overplay the problem.
So in a spirit of empirical humility, we shouldn’t accept as gospel the estimate, from the Justice Department, that Colombian and Mexican cartels reap $18 billion to $39 billion from drug sales in the United States each year. (That range alone should give you pause.) Still, even if you take the lowest available numbers, Sinaloa emerges as a titanic player in the global black market. In the sober reckoning of the RAND Corporation, for instance, the gross revenue that all Mexican cartels derive from exporting drugs to the United States amounts to only $6.6 billion. By most estimates, though, Sinaloa has achieved a market share of at least 40 percent and perhaps as much as 60 percent, which means that Chapo Guzmán’s organization would appear to enjoy annual revenues of some $3 billion — comparable in terms of earnings to Netflix or, for that matter, to Facebook.
The drug war in Mexico has claimed more than 50,000 lives since 2006. But what tends to get lost amid coverage of this epic bloodletting is just how effective the drug business has become. A close study of the Sinaloa cartel, based on thousands of pages of trial records and dozens of interviews with convicted drug traffickers and current and former officials in Mexico and the United States, reveals an operation that is global (it is active in more than a dozen countries) yet also very nimble and, above all, staggeringly complex. Sinaloa didn’t merely survive the recession — it has thrived in recent years. And after prevailing in some recent mass-casualty clashes, it now controls more territory along the border than ever.
…
Read the rest of the article here:
E-Verify is a voluntary, free internet program that allows employers to verify the work eligibility of new hires. Administered by the Department of Homeland Security, Citizenship and Immigration Services (DHS-USCIS), E-Verify compares information from an employee's Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, to data from U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration records to confirm employment eligibility.
E-Verify is a voluntary, free federal internet program that allows employers to verify the work eligibility of new hires. Because E-Verify is successful in identifying illegal aliens seeking jobs, some local and national proponents of cheap foreign labor try to prevent its application by misrepresenting the program.
A common, unsubstantiated charge is that legally eligible workers are harmed by it because the program is so inaccurate.
Suzanne Bonamici, running for election to Oregon’s Congressional District 1, called E-Verify “notoriously unreliable,” in a candidate debate sponsored by the Portland League of Women Voters and the American Association of University Women, on Dec. 6, 2011.[1]
Here are some facts about E-Verify.
“Rosemary Jenks, the lawyer who heads up NumbersUSA's Capitol Hill Team, has repeatedly and publicly issued a challenge to the media and open-borders advocates to produce even one example of an American losing a job because the E-Verify system wrongly ordered it.
“If it turned out that of millions of transactions a year, there were 10 or 20 mistakes, we would be concerned but also find that to be an understandably tiny problem.
“But, to date, opponents have NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND an example of even ONE AMERICAN who lost a job due to problems with E-Verify.”
The Biggest 2 Lies About E-Verify (arguments opponents use to keep hiring illegal aliens), by Roy Beck, Jan. 31, 2009.
E-Verify is regularly updated and enhanced to improve its accuracy and usability. For a description of E-Verify program improvements, see the E-Verify History and Milestones webpage.
In February 2012, E-Verify added a service called Self Check, which enables citizens to test their Social Security number in the E-Verify program to confirm accuracy. Thus anyone can make certain in advance that one’s standing as a legal worker is intact. Self Check is also available in Spanish.
In December 2011, E-Verify reached a new record for that time: it was in use at more than one million worksites.[2] As of June 2014, about half a million more worksites had been added.
Key Findings of the 2013 E-Verify User Survey
June 2014
More than 520,000 employers at over 1.5 million hiring sites nationwide are using E-Verify to help them confirm whether their newly hired employees are eligible to work in the United States. In 2013, the research firm Westat conducted an in-depth survey of nearly 3000 randomly sampled E-Verify employers to assess their satisfaction with the program, shed light on how they are using E-Verify, and suggest recommendation for further improvements. The following are [some] key findings from the survey.
Employer Confidence and Satisfaction with E-Verify
1. Most E-Verify employers believe that E-Verify is effective (92 percent) and perceive it as highly accurate (89 percent).
2. Overall, 97 percent of E-Verify employers agree that the system is user friendly. They continue to express high levels of satisfaction with E-Verify’s features and processes, including enrollment and start-up, system navigation, system reliability, program resources, and technical help.
3. Most E-Verify employers agree that the mandatory tutorial adequately prepared them to use E-Verify (93 percent), that the tutorial was easy to understand (91 percent), and that it answered all of their questions (87 percent).
4. Among employers who participate in E-Verify because of federal, state, or local government requirements, 70 percent say that they would be “likely” or “very likely” to continue with the program even if they were not required to do so.
[To view remainder of summary, click here.]
Linda Chavez in a column of Dec. 30. 2011,[3] asserted that the failure rate for identifying illegal workers under E-Verify is almost 50 percent, arguing this disqualifies the program for mandatory use. Other open-borders advocates also cite similar criticisms.
Jack Martin, FAIR Special Projects Director, answers the criticism succinctly:[4]
“It is clear that some illegal alien workers escape detection by the E-Verify system, but no one knows how many. The false confirmation percentage cited in the GAO [Government Accountability Office] report was an estimate by a government contractor. Since that GAO report was issued, Richard Stana, the GAO director for homeland security and justice, reported to Congress in February 2011, ‘USCIS has reduced the incidence of ... E-Verify's vulnerability to fraud.’ And further progress in reducing false confirmations will be made when E-Verify is made a national mandatory system for all employers because the proposed legislation requires SSA to report evidence of false use of SSNs.
“The irony in the claim of unreliability of the E-Verify system is that it is not being made as an argument for improving the system. It is cynically being made by defenders of illegal aliens in an effort to prevent E-Verify from being expanded nationwide. They are trying to preserve job opportunities for illegal workers.”
[1] http://blip.tv/community-media-videos/league-of-women-voters-oregon-dist-1-congressional-candidate-forum-5799173
[2] http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Verification/E-Verify/E-Verify_Native_Documents/Everify%20Studies/Key-Findings_of_E-Verify_User_Survey_2013.pdf
[3] http://www.creators.com/opinion/linda-chavez/coulter-s-self-fulfilling-prophecy-11-12-30.html
[4] http://www.steinreport.com/archives/unreliability_of_e-verify.html
Here is a current list of E-verify employers in Oregon as of January 1, 2017.
Charges are made by opponents of E-Verify that the program cannot handle the large volume of work necessary for mandatory nationwide use. These charges are refuted in statements from some of the leading officials of the Department of Homeland Security’s Citizenship and Immigration Services, cited below.
1. Debunking the E-Verify Capacity Problem, by Stewart Baker, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Department of Homeland Security. May 21, 2008. (Second in a series on E-Verify issued in the DHS Leadership Journal)
"Based on a recent load testing, the system has the capacity to handle 240 million queries a year. That’s three to four times the number of people who are usually hired in a given year."
