Immigration Topics

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:

 

Elections

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.

2018 General Election

An Overview of Candidates in the November Election

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 officesUsually 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?

Governor and Legislative Candidates Who Support YES on Measure 105

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)

2018 Primary Election

An Overview of Candidates in the May Primary

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?

Commissioner of Labor and Industries

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.

Congressional Candidates

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?

Governor

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.

Oregon Legislature - House

House District 09

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 SurveyCurt 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

2016 General Election

Attorney General

 
Oregon General Election – November 8, 2016
 
Attorney General
 
 
The Attorney General and the Secretary of State have responsibility for managing citizen initiatives and referenda.  OFIR and other citizen groups have had problems in mounting initiatives and referenda because of apparent resistance from the Attorney General’s office and the Secretary of State. The Attorney General is empowered to write the ballot titles for initiatives and can slant the title to favor one side or the other.  The Secretary of State administers the process of filing the citizen measures, reviewing petition signatures, etc., and can use delays and other tactics to impede the process.  See separate report on candidates for Secretary of State. 
 
Several issue-oriented groups have recently experienced difficulties as a result of unsatisfactory and slanted ballot titles.  If a group challenges the language of the title, this delays the process and reduces the time available for collecting signatures, which are due well before the election date as they must be verified by the Secretary of State’s office before the measure is officially approved to go on the ballot. Then time is needed to include the measure in voter pamphlets, on ballots, etc.  If activists accept the skewed ballot title, they face severe problems of public misunderstanding and failure of the measure.   Thus incumbent Secretaries of State and Attorneys General can and do cripple the efforts of citizen activists with whom they disagree. 
 
There are only 2 candidates for Attorney General, one Democrat and one Republican.
 
1. The Republican Party candidate is Daniel Zene Crowe, of Mount Angel.  He is an attorney and veterans’ advocate with a background as U.S. Army Judge Advocate (1998-2011), Combat Arms Officer, Ranger, and Paratrooper (1991-1995), farm worker growing up through high school in Oregon.  He is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and the University of Washington Law School.  After his military service, he has served on the Mount Angel School Board.
 
His campaign website is at:  www.crowelawfirm.us.  The homepage lists several plans he would pursue if elected.  One of them is: “Returning honesty to Oregon elections by impartially labeling ballot titles and initiatives to put Oregonians back in charge of Oregon government.”
 
 
2. The Democratic Party candidate is incumbent Ellen Rosenblum, also nominated by the Independent and Working Families parties.  She was first elected in November 2012 as Oregon's 17th Attorney General. She is a graduate of the University of Oregon and the University of Oregon School of Law.  Rosenblum, an appellate judge and federal prosecutor before running for office, was appointed to her job before she was officially elected.  Gov. Kitzhaber appointed her Attorney General shortly after then-incumbent John Kroger resigned on June 29, 2012 to become President of Reed College.  He had announced, in April 2012, his intention to resign.
 
The difficulties described above, that citizens have with initiatives, have occurred during Rosenbaum’s term as Attorney General.  
 
Her campaign website is at: http://www.ellenrosenblum.com/.  No references relevant to immigration policy were found there.  The site contains mostly claims of her accomplishments in the office.
 

Congressional District 1

 
Oregon General Election – November 8, 2016
U.S. House of Representatives Candidates – Congressional District 1
 
There are three candidates, one Democrat, one Republican and one from the Libertarian Party.
 
1. The Democratic Party candidate is incumbent Representative Suzanne Bonamici of Beaverton, who is seeking reelection. She has a long and very poor record on immigration issues, starting with her service in the State Legislature and continuing in Congress.
 
She is rated F- for the current Congress and D- for her career in Congress, 2012-2016, by Numbers USA.  On particular aspects of immigration in the current Congress, she is graded F- on reducing unnecessary worker visas, and also F- on reducing refugee and asylum fraud, and F- on reducing amnesty enticements. NumbersUSA’s website report links to the particular bills on which she voted and which are the basis for her grades.
 
Bonamici was first elected to Congress in January 2012 in a special election.  She was re-elected in November 2012 and again in 2014.  She began her legislative career in the Oregon House in 2007 and moved to the Senate in 2009. While in the Oregon Legislature, in 2008 she voted against requiring proof of legal status to obtain a driver license (SB 1080).  In 2011, she voted for the bill to grant in-state tuition to illegal aliens, SB 742. 
 