2. The following is quoted from Congressional testimony on June 10, 2008 by Jonathan R. Scharfen, Deputy Director, USCIS:
"The E-Verify program infrastructure is capable of handling the volume of queries that would be necessary for a nationwide mandatory employment verification system.
"DHS and SSA conducted cooperative end-to-end load testing of the Verification Information System (VIS), which is the database that supports E-Verify, in September of 2007. The results of the testing showed that E-Verify has the capacity to handle up to 60 million queries per year. This capacity is in line with the projected 60 million new hire queries per year that would result from mandatory E-Verify legislation applicable to all U.S. employers. DHS will continue to work with SSA to update the current pilot architecture to ensure that DHS and SSA can provide the most stable environment possible to the employer community and to create an independent environment for E-Verify queries, separate from SSA’s other processing needs."
3. Later Congressional testimony on Feb. 10, 2011 by Theresa Bertucci, Associate Director, Enterprise Services Directorate, USCIS, confirmed the capacity of the E-Verify program:
"Ensuring Future Capacity to Administer Increased Use of E-Verify.
"The E-Verify program is well-equipped to handle continued expansion. E-Verify currently has the capacity to receive at least 60 million electronic queries annually if all new hires were run through the E-Verify program. USCIS has invested in a dedicated information technology environment to transfer data from E-Verify to SSA to handle increased growth in query volume. To further help ensure continuous service in the future, USCIS expects to execute a service-level agreement with SSA in the near term. The service-level agreement will define the requirements for SSA to establish and maintain the capacity and availability of its system to support E-Verify."
4. E-Verify job-check system has room to grow, agency says, by Stephen Dinan, in The Washington Times, March 15, 2012.
" ‘We have the capacity currently to process far more queries than we currently handle. And so we can right now handle the expansion of E-Verify to additional states. But if it was mandated across the country, it would take us some time to ramp up for that exponentially greater volume,’ said Alejandro Mayorkas, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that handles legal-immigration benefits.
"An aide on the Judiciary panel said Mr. Smith's legislation [H.R. 2885] phases in the checks, which would give E-Verify a chance to ramp up. It also gives the Homeland Security secretary a waiver power to delay implementation for six months.
"As for additional resources, the aide said, the administration could submit any new needs to the Appropriations Committee. …"
House Bill 2787 – Instate Tuition Benefits for students illegally in the United States
It doesn’t matter which side of the immigration debate you’re on.
In order for a law to be good, it has to be specific, actionable, and deliver what it promises.
HB 2787 fails that test.
Section 18 d. stipulates that to be eligible for the benefits of this bill, a person has to “intend” to become a citizen. This overlooks two key facts:
First, the State of Oregon has no standing to determine this intent. Any attempt to do so would amount to guesswork.
Second, in order for illegal aliens to pursue citizenship, they must return to their country of origin and reside there while following the process legally. This would preclude any student from obeying the provisions of the bill. Even the DACA program does not convey citizenship.
The only way that this bill could become broadly applicable is with the passage of a mass amnesty at a Federal level, as many pundits and politicians have suggested is “inevitable.”
However, we must consider that several major amnesties have come before Congress in the past twenty years, under presidents from both parties, and not a single one has become law. The current amnesty push that is being foisted on the American people is already beginning to come apart at the seams.
Wouldn't it make more sense to wait until the Federal immigration issue is resolved before rushing to pass state laws that could contradict Federal law?
Clearly, banking on a Federal amnesty to make enforceable the provisions of this bill is reckless and shortsighted.
This bill is bad for several reasons, but one reason should concern advocates from both sides of the debate: The fact that HB 2787 still promises far more than it can deliver.
Thank you.
Cynthia Kendoll, Salem, OR
February 13, 2013
Oregon House Committee
Higher Education and Workforce Development
900 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301
Testimony: No on HB 2787, instate tuition for international students illegally in the country.
Honorable Chairman Dembrow, Vice-Chairmen Harker and Huffman, and Committee Members:
My name is David Olen Cross and I am a resident of Salem, Oregon.
One of the great misnomers used by proponents of House Bill 2787 is to describe the legislation as “tuition equity” when what HB 2787 would do is to provide instate tuition to a special interest group of international students illegally in the country, while at the same time excluding those same benefits to legal American citizens in neighboring states — and proponents call that “tuition equity”.
Problematic with HB 2787 is the legislation has no sunset clause that would limit number of illegal international students who could receive instate tuition in the future; a lack of a sunset clause in the legislation will place a heavy economic burden on the Oregon’s higher education system, cause an increase in tuition rates for students attending the state’s public universities and colleges, and cause an increased taxpayer burden to support state’s higher education system.
Crunching some numbers from neighboring Western Oregon University (WOU), for years 2012-2013, the estimated undergraduate tuition and fees (15-credits per term) for an Oregon resident is $8,529 per year, while an international student is $21,114 per year. Under HB 2787, WOU would be required to cut individual tuition and fees costs for illegal international students attending the university by $12,585 per year. The result of the legislation becoming law, WOU would lose over a four-year period for every illegal international student attending the university $50,340. Committee members: Who is going to make up the tuition shortfall? — The universities and colleges? — The students? — The taxpayers?
Also problematic with SB 2787 is the limited amount of years that would be required for illegal international students to spend in Oregon’s public schools to receive the benefit of instate tuition. A time of just three years attending an Oregon high school is not long enough for them or their foreign national parents, likewise illegally in the country, to have contributed enough in taxes to the bricks and mortar, the infrastructure, of Oregon’s universities and colleges to merit instate tuition.
Although Oregon taxpayers are often generous when it comes to the issues surrounding funding education, what might be considered as real “tuition equity” by the state’s taxpayers is that illegal international students must have completed at a minimum K-12 in the state’s public education system to be eligible to receive instate tuition.
A final recognizable flaw with HB 2787 is the legislation fails to put students who are United States citizens in the state (residents), students who are U.S. citizens from other states (non residents), and students who are foreign nationals (legal international students with visas from their countries of origin) first in line to attended Oregon’s universities and colleges, particularly in limited enrollment programs. Students legally present in the country should always be given first priority to enroll in the state’s universities and colleges.
Chairman Dembrow, Vice-Chairmen Harker and Huffman, and Committee Members, I thank the committee for hearing my testimony in opposition to HB 2787.
David Olen Cross
Salem OR
C/C:
Rep. Michael Dembrow, Chairman Rep. Vic Gilliam
Rep. Chris Harker, Vice-Chairman Rep. Chris Gorsek
Rep. John Huffman, Vice-Chairman Rep. Mitch Greenlick
Rep. Mark Johnson, Rep. Gene Whisnant
Rep. Joe Gallegos,
TESTIMONY FOR THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION,
ON HOUSE BILL 2787, FEBRUARY 13, 2013
by Elizabeth Van Staaveren, McMinnville OR
Chair Dembrow, Members of the Committee:
I oppose HB 2787 for many reasons.