In June of this year, she signed a letter to the U.S. House Appropriations Committee urging them to allow an IRS rule that would block advocacy groups like NumbersUSA from compiling voting records and grade cards.  It appears that she wants to hide her immigration voting record from the public.
 
Her campaign website at http://www.bonamiciforcongress.com/contact/ contains a webform for contact.
 
 
2. The Republican candidate is Brian J. Heinrich of Dundee.  He is a Sales Representative for businesses and holds an Associate’s degree from Portland Community College.  He is a lifelong resident of Oregon, born and raised in Hillsboro. His website at https://heinrichfororegon.org/ gives full biographical information.  Email address: heinrichfororegon@gmail.com.
  
He replied to the 2016 Abigail Adams Voter Education Project questionnaire:  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?  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.     42.  How would you propose screening war refugees to prevent potential terrorists from entering the country with them?      “Due to the dislike many in the Middle East have for the US, I would be very restrictive on allowing any refugees into this country. Since there is very little if any documentation on these refugees, there is no way to vet them for terrorism. It is a very unfortunate situation.” 
 
 
3. The Libertarian Party candidate is Kyle P. Sheahan, of Hillsboro, who is an Engineering Technician with Intel Corporation, and holds an Associate’s degree in electronic technology from Bellingham Technical College.   
 
This candidate also replied to the 2016 Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project questionnaire:   22.  Do you support requiring all employers to verify employee eligibility to work in the United States?  “Yes.  With our current system of taxation yes, if the tax code is reformed to consumption based tax then no.”  23.  Do you support securing the borders before any form of amnesty?  “Yes.  I believe our current immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed while this happens.”  24.  Do you support spending public funds to benefit illegal immigrants?  “No.  The immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed.”  25.  Do you support automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. when both parents are not legal residents?  “No.  The immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed.”  42.  How would you propose screening war refugees to prevent potential terrorists from entering the country with them?  [did not reply to this question]. 
    
Sheehan’s campaign website:  http://kylesheahan.com/.  Email:  kyle@kylesheahan.com
 
 

Congressional District 2

 
 
Oregon General Election – November 8, 2016
U.S. House of Representatives Candidates – Congressional District 2
 
There are only two candidates, one Republican/Independent and one Democrat.
 
1.  The Republican candidate is incumbent Representative Greg Walden, of Hood River, who seeks reelection. He is also the write-in candidate of the Independent Party. Walden has served in Congress continuously since 1999.  NumbersUSA grades him F for recent years 2013-2016.  In earlier years, he was more supportive of immigration controls, so his all-career grade is B- . His campaign website is at: https://gregwalden.com/.  It includes an Issues section, but no mention of immigration was found.
 
NumbersUSA’s website contains a complete record of Walden‘s votes on immigration issues from 1999 to date.  He has a mixed history on immigration issues.  Here are some of his recent votes – fuller information is on the NumbersUSA website. 
 
In 2016 he voted:
YES to King amendment to FY2017 defense spending till to block amnesty for DACA recipients.
YES to Gosar amendment to FY17 defense spending bill to block amnesty for DACA recipients.
 
In 2015 he voted:
YES to the FY2016 Omnibus Spending bill to increase foreign guest workers. 
YES to granting the President authority to expand immigration levels without Congress' consent via Trade Promotion Authority. 
YES for the FY2016 Omnibus Spending bill to increase refugee resettlement.  
YES to funding Executive Amnesties by opposing clean DHS Appropriations bill, H.R. 240.  
YES to the Blackburn Amendment to H.R. 240 to defund Pres. Obama's DACA amnesty.  
YES to Aderholt Amendment to H.R. 240 to defund Pres. Obama's Nov. 2014 amnesty..
YES to Brooks amendment to remove military amnesty from National Defense Authorization Act. 
 
2.  The Democratic Party candidate is James A. Crary, of Ashland.  Now retired, he formerly worked for British Petroleum and for the Legal Department of Anchorage, Alaska.  He is a graduate of Pacific Lutheran University in Business Administration, and the University of San Diego where he received a doctoral degree in law.  
 
Website: www.crary16.com. In the Issues section of his website, there is the following statement on immigration, which makes clear in the first paragraph that he supports amnesty for illegal aliens.  He also supports the use of E-Verify and discusses that in some detail.
 