First of all, I think legislators should be looking for ways to reduce illegal immigration, rather than rewarding and encouraging it. Immigration control is not solely a federal responsibility. There are many things states can do to help the federal government enforce immigration laws. I am including paragraphs on that subject at the end of my testimony.
Citizens are having a very hard time now, and legislators’ responsibility is to them, not to the citizens of other countries. Legislators should be working to pass mandatory E-Verify, which could help citizens enormously. The E-Verify program is accurate and ready for expansion. There are no truly valid reasons to oppose it. Those who do, we can assume, want illegal immigration to continue.
Some legislators claim that giving in-state tuition won’t cost anybody anything. The university officials who stated that the cost of giving in-state tuition to illegal aliens actually brings an increase to the university’s funds are unbelievable. Tuition costs at state colleges are subsidized by taxpayers, and the size of the student body is closely linked to the overall cost of maintaining a college.
The costs of maintaining colleges and educating citizen students will be much greater if large numbers of illegal aliens are given in-state tuition. Nobody knows how many will apply. The bill does not mention any numerical limits, and there is no ending date. Citizen students could easily lose places in college if in competition with illegal aliens and that is extremely unjust, no matter what the circumstances of the illegal alien are. Citizenship and the rule of law must mean something, or our country is in deep trouble.
Legislators, please think of all the unemployed and underemployed citizens, many of whom have been out of work for long periods, are hungry and sleeping in parks and on the streets. This is mostly because they can’t get jobs; illegal aliens are preferred because they can be paid under the table and at lower wages than would apply if our immigration laws were honestly enforced. Illegal labor has taken over the construction industry, many hotel and restaurant jobs, and illegal aliens are found in professional occupations also.
It is the illegal alien parents of illegal students who are to blame for their illegal alien children’s situation. The whole family including parents and children should be deported. They will not need to “live in the shadows” there, and the children, educated at U.S. citizens’ expense, can contribute their knowledge and talents to the country where they are legally entitled to live.
----------------------------------------------------------------
OREGON CAN HELP STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
by Elizabeth Van Staaveren
It's unreasonable to say or imply that only the federal government can deal with immigration issues, as some Oregon legislators have claimed. Many states have already passed effective laws that reduce illegal immigration within the state.
Instead of spending time devising benefits for illegal aliens, Oregon legislators could and should do much more to discourage illegal immigration. Benefits to illegal aliens such as in-state tuition and driving privileges legitimize illegal immigration and entice more of it. This is very harmful to citizens who must compete with illegal aliens for education and jobs at a time of widespread unemployment. Also our country is overcrowded already, and the message to the world that we do not enforce our immigration laws will quickly overwhelm this nation.
A plethora of state action against illegal immigration is possible. Rep. Kim Thatcher (House District 25, Salem) is a member of the national group, State Legislators for Legal Immigration (http://www.statelegislatorsforlegalimmigration.com/), formed in 2007, now including members in 41 states. Their mission statement: “to provide a network of state legislators who are committed to working together in demanding full cooperation among our federal, state and local governments in eliminating all economic attractions and incentives (including, but not limited to: public benefits, welfare, education and employment opportunities) for illegal aliens, as well as securing our borders against unlawful invasion.”
In 2009, Rep. Thatcher introduced a number of bills in the Legislature dealing with immigration, none of which moved forward because of the lack of support from other legislators, in particular the Democratic Party leadership. Rep. Thatcher's news release of 3/19/09 listed her proposed bills. The number and range of the bills show how much a motivated legislature could do to stop illegal immigration.
ORS 181.850 now actually hinders and restricts cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration agents. The Legislature should untie the hands of local police and allow them unimpeded cooperation. Mr. David Cross has devoted many hours to tracking crimes by illegal aliens. His monthly reports on criminal aliens in the Oregon State prison system give shocking statistics on the large numbers of foreign nationals convicted of serious crimes who have ICE holds placed on them, meaning they will be turned over the immigration authorities at the ends of their sentences. Mr. Cross also reports on the hundreds of criminal aliens incarcerated in town and county jails as well as in the state prisons.
The National Conference of State Legislatures, in the Issues & Research section of its website, has a section on immigration, including semi-annual reports on state laws related to immigrants and immigration. The report for Jan. 1-June 30, 2012 is at http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/immig/2012-immigration-related-laws-and-resolutions.aspx. It shows that many states are passing laws to help control illegal immigration.
The website of the Immigration Reform Law Institute (http://www.irli.org/index.html) has a section on State Cooperative Enforcement. Throughout the site there are references to various state actions related to immigration enforcement. IRLI is affiliated with the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
More references on state laws related to immigration:
States can address the negative impacts of illegal immigration using tools they already have, by Ronald W. Mortensen. Center for Immigration Studies, July 5, 2012. http://cis.org/mortensen/states-can-address-negative-impacts-illegal-immigration-using-tools-they-already-have
Immigration isn’t just a federal matter; [interview with Kris Kobach on state vs. federal authority in immigration matters] by Terry Baynes, Thomson Reuters News and Insight, April 16, 2012. http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2012/04_-_April/Kris_Kobach__Immigration_isn_t_just_a_federal_matter/
An overview of E-Verify policies at the state level, by Jon Feere, Center for Immigration Studies, July 2012. http://www.cis.org/e-verify-at-the-state-level
Controlling illegal immigration; state and local governments must do more, by Matt A. Mayer, August 24, 2009. 29 p. (Heritage Foundation Special Report) http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/08/controlling-illegal-immigration-state-and-local-governments-must-do-more
Congressional Research Service. Authority of state and local police to enforce federal immigration law, by Michael John Garcia and Kate M. Manuel, September 10, 2012 (CRS report for Congress 7-5700, R41423) 198059.pdf
Federation for American Immigration Reform. Legislation in the States.
To the Members of the Committee of Higher Education and Workforce Development
No one wants to punish illegal alien students because of the actions of their parents, but I wonder if HB 2787 will punish taxpayers instead.
Each in-state American college student represents about $20,000 in deficit spending for each $7,000 annual tuition he pays. Yet, Rep. Denbrow’s office claims that undocumented Oregonians won’t create the same $20,000 deficit, just pure profit. The Effect on Expenditure Report says so
.A staffer from Rep. Denbrow’s office told me that each “undocumented Oregonian’s” tuition money would enrich a college that wouldn’t have had it otherwise, meaning he’s a money-maker, as long as the college doesn’t need more classrooms or teachers. How do American students create a deficit while illegally present students represent pure profit? You can’t have it both ways. But as a business person, I’m unimpressed with the creative explanations of the Legislative Fiscal Office. Also, I don’t trust the claims from politicians who can raise my taxes or my kid’s tuition to cover debt they create, intentional or not. I don’t even know if you will examine the tax records of the parents to see if they’ve paid into our system.
If you’re going to pass HB 2787, what will you do for citizens in return to stop luring illegal aliens to Oregon in the first place? You have refused almost every opportunity to end magnets in the past, with the exception of stopping drivers licenses.
The state never passed an E-Verify bill or stopped employers from deducting illegal labor as a business expense, a practice that undercuts honest employers. Oregon didn’t even pass the bill that would have sent non-violent criminal aliens home early, thus cutting prison costs.
Instead, you have protected illegal immigration as if it’s the role of citizens to tolerate corruption and lawlessness, and to ignore our representational dilution. For instance, supporters of HB 2787 were given unlimited time to speak while opponents were given only a token opportunity of twenty minutes at the hearing.
If taxpayers must assume liability for this bill I want assurance that you will resurrect the other bills that will prevent more of the same problems in the future. Representative Dembrow claims that ending magnets is strictly a federal responsibility, but Oregon’s failure to stop magnets at the state level when it could have mirrors federal failure. The state’s habit of placating illegal aliens and their employers but not citizens, indicates highly selective compassion. You can’t reward lawlessness indefinitely without our rule of law or our taxpayers collapsing. I urge you to bring back the state E-Verify bill, end labor write-offs, and pass the early removal bill as a sign that you want to protect the value of citizenship while assisting the students.
Sincerely,
Lyneil Vandermolen, Tualatin OR
Testimony of Richard F. LaMountain
House Bill 2787, Higher Education and Workforce Development Committee
Oregon House of Representatives, February 13, 2013
Gentlemen, thank you for the chance to testify. My name is Richard LaMountain. I live in Washington County.
Please oppose House Bill2787. "Tuition equity" is a misnomer. Granting in-state tuition to young people here illegally would give them chances not equal, but in many cases superior, to those of American citizens seeking the same educational and professional opportunities.
In this debate, few have raised the issue of affirmative action. Most of the illegal immigrants this bill favors would qualify as federal "protected minorities" -- and, thereby, for affirmative-action preferences over those who do not qualify as such, including the majority of American citizens. These preferences would enable illegal immigrants who were helped into an Oregon university by in-state tuition to compete with and, in many cases, to beat American citizens for positions in post-graduate academic and professional programs over the course of their entire lives.
Affirmative action originally was intended to assure that black American citizens, after decades of suppression, would have access to educational and occupational opportunities. It would pervert that intent to give foreign citizens, especially those here illegally, the in-state tuition that would enable the vast majority of them to access, in turn, the affirmative-action preferences that would give them a competitive edge over American citizens long into the future.
Please remember: Whatever the circumstances of an illegal immigrant's arrival in this country, our nation's foremost responsibility is to its own people -- its own citizens. House Bill 2787 would violate that responsibility.
Gentlemen, the session is barely into its second week, yet you've scheduled a work session on the bill for this Friday. I urge you: on Friday, do not vote to send this bill to the House floor. This early in the session very few Oregonians are yet tuned in, and most don't even know this bill has been introduced. Many of them ultimately may wish to weigh in with you on this issue, and they have a right to do so. So out of respect for your constituents, for the democratic process, and for your own deliberative responsibilities, please vote on this bill not this Friday but later in the session.
Thank you.
Richard F. LaMountain, Portland OR
These additional testimonies can be viewed on the website of the House Committee on Higher Education: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Measures/Exhibits/HB2787.
Atkinson, Marcia - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/2671
Biglor, Gladys - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/1728
Bills, James - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/1982
Cooper, Rosemary - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/2676
Girod, Clifford - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/2724
Hallgrimson, Daryl and Brenda - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/2672
Innes, Mary - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/2679
Kolbo, Neal - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/2680
Morrongiello, Gabriella - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/2665
Nash, Don - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/1652
Poole, Don - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/2681
Scott, Rosemary - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/2682
David Olen Cross -- https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/9397
Mike Eidem -- https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/10034
Clifford Girod – https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/10034
Daryl, Brenda, and Bailey Hallgrimson -- https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/10068
Cynthia Kendoll -- https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/10037
Jim Ludwick -- https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/10047
Carol Mohr -- https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/10067
Rep. Julie Parrish – [She voted for HB 2787 in the House, but at the Senate Hearing, she spoke for equal consideration for veterans.] https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/9521
Rebecca Roth -- https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/9770
Elizabeth Van Staaveren -- https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/8077
Additional opponents testified orally and did not submit written materials for the record. Some opponents submitted written testimony only and did not speak at the Hearing.
May 5, 2012
1. Federation for American Immigration Reform. Mexican Matricula Consular ID cards. 2003. 2 p.
Contents: Aiding illegal immigration, National security risks, Legal liability, Dangerous precedent.
2. Dinerstein, Marti. IDs for illegals; the ‘matricula consular’ advances Mexico’s immigration agenda. 2003. 11 p.
Summary of the report at:http://www.cis.org/node/484
Among the findings in the report: "The matricula consular is useful in the United States only for illegal aliens, because legal immigrants, by definition, have U.S. government-issued documents."
3. Durham, NC to accept Mexican document as ID. (In FAIR’s Legislative Update, Nov. 22, 2010.)
2-page report, by FAIR, of action by the Durham NC City Council, with background on the matricula consular, its limitations, and links to pertinent sources.
4. Wikipedia.Matricula consular. 2 p.
A useful summary, with list of 18 references cited and linked.
5. U.S. Immigration Support. Matricula consular. 2 p.
Another helpful summary, compiled by a business that calls itself "Your online guide to U.S. visas, green cards and citizenship."
6. Mexico. U.S. Consulate. The Matricula Consular.
Gives requirements to obtain a matricula consular, secondary requirements, procedure followed when issuing, data capturing, etc.
7. U.S. General Accountability Office. Border security: Consular identification cards accepted within United States, but consistent Federal guidance needed. (GAO-04-881) August 2004. 51 p.
Page 50 displays a letter to the GAO from C. Stewart Verdery, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning, Border and Transportation Security Directorate, Department of Homeland Security. The letter concludes:
"This draft report suggests incorrectly that the Administration has no clear position on CIDs. It is well established that foreign consular ID cards do not establish or indicate lawful U.S. immigration status and should not be viewed as valid for that purpose, nor do they establish a foreign national’s right to be or remain in the United States. This is a clear and settled position.
"Finally, it is important to note that DHS does not recognize CIDs as valid travel documents and CIDs are not accepted for that purpose at the more than 300 ports-of-entry where Customs and Border Protection officers screen travelers seeking admission to the United States."
8. National Conference of State Legislatures. Consulate identification cards. April 28, 2004.
Contents: What are the requirements, Federal action, Financial institutions, Law enforcement, State and local government.
9. Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform. The Mexican matricula consular (illegal alien) ID card is now illegal in Colorado!
Describes the law passed in CO in 2003, gives its history, and related information.
10. Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform. The Mexican matricula consular (illegal alien) ID card: Activist Toolkit.
An outline of the successful efforts made by Colorado activists to ban use of the matricula consular, designed to show how other states can do likewise.
PLEASE NOTE: The OFIR scholarship program will be side-lined for the 2015 school year so that we may focus our resources on our initiative campaigns.