Immigration Reform -- I know that people who came here illegally technically broke the law. But I also know that the reason they came here are the same reasons my ancestors left their homes in Germany, Ireland and Scotland and came to the United States. They came so that they and their children could have a better life. That is hard to fault. If an illegal immigrant has committed a felony or multiple misdemeanors since coming to the U.S. that person should be deported. However, if an illegal immigrant has worked hard and not broken the law then I would allow that person to come out of the shadows, pay a fine and be given a 7 year path to citizenship. 
 
“As far as stopping this problem from reoccurring I think we either need to build a wall or have a highly functional, easy to use, mandatory E-Verify system (E-Verify is an Internet-based system that allows businesses to determine the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States); and my preference is the latter.
 
“There are strong economic incentives, on both sides of the border, for illegal immigrant workers.  With so much poverty and lower paying jobs in Latin America the U.S. is going to be an economic magnet for people who want to have a better life.  U.S. employers want workers who will do jobs that most Americans shun (and, unfortunately, some employers want to take advantage of illegal immigrants’ illegal status to pay them lower wages and avoid workplace health and safety rules).  With all that said we need a system to accommodate the need in this country for legal seasonal workers while at the same time helping people living in Latin America better their economic situation.  To me, the answer is a seasonal worker program (SWP).
 
“My vision of a SWP is that workers could get work permits of up to eight months, and employers could request to have specific workers return to work for them in subsequent years.  Workers in the SWP would have a standard employment contract that has been negotiated between the source countries, employers and the U.S. government.  Workers would be:
1. Covered by U.S. workplace safety rules;
2. Provided basic health insurance;
3. Paid prevailing wages for the type of work being done;
4. Subject to an income tax payroll deduction (but not Social Security or unemployment insurance); and
5. Provided safe and habitable housing
 
“Extended health coverage would paid for by the source country.
 
“In the vast majority of inquiries the E-Verify system works as it is supposed to.  I understand that with E-Verify a small number of legal workers might get incorrectly flagged but, if they are truly legal, those problems can be rectified relatively quickly. If there is something suspicious about the worker’s information, E-Verify issues a tentative non-confirmation (TNC). That gives the worker and his employer some time to contest the decision by identifying and correcting errors in the worker’s identification. During this time, the employer is not legally allowed to fire the employee and must keep him or her on the payroll until the worker’s identity problems are fixed.  In those cases where a legal worker gets an erroneous TNC I would say that they should be compensated (e.g. $250 to the employee and $150 to the employer) for their trouble in correcting the error.  Such a payment would help negate the inconvenience to both the legal worker and employer and encourage usage of the E-Verify system.
 
“The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status and made it illegal to hire or recruit illegal immigrants knowingly.  To me, a mandatory E-Verify is what is required to, finally, successfully implement those parts of the law.
 
“If E-Verify were mandated for every new hire, with substantial penalties for employers who do not comply, perhaps no wall would be required at our border with Mexico because the word would soon get out that there was no work for illegal immigrants so there would be no economic incentive to illegally cross the border.
 
“My focus is to not put a temporary Band-Aid on illegal immigration but to, hopefully, permanently solve the problem.  To do that all employers must only hire legal workers because otherwise as long as poverty and poor economic conditions exist for so many Latin Americans and employment is possible in the U.S., we will have an illegal immigration problem. That is why we need to have a highly functional, easy to use, mandatory E-Verify system.”
 

Congressional District 3

 
Oregon General Election – November 8, 2016
U.S. House of Representatives Candidates – Congressional District 3
 
There are 3 candidates, one Democrat, one Independent Party/Republican, and one Progressive Party candidate.
 
1.  Incumbent Representative Earl Blumenauer, Democrat, of Portland, has been in office continuously since 1996, and now seeks reelection again.  He has earned a career (1996-2016) rating of F from NumbersUSA.  See the full report, which has links with all details, to every immigration-related bill that he’s voted on.  For recent years, 2013-2016, his grade is D-, and for the current Congress, 2015-2016, his grade is F-.  
 
For his whole career, he gets F- on each of these subjects: reducing chain migration, reducing unnecessary worker visas, reducing refugee and asylum fraud, reducing illegal immigration at borders, reducing amnesty enticements.  He gets F on reducing illegal jobs and presence, F on reducing illegal immigration rewards, and C on reducing the visa lottery.
 
In June of this year, he signed a letter to the U.S. House Appropriations Committee urging them to allow an IRS rule that would block advocacy groups like NumbersUSA from compiling voting records and grade cards.  It appears that he wants to hide his immigration voting record from the public.
 
Blumenauer’s campaign website:  http://earlblumenauer.com/.  No mention of immigration was found on his website.  A webform for email to him is on the homepage of his campaign website.
 