We are sorry to disappoint anyone planning to apply this year and invite you to check back in November of 2016 for an update. Thank you!
====================================================================
Oregonians for Immigration Reform Scholarship Application
Scholarhip prize of $1,200
Scholarship Essay Question (minimum 1,000 words):
Do you believe that unchecked illegal immigration and excessive legal immigration will have a negative impact on your future? If so, why and in what way? What could you do, as a US citizen, to ensure immigration laws are enforced, strengthened or changed?
Applicant requirements:
1.) Applicant must be a US citizen, and resident of Oregon.
2.) Applicant must be a college bound senior in good standing at their high school or an undergraduate that is currently enrolled in college.
Guidelines:
1.) Applicant will provide all information listed below, include a photo and attach the essay.
2.) All applications, essays and photos become the property of OFIR for promotion.
3.) All applications are due by April 15, xxxx. Winners will be announced May 1, xxxx.
4.) Questions? Call 503.435.0141 or 503.581.6485 or visit our website at www.oregonir.org
5.) Mail completed application to:
OFIR
PO Box 7354
Salem, OR 97303
Judging:
OFIR Board members will read and evaluate all applications. The final selection will be made by the OFIR President and Vice President. In the event that not enough applications or no suitable applications are received, there may not be a winner. OFIR reserves the right to not announce a winner. OFIR will announce the winner at the June 1, xxxx OFIR meeting in Salem and are hopeful that the winners can attend to be honored. Scholarship checks will be deposited at the student’s school of choice in their name.
Please include in your application:
Your full name, address, birth date, and contact information. (You must be a US citizen and an Oregon resident to apply. How long have you lived in Oregon?)
The name of the High School you attend, include your GPA and the name and phone number of a contact person at the school.
OFIR would like to get to know you a little better:
Write a short paragraph about yourself. What hobbies or interests do you enjoy? What subjects do you enjoy in school?
Name and contact information of 1 reference (no family) that has known you more than 3 years.
Be sure to include the name and address of the college you plan to attend.
June 22, 2013
National Polls
1. Poll finds little support for GOP who favor S. 744 bill to increase immigrant workers and give work permits to illegal aliens. June 21, 2013. [Pulse Opinion Research survey of 1,000 likely voters, conducted on June 17, 2013]
2. CNN Poll: 62% Say Border Security Needs to be First Priority in Immigration Policy. June 18, 2013. [Poll conducted June 11-13, 2013]
3. Washington Post/ABC poll: Only 18 percent support Gang of Eight approach to illegal immigration. Friday, May 24, 2013. [Poll conducted May 16-19, 2013]
4.Rasmussen Poll of March 20-21, 2013. 64% of immigration reform supporters put border control first.
5. Fox News poll: Most support strengthening borders before other immigration reform. [Poll conducted Feb. 25-27, 2013]
A Fox News poll finds that 84% favor strengthening border security to prevent illegal aliens from entering the country. while only 13% oppose it.
6. National Survey of 1000 Likely Voters, conducted February 6, 2013. By Pulse Opinion Research for the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
7. [many additional polls at: https://www.numbersusa.com/content/polls.html and http://www.fairus.org/facts/illegal-immigration-and-amnesty-polls]
OREGON POLLS
Three polls on driver cards for illegal aliens
1. Statesman Journal poll, March 27, 2013. Should the Oregon Legislature reinstate driver's licenses for those who cannot prove legal presence in the United States? No - 91%. http://www.statesmanjournal.com/poll/2013-03-27/6994676/results
2. Survey by Rep. Dennis Richardson, linked from his Newsletter of May 2, 2013.
http://www.leg.state.or.us/richardson/newsletter/newsletters_2013/newsletter_050213.html
(May be necessary to access through his newsletter. The URL for the survey is:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=rK1awoL_2bSgxfkfC2HlWgqrCN30mxqd_2bj8aNwrKneb6Y_3d)
Do you support or oppose Senate Bill 833, which creates a limited use Oregon Drivers’ Card for Oregon residents who cannot qualify for a standard Drivers’ License?
Answered question, 8,463 . Skipped question, 85.
I SUPPORT SB 833 - 44.2% 3,744. I OPPOSE SB 833 - 55.8% 4,719
3. Statesman Journal poll, May 1, 2013. Will you or someone you know benefit from four-year driver’s cards issued to those who don't have the required paperwork to obtain a driver's license?
No – 93%. http://www.statesmanjournal.com/poll/2013-05-01/7073579/results
Two Polls on in-state tuition in Oregon
1. Should illegal immigrants be allowed to pay in-state tuition to Oregon universities, if they graduated from Oregon high schools? In The World, Coos Bay OR, Feb. 21, 2013. No 819; Yes 264, Not Yet 72.
2. Statesman Journal poll, Feb. 23, 2013: The House passed a bill allowing in-state tuition rates for undocumented immigrant students. If it becomes law, do you believe it will be beneficial for Oregon? Yes – 13%; No – 84%; Don’t know – 1%
http://www.statesmanjournal.com/poll/2013-02-23/6915637/results
General poll on state enforcement of immigration laws
Oregon Poll Data from Rasmussen Poll: Arizona Law SB 1070. July 2010.
Suppose the new Arizona immigration law was being considered for your state. Would you favor or oppose passage of that law in your state? Favor, 59%
Do you agree or disagree with the decision to challenge the legality of Arizona’s new immigration law? Disagree, 55%.
http://www.fairus.org/facts/states/poll_OR
Legislative history of Oregon’s sanctuary law
Remarks by President Trump at Law Enforcement Roundtable on Sanctuary Cities, issued on: March 20, 2018
Sanctuary Cities Undermine Law Enforcement and Endanger Our Communities; White House Fact Sheet, March 20, 2018. Lists steps taken to restore law and order to the immigration system, including reversal of sanctuary city policies.
What You Need to Know About Sanctuary Cities; White House statement, March 13 2018.
Criminal Aliens Set Free By Sanctuary Cities; White House article, February 13, 2018.
The Dangerous Myth That Sanctuary City Policies Encourage Victims and Witnesses to Cooperate with Local Law Enforcement. FAIR Issue Brief written by Matt O'Brien | March 30, 2018. Contents - The Claim: Sanctuary Policies Enhance Information Sharing Between the "Immigrant" Community and Law Enforcement.- Why the Claim is False.- How Many Criminal Aliens Are Allowed Back Onto Our Streets by Sanctuary Policies? - Conclusion. View as a pdf: https://fairus.org/sites/default/files/2018-03/IssueBrief_Sanctuary-Cities-and-Alien-Cooperation.pdf. 8 p., of which p.7-8 consist of footnotes which begin at bottom of p.6.
Sanctuary Jurisdictions Nearly Double Since President Trump Promised to Enforce Our Immigration Laws. Federation for American Immigration Reform, May 2018. 154 p. This report is a pdf document including links to 564 sanctuary policies currently in operation. Arrangement is by state. https://fairus.org/sites/default/files/2018-05/Sanctuary-Report-FINAL-2018.pdf
Sanctuary Cities Protect Crooked Employers and Human Traffickers; exploitation of the vulnerable is anything but “compassionate.” By Michael Cutler, in FrontPage Magazine, May 1, 2018.
Fact Sheet: Donald J. Trump and Attorney General Sessions Stand Up Against Lawless Sanctuary Cities. White House press release, August 16, 2017.
U.S. Department of Justice. Attorney General Jeff Sessions Delivers Remarks on Sanctuary Jurisdictions, Washington DC, Monday, March 27, 2017. (Press release)
For a brief summary, see: AG Sessions says they will withhold federal funding from sanctuary jurisdictions, on NumbersUSA’s website, March 28, 2017.
______________. Department of Justice Sends Letter to Nine Jurisdictions Requiring Proof of Compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373. (Press release issued Friday, April 21, 2017) Copies of the letters sent can be viewed by clicking the link at end of Press release.
_____________. Attorney General Jeff Sessions Issues Memorandum on Implementation of Executive Order 13768, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” Washington DC, Monday, May 22, 2017. (Press release) The press release listing does not describe the memo; it links to text of the memo which is displayed here. These news articles summarize the content of the memo, giving background and details: What Is a ‘Sanctuary City?’ Sessions Memo Clarifies DOJ Position, by Ian Mason, 22 May 2017; Sessions Readies Crackdown on ‘Sanctuary’ Jurisdictions, by Brendon Darby, 23 May 2017.
_____________. Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks to Federal Law Enforcement Authorities About Sanctuary Cities, Portland OR, September 19, 2017.
Why President Trump Can And Should Strip Sanctuary City Federal Funding, by Matt O’Brien, Federation for American Immigration Reform, April 12, 2017.
List of CIS reports on sanctuary cities. This online list is continually being updated. Here are a few recent entries; some entries are blogs and some are fuller reports. For example,
List of NumbersUSA references on sanctuary policies. Click here to get a current list of NumbersUSA’s many news reports on sanctuary policies. For example, this posting of March 28, 2017: Rasmussen poll: Likely voters believe that sanctuary policies make their communities less safe. If the link doesn’t work, visit the homepage of NumbersUSA and use Search box in top horizontal menu, entering search term “sanctuary policies.”
Beaverton's 'sanctuary' status will threaten U.S. citizens, by Richard F. LaMountain. In Beaverton [Oregon] Valley Times, January 19, 2017. Also posted on OFIR website here. LaMountain is a past Vice President, OFIR.
Partners In Crime: Mayors Of Sanctuary Cities, Human Traffickers And Other Criminals, by Michael W. Cutler, April 4, 2017. On website of Californians for Population Stabilization. Cutler is a retired INS Senior Special Agent, with 30 years’ service at INS.
Oregon's Sanctuary Status Threatens Public Safety and Law Enforcement Funding, by Billy J. Williams. Op-ed In The Oregonian, Sunday, August 6, 2017. Billy J. Williams is the United States Attorney for the District of Oregon.
Tackling Sanctuaries, by Dan Cadman, Jessica Vaughan. Center for Immigration Studies, December 2016. 18 p. “This report examines the justifications given by sanctuary jurisdictions for their policies, and finds them to be largely unfounded. … The Trump administration has a number of tools available at its disposal and within the confines of executive authority to address the problem of sanctuaries and the public safety problems they create. Contents: Key Findings -- Introduction and background -- What is a “sanctuary”? -- What are the arguments made by sanctuary advocates? -- How can the new Administration tackle sanctuaries? -- Conclusion -- End notes.
The Role of State & Local Law Enforcement in Immigration Matters and Reasons to Resist Sanctuary Policies. Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Issue brief, January 2016. 8 p. (pdf version, 6 p.) Partial contents. -- Cooperation with federal immigration officials is essential to thwarting national security threats. -- Cooperation with federal immigration officials saves taxpayer money. -- The Supreme Court has upheld state and local cooperation and assistance provisions. -- Conversely, state and local sanctuary policies may be preempted by federal law.
Sanctuary Nation; the Tragic Cost of Harboring Illegal Alien Criminals. (vol.26, no.3, Spring 2016 issue of the quarterly magazine, The Social Contract) Partial contents. -- America’s ‘sanctuary cities’ and their tragic consequences, by Dave Gibson. -- The impact of criminal alien violence: Administrations’ immigration policies under scrutiny at Congressional Hearing, by Rep. Trey Gowdy. -- Dangerous alien criminals prey on American communities, by Rep. Bob Goodlatte. -- Immigration and the art of the question: effective questions that must be asked of our politicians, by Michael Cutler.
HB 2932, “Relating to the immigration status of criminal defendants; declaring an emergency. Prohibits court from inquiring into defendant’s immigration status or requiring defendant to disclose defendant’s immigration status at time of plea or at any other time during criminal proceeding. Requires court to allow defendant, upon request, additional time for plea decision after informing defendant about possible adverse immigration consequences of plea. Declares emergency, effective on passage.”
Written statements submitted in opposition to HB 2932, at House Hearing, 3/18/2019
In alphabetical order by first name
Cynthia Kendoll - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174570
David Wall – https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174984
Elizabeth Van Staaveren – https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174206
Jerry Ritter - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/173965
Jim Ludwick - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174594
Lyneil Vandermolen – https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174571
Richard LaMountain – https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174572
====================================
Written statements submitted in support of HB 2932, at House Hearing, 3/18/2019
In alphabetical order by name of organization
1. ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon), Leland Baxter-Neal, Staff Attorney. https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174299
2. AILA (American Immigration Lawyers Association), Cindy del Rosario, Immigration Attorney, Gonzales and Gonzales Law Offices. ttps//olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174329
3. Causa, Andrea Williams, Executive Director. https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174573
4. OCDLA (Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association), Mary Sofia, Legislative Director. https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174338
5. OCDLA (Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association), Kacy Jones, Attorney, Metropolitan Public Defender. https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174332
6. OJRC (Oregon Justice Research Center, Immigrant Rights Project), Joseph Justin Rollin and Erin L. McKee, Attorneys and Co-Directors. https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174283
7. PCUN (Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste), Martha Sonato, Political Director. https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174586
2017-2018
On May 1, 2017, OFIR announced the launching of a new initiative, initiative petition 22 – Stop Oregon Sanctuaries – to be placed on the November 2018 statewide election ballot. Official sponsors of the petition are three Oregon State Representatives, Mike Nearman, Sal Esquivel, and Greg Barreto. The necessary 1,000 signatures for filing a proposed initiative were submitted to the Secretary of State’s office early in June and verified on June 7.