2,  The Independent Party candidate, also written in as candidate of the Republican Party, is David W. Walker of Scappoose.  He is a family nurse practitioner who holds a master’s degree in nursing from Washington State University.
 
He replied to the 2016 Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project questionnaire:  22.  Do you support requiring all employers to verify employee eligibility to work in the United States?   “No.”    23.  Do you support securing the borders before any form of amnesty?  “No. What does securing the borders mean? lack of precision in language is a bigger problem than ‘secure borders.’"   24.  Do you support spending public funds to benefit illegal immigrants?  “Decline.”   25.  Do you support automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. when both parents are not legal residents?   “Yes.  I understand this is part of the US Constitution, a person born in the USA is eligible to be a US citizen”    42.  How would you propose screening war refugees to prevent potential terrorists from entering the country with them?   “I support immigration as well as more thorough screening of all immigrants seeking to become citizens of the USA, regardless of country of origin.”
      
Walker’s campaign website: http://www.humaucracy.org/home.  Email: dwmwalker@hotmail.com.
 
3.  The Progressive Party candidate is David Delk, of Portland.
 
Delk replied to the 2016 Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project questionnaire:  22.  Do you support requiring all employers to verify employee eligibility to work in the United States?  “No.”   23.  Do you support securing the borders before any form of amnesty?  “No.”   24.  Do you support spending public funds to benefit illegal immigrants?  “Yes.”  25.  Do you support automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. when both parents are not legal residents?  “Yes.”  42.  How would you propose screening war refugees to prevent potential terrorists from entering the country with them?   “They already go through years of screening.”  
 
Delk’s campaign website:  www.daviddelk.org
 
 

Congressional District 4

 
 
Oregon General Election – November 8, 2016
U.S. House of Representatives Candidates – Congressional District 4
 
There are 4 candidates in this race: one Democrat/Independent/Progressive/Working Families candidate, one Republican/Constitutional Party candidate, one from the Pacific Green Party, and one from the Libertarian Party.
 
1. The Democratic Party candidate is incumbent Representative Peter DeFazio, of Springfield, who seeks reelection. He is also the candidate of the Independent, Progressive, and Working Families parties. DeFazio has been in Congress continuously since 1987.  For the period 2015-2016 he is rated F by NumbersUSA based on his voting record on immigration issues.  In earlier years he was more inclined to support immigration controls; thus over his career from 1989 (when NumbersUSA records begin) to date he is graded C+.  For recent years 2013-2016, he gets only a D.  You can view details of his voting record on particular bills at: https://www.numbersusa.com/content/my/congress/677/gradescoresheet/. There are links to bill descriptions and history.
 
In 2016, he voted:
NO on the King amendment to FY 17 defense spending bill to block amnesty for DACA recipients.
NO on the Gosar amendment to FY 17 defense spending bill to block amnesty for DACA recipients.
 
In 2015, he voted:
YES to the FY 2016 Omnibus Spending bill to increase foreign guest workers.
NO to granting the President authority to expand immigration levels without Congress’ consent via Trade Promotion Authority.
YES to the FY 2016 Omnibus Spending bill to increase refugee resettlement.
NO on the  Brooks amendment to remove military amnesty from National Defense Authorization Act.
YES on funding Executive Amnesties by opposing clean DHS Appropriations bill, H.R. 240.
NO on the Blackburn Amendment to H.R. 240 to defund Pres. Obama’s DACA amnesty.
NO on the Aderholt Amendment to H.R. 240 to defund Pres. Obama’s Nov. 2014 amnesty.
 
His campaign website at http://www.defazioforcongress.org/ contains a webform for contact.
 
2. The Republican Party candidate is Art Robinson, of Cave Junction.  He is also the candidate of the Constitution Party. Robinson's website is at http://artforcongress.com/.    About himself, he says:  “As a scientist I’m always looking for solutions to problems. After graduating from CalTech and receiving my PhD in Chemistry from the University of California in San Diego, I co-founded the Linus Pauling Institute and the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which today lead the way in developing advanced diagnostic and preventive medicine to help the people of Oregon.”
 
In earlier campaigns he spoke firmly against illegal immigration.  See OFIR’s report on his General Election campaign of 2014 here.  On his current website, in the Issues section, topic “American security,” he says “We must secure our borders and end illegal immigration.”
 