At that point, the ballot title proposed had to be submitted to the State Attorney General who is responsible for writing the official ballot title. The Attorney General can use the proposed title, edit it, or rewrite it entirely. Her office did revise the proposed ballot title somewhat before making it official. Regardless of the changes made by the Attorney General partly in response to opponents’ complaints, opponents of the initiative filed an appeal of the ballot title to the Oregon Supreme Court on Friday, July 28, nearly the last day possible for them to do so (Monday, July 31). The Court rendered its judgment on October 6, that the Certified Ballot Title was approved without changes.
Appeals by opponents, which can be made at two points in the prescribed process, delay movement of a petition and eat into the time proponents have for collecting signatures which must be completed very early in July before the November election.
To help citizens overcome this delaying tactic that is a great advantage to opponents, the new Secretary of State, Dennis Richardson, issued on July 13, 2017 a directive that petitioners can collect signatures during the period when the Attorney General’s approved ballot title has been challenged and is awaiting action by the Supreme Court. So OFIR proceeded to collect signatures while the ballot title was pending before the Supreme Court. Again, opponents worked to hamper IP 22, filing a lawsuit against Secretary Richardson’s proposed changes. To avoid an extensive legal battle, the Secretary called upon the Legislature to enact his proposed changes into law instead of having them created by administrative directive. The result of the lawsuit and Legislative inaction was that OFIR unjustly lost all signatures collected from June to October 6, 2017.
Now, as of March 2018, signature gathering is back on track, continuing apace, and we are optimistic that the required number for getting petition IP 22 on the November ballot will be obtained. The magic number is 88,184 valid signatures of Oregon registered voters. We urge everyone who can help with signature gathering to do so.
The ad hominem attack is a formal debating tactic of attacking your opponent's character as opposed to answering their argument. It is a de facto admission of the inability to win the debate on the merits of one's argument alone. Example: calling an immigration reductionist racist, nativist, or xenophobe.
An alien is defined by the U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization Services as "any person not a citizen or national of the United States". The term is defined by United States statute, in Section 1101(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (with amendments by Congress through 2001). Aliens can be either legally or illegally present in the U.S.
The term "alien" is purposefully and appropriately used in US Government documents, such as in:
"AR-11, Alien’s Change of Address Card", and
"Immigration and Nationality Act(INA) — An Act of Congress that, along with other immigration laws, treaties, and conventions of the United States, relates to the immigration, temporary admission, naturalization and removal of aliens".
See:
U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization Services, Glossary of Terms, as of April 3, 2013. See: What is an alien?, Juan Mann's Frequently Asked Questions About Immigration and the Law, VDare.com, December 11, 2002.
An anchor baby is a child born to illegal alien parents within the borders of the United States. The child is born as an American citizen and under the 1965 immigration Act, can be used to facilitate citizenship for the immediate - and ultimately the extended - family.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. The amendment states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..." In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing: "Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens to defy U.S. law at taxpayer expense.
For more information, see the 14th Amendment and Anchor Babies website.
One who dislikes and discriminates against individual immigrants.
Open borders proponents often label those who favor reducing immigration numbers as "anti-immigrant". Their intent is to discredit immigration reductionists by making false associations with racism, nativism, and xenophobia. The correct term is immigration reductionist. The truth is that nearly all immigration reductionists favor immigrants and immigration, but at a drastically reduced level.
Supporting replacement-level immigration does not mean that one hates immigrants, any more than supporting replacement-level levels of births means that one hates babies.
Balkanization is the separation of a country or region into smaller units, often hostile to each other, sometimes involving the forcible expulsion of entire populations from their homelands by stronger powers. High levels of immigration without assimilation may lead to balkanization.
The maximum population of a given species that can be supported indefinitely in a defined habitat without permanently impairing the productivity and functioning of that habitat.
Humanity has been able temporarily to avoid carrying capacity issues through the use technology, preemption of supporting ecosystems normally used to sustain other species, and by transporting and importing resources. Thus, a more appropriate definition of carrying capacity with regard to humanity is the maximum "load" that can safely be imposed on an environment by humanity without permanently impairing the productivity and functioning of that environment. Shrinking carrying capacity may soon become the single most important issue facing humanity.
One who wants to preserve our sustaining natural resources for the benefit of future generations and for the living organisms who exist in our natural environment. By definition, conservationism is conservative, but not all conservatives are conservationists.
The belief that natural resources are essentially of limitless supply and that technology will find solutions to environmental, overpopulation, energy, and resource depletion problems.
Diversity is defined as noticeable heterogeneity, and often is used in a social context to mean noticeable presence of multiple races and cultures, without significant assimilation. Diversity is frequently promoted as the desirable condition for American society by those who favor open borders and unlimited immigration.
One who promotes cultural and racial diversity at the expense of an indigenous culture and society, without regard for ecological and social consequences.
The effective land area and corresponding resources required by an individual, city, or nation in order to supply resources and dispose of wastes. It is a measurement of capital stocks, physical flows, and corresponding ecosystem areas required to support a given human population and economy.
For more information, see EcoFuture environmental information.
Fertility is the actual reproductive performance of an individual, a couple, a group, or a population. It is typically used in reference to the average number of live births per woman. Native-born Americans voluntarily achieved replacement-level fertility (2.1 children per woman) in 1972. See EcoFuture Population Terms and Definitions.
An artificial ethnicity contrived in 1976, originally meaning "Americans of Spanish origin or descent", but subsequently changed to mean "A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race".
In the 1930s, "Hispanics," led by LULAC, opposed identifying Mexicans as "non-white." After affirmative action programs were implemented for Blacks in the 1970s, "Hispanics," dominated by LULAC and La Raza (The Race), changed their racial identity from "white" to "non-white" in order to be eligible for affirmative action programs.
The "Hispanic" category was created on June 16, 1976 by Public Law 94-311, "Economic and Social Statistics for Americans of Spanish Origin." The law contained two significant components: 1) the subject: "Americans of Spanish origin or descent" and 2) the legal status: "American citizens." Both of these qualifiers were soon dropped in an effort to magnify political influence by maximizing numeric size.
In 1977, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) adopted the title of "Hispanic". Subsequently, "Hispanic" has come to be de defined as "A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race."
According to Mark Lopez of the Pew Hispanic Center:
[A]bout two-thirds of Hispanic-Americans identify themselves not as belonging to the general Latino culture, but to their specific country of origin or their parents' homeland.
"The notion of a pan-ethnic identity is actually an American concept," said Lopez, an American citizen whose grandparents emigrated from Mexico. "If I go to El Salvador and I say I'm Hispanic, they're going to think I'm from Spain, or they're not going to know what that means. They don't see a pan-ethnic identity. They see themselves as Salvadoran."
See:
Funding Hate - Foundations and the Radical Hispanic Lobby, Part I, The Social Contract, Fall, 2000.
Hispanics Extend Reach Beyond Enclaves, Wall Street Journal, March 19, 2003.
The Origin of the Term ‘Hispanic’, Hartford Guardian, July 27, 2009.
Illegal Alien Propaganda: A Critical Lesson in Terminology and Tactics, Accuracy in Media, April 12, 2013.
An illegal alien is "a foreigner who has entered or resides in a country unlawfully or without the country's authorization." An illegal alien is an alien - that is, a foreign national - who has illegally entered the United States, or who enters legally and then deliberately overstays their visa. An illegal alien is a criminal subject to as much as six months in jail for first offense and subject to federal felony charges for subsequent entries after initial deportation.
Colorado defines an illegal alien as "anyone who has entered the United States illegally and is deportable, or anyone who has 'overstayed a visa' or otherwise violated the terms of his or her legal admission into the United States. Sometimes known as an 'illegal immigrant.'" (From Implementation of Senate Bill 06-090 Performance Audit, Colorado State Auditor, Department of Public Safety, Department of Local Affairs, May 2009.)
The term "illegal alien" is purposefully and appropriately used in US Government documents, such as:
"Immigration Investigations, Enforcement, Detention and Removal: For information about immigration investigations, enforcement, detention or removal of aliens from the U.S., or to report suspected illegal aliens or other illegal immigration activity, please visit the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement website at www.ice.gov." and
"An illegal alien who entered the United States without inspection, for example, would be strictly defined as an immigrant under the INA but is not a permanent resident alien." and
"Certain illegal aliens who were eligible to apply for temporary resident status under the legalization provision of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986."
See:
Dictionary - illegal alien.
Implementation of Senate Bill 06-090 Performance Audit, Colorado State Auditor, Department of Public Safety, Department of Local Affairs, May 2009.
USCIS Service and Office Locator, U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization Services, as of April 3, 2013.
Permanent Resident Alien, U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization Services, as of April 3, 2013.
Legalized Aliens, U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization Services, as of April 3, 2013.
An immigrant is "a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence". An immigrant is an invited guest - a person who comes to a country where they are not a citizen in order to settle there. The term "immigrant" implies permanent, legal, residency. (Although because of amnesties and status adjustments, about 25% of currently legal immigrants first came to the U.S. illegally).
The term immigration reform originated in the mid 1990s to mean true reform of incongruous United States immigration policy which blatantly ignored laws regarding interior immigration enforcement and US border security. Over time, open borders radical groups sought to preempt the term "Immigration Reform" to codify their agenda to open American Borders to illegal aliens and to legalize foreign job-seekers who were successful in sneaking into America and avoiding capture at our border. To be clear, one might refer to patriotic immigration reform, as opposed to the open borders kind, which amounts to treason.
An immigration reductionist is one who favors a return to sustainable immigration numbers. Often those favoring immigration reduction are called racist or anti-immigrant, but the truth is that nearly all immigration reductionists favor immigrants and immigration, but at a drastically reduced level.
Immigrants rights advocates promote the rights of legal immigrants - this is a productive and valuable effort. Often open borders advocates and organizations are referred to as "immigrant rights" advocates and organizations. This is a misnomer, designed to be deliberately misleading. Supporting illegal immigration and open borders under this umbrella is by no means supporting immigrant rights; it is supporting the nonexistent rights of illegal aliens to enter our country. The most salient right of illegal aliens who escaped apprehension at our border is to be treated humanely as they are returned to their home countries to reunite with their families.
The concern about the well-being of future generations. This concern is often discounted in light of short-term issues. See the article Intergenerational Justice.
Nativism is the policy of favoring native inhabitants over immigrants. Establishing a goal of stabilizing U.S. population requires addressing both fertility and immigration numbers; however this is not a nativist agenda. Calling an immigration reductionist a nativist is an ad hominem attack.
One who supports the anti-American agenda of illegal immigration and open borders, notwithstanding the express intent of the laws of the land. Typically this is coincident with an anti-nationalist perspective.
Political correctness is a belief that language and practices that could offend a minority group should be eliminated. Taken to extremes, political correctness becomes a filter that prevents a society from understanding the true nature of issues and events. For example, immigration-driven population growth is often not discussed because of the fear of racist allegations.
Population momentum is the tendency for population growth to continue beyond the time that replacement-level fertility has been achieved because of the relatively high concentration of people in the childbearing years. It takes a period of time equal to the average life expectancy (approximately three generations or 73 years in the U.S.) for a reduction in fertility to be manifested as a change in actual population numbers. See additional information on fertility and population momentum. Also see this short discussion of population momentum, and Population Terms and Definitions.
Racism is the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races. Some racists indeed might want to eliminate immigration of certain races. However, immigration reductionists are not inherently racist, and the goal of stabilizing U.S. population is not predicated upon a racist agenda. Calling an immigration reductionist a racist is an ad hominem attack.
Reverse racism is the predisposition and bias against native-born Americans, and those of historical European descent and traditional American culture.
Preserving natural ecosystems and keeping resources intact for future generations - of humans and all species.
The terms "undocumented worker", "undocumented immigrant", "unlawful immigrant", "undocumented alien", "undocumented student", "undocumented migrant", "unauthorized immigrant", and "illegal immigrant" are often used to describe those who have broken the law of our land to enter and work in our country illegally. These are all misleading terms, deliberately used to "soften" the issue of illegal entry into the United States.
The term "undocumented" implies that foreign nationals have the unconditional right to violate America's borders and immigration laws, and that the worst offense they may have committed was forgetting to complete some paperwork. The reality of the situation is the illegal aliens have all kinds of Social Security cards and other documents - it's just that those documents are forged or stolen.
An "immigrant" is an invited guest - a person who comes to a country where they are not a citizen in order to settle there. The term "immigrant" implies permanent, legal, residency. (Although because of amnesties and status adjustments, about 25% of currently legal immigrants first came here illegally).
The accurate description of a foreign national illegally residing in America is "illegal alien". An illegal alien is a criminal subject to as much as six months in jail for first offense and subject to federal felony charges for subsequent entries after deportation.
For more information, see:
Immigration and the Law.
Glossary of Terms, US Citizenship and Naturalization Services (PDF).
Glossary of Terms, US Citizenship and Naturalization Services (web page).
‘ILLEGAL ALIEN:’ Tell it like it is
Illegal Alien - The Proper Terminology
Associated Press adopts Orwellian doublespeak - drops 'illegal immigrant'.
Illegal Alien Propaganda: A Critical Lesson in Terminology and Tactics.
U.S. Appeals Court consistently uses the correct terminology 'illegal alien'.
It’s Official–A Federal Appeals Court Coined The Term “Illegal Alien” In 1950.
Illegal alien, illegal alien, illegal alien – save this for when the illegal alien lobby tells you there is no such legal term as “illegal alien”.
Xenophobia is an irrational fear of foreigners or strangers. Americans have every right to establish a population and immigration policy for their own country, based upon the goal of population stabilization and a rational fear of unending population growth. This has nothing to do with fear of other people. Calling an immigration reductionist a xenophobe is an ad hominem attack.
Zero population growth means that a population is in equilibrium, with a growth rate of zero, and is achieved when births plus immigration equal deaths plus emigration. See EcoFuture Population Terms and Definitions.