Webform for contact:  http://artforcongress.com/contact
 
3. The candidate of the Pacific Green Party is Mike Beilstein, of Corvallis.  He is a retired chemist and a long-time member of the Corvallis City Council.  His website at http://www.newmenu.org/mikebeilstein contains a detailed statement of policy recommendations, one of which is:  “Support the right of all workers to organize. $15 per hour minimum wage. Stop trading with countries that practice slavery. Full rights for immigrant workers.”
   
Of course, legal immigrant workers have many protections, but illegal immigrant workers are a serious problem in this country, one of the most serious.  This candidate’s recommendation for “full rights for immigrant workers” is vague and needs clarification.  It appears to show abysmal lack of knowledge of the subject, or a belief in open borders.
 
4. The candidate of the Libertarian Party is Gil Guthrie, of Springfield.  His website (listed on his Secretary of State filing paper as www.votegu3OR.com) does not seem to be functioning, and no information was found about his views on immigration.  As a Libertarian, presumably he supports the party’s platform which includes this statement on immigration:
3.4 Free Trade and Migration -- “... Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. …”
 

Congressional District 5

 
 
Oregon Primary Election – November 8, 2016
U.S. House of Representatives Candidates – Congressional District 5
 
There are 3 candidates in the race, one Democrat/Independent,  one Republican, and one from the Pacific Green Party.
 
1. The Republican candidate is Colm Willis, of Stayton, an attorney and owner of Willis Law LLC. He holds a bachelor’s degree from Boston College and doctoral degree from Willamette University College of Law.  He has served on the staff of the U.S. Senate Joint Economic Committee.
 
His website, at https://colmwillis.com/, in the Issues section, contains this statement:  “Immigration -- Our nation’s immigration system is broken. For years the federal government has failed to live up to its responsibility to protect our borders. In Congress, I will stand up against the irresponsible politicians who are undermining our legal immigration system. I will work to strengthen a sustainable process that is fair to both new immigrants and current U.S. citizens.”
 
2. The Democratic Party candidate is incumbent Representative Kurt Schrader, of Canby, who seeks reelection. He is also the write-in candidate of the Independent Party.  Schrader has been in Congress since 2009.  His Career grade there, covering 2009-2016, is D, as measured by NumbersUSA based on his votes on immigration issues.
 
He is rated F- on reducing chain migration, F- on reducing unnecessary worker visas, F- on reducing amnesty enticements, F- on reducing illegal immigration rewards, F- on reducing illegal immigration at borders, C- on reducing refugee and asylum fraud, C on reducing illegal jobs and presence, A+ on reducing the visa lottery.
 
In 2016, he voted:
NO to King amendment to FY2017 defense spending till to block amnesty for DACA recipients.
NO to Gosar amendment to FY17 defense spending bill to block amnesty for DACA recipients.
 
In 2015, he voted:
NO to the FY2016 Omnibus Spending bill to increase foreign guest workers.
YES to granting the President authority to expand immigration levels without Congress' consent via Trade Promotion Authority.
NO to the FY2016 Omnibus Spending bill to increase refugee resettlement.
NO to Brooks amendment to remove military amnesty from National Defense Authorization Act.
YES to funding Executive Amnesties by opposing clean DHS Appropriations bill, H.R. 240. 
NO to Blackburn Amendment to H.R. 240 to defund Pres. Obama's DACA amnesty. 
NO to Aderholt Amendment to H.R. 240 to defund Pres. Obama's Nov. 2014 amnesty. 
 
Rep. Schrader’s campaign website is at http://www.kurtschrader.com/.  There is no Issues section on his website and no statement on immigration.
 
3. The candidate of the Pacific Green Party is Marvin Sandnes, of Salem.  His surname is variously spelled Sannes.  He is self-employed in the real estate business.  He holds a bachelor’s degree in social sciences from Portland State University.  His campaign website is at https://marvinsandnes.org/.  No information on his immigration views was found there or elsewhere on the internet.  He can be contacted from the About section of his website.

Governor

 
Oregon General Election – November 8, 2016
Governor of Oregon
 
 
The major party candidates are Kate Brown, Democrat, and Bud Pierce, Republican.  Also there is a candidate from each of these parties: Independent, Constitution, and Libertarian Parties.
 
1. The Republican Party candidate, Bud Pierce, has a detailed list of Issue statements on his campaign website, including this statement in the section on WORKFORCE:
 
“Immigration -- Our federal immigration system is broken today. The great exodus from the Middle East now poses additional security threats and humanitarian challenges from Europe to the United States. Yet Washington, D.C. – the President and Congress, Democrats and Republican – have failed us. Washington’s failure to pass commonsense immigration legislation that both secures our borders and provides needed workers our farms and businesses in a legal and orderly manner has had a direct and harmful impact on Oregon.
 
“What must the federal government do? Act, not talk. Pass a bill or a series of staged bills that address all aspects of the immigration issue: real border enforcement and interior enforcement (preventing visa overstays), a beefed-up and reliable e-verification system for work, and only then a visa adjustment based upon economic conditions with a program to allow a path to legal status for some illegal immigrants working here.
 
“What can the next governor of Oregon do?
 
“1) Demand at every opportunity that Oregon’s federal representatives – our U.S. Senators and Congressmen and woman  – pursue across-the-board immigration reform to secure our borders and put America's interests and its citizens first.
“2) Take action at the state level – and support action at the federal level – to end sanctuary cities in Oregon and across the United States, since these sanctuary cities only support continued federal inaction on immigration.
“3) Oppose other state policies and proposals that serve to support continued federal inaction on immigration or encourage greater illegal immigration into Oregon.  
“4) Once across-the-board immigration reform is enacted, ensure that strict, reliable e-verification for employment is the law in Oregon and the United States.
 
“As long as Oregon’s economic growth remains tepid, it will be difficult for Oregonians to accept an in-flux of new immigrants. There are more than 2.5 million Oregonians of working age, but only 1.5 million full-time jobs.  Many Oregonians are hurting today. We must take care of our own before we open our doors to more immigrants. A governor who truly cares about working and non-working Oregonians can do no less. Eventually, if we can once again put in place policies that promote real job growth, a booming Oregon economy, with the need for new workers, will once again lead us to seek legal immigrants, to join us as we create a better Oregon.”
 
He also replied to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project survey, including 4 questions related to immigration.  See questions 19, 22, 36, and 42 with his replies here .   This is his reply to question 42, How would you propose screening war refugees to prevent potentital terrorists from entering Oregon with them?
 
“With homelessness in Oregon, and so many of our citizens suffering, we do not have the resources to accept refugees; we must first care for the many Oregonians who lack shelter, education and training, treatment of their mental illnesses, and help them to achieve the dignity of a work. If the Federal Government sends refugees to Oregon, we must collaboratively work with local, state, and federal law enforcement to ensure that everything possible has been done to exclude terrorists from entering Oregon.”
 
Bud Pierce is a medical doctor by profession; he is senior partner of Hematology/Oncology of Salem, one of the last physician owned practices on the West Coast.  See his own summary of his life here.
 
2. The Democratic Party candidate is incumbent Governor Kate Brown, who now seeks election to the office which she entered upon the resignation of Gov. John Kitzhaber in February 2015. 
 
Her campaign website at https://katebrownfororegon.com/  does not mention immigration and lists as an accomplishment she is proud of, the automatic voter registration bill which makes voting by illegal aliens more likely.
 
She did not reply to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project questionnaire.
 
Brown served in the Oregon House of Representatives from 1991 to 1996, then was elected to the Oregon Senate, serving there until elected Secretary of State in 2008 and reelected in 2012.  She became Governor automatically upon the resignation of then-Governor Kitzhaber in February 2015.
 
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."
 
3.  Independent Party Candidate - Cliff Thomason
 
He replied to the OAAVEP survey, with these answers to questions on immigration: 19, Yes. 22, Yes.  36, Yes.  42. “No need for screening. We just need to say no, we can't afford to take on more. We have tens of thousands of Oregonians out of work and/or homeless. We are over 20 billion dollars in debt. We can't afford more displaced people coming to Oregon.”  
His campaign website is at  http://www.makeoregongreat.com/
 
 
4.  Constitution Party Candidate – Aaron D. Auer 
 
He did not reply to the OAAVEP survey and no campaign website was found.  His filing paper with Oregon Secretary of State gives this email address:  oregonpreachingstatesman@gmail.com .  As the candidate of the Constitution Party presumably he supports that Party’s platform which includes opposition to amnesty.
 
5.  Libertarian Party Candidate – James G. Foster
 
His campaign website is at http://www.jamesfoster.info.  No references to immigration were found.  He appears to agree generally with positions of the Cato Institute, an organization that advocates for amnesty and open borders.
 

House District 06

 
General Election, November 8, 2016
 
Oregon House District 6, Medford
 
There are only two candidates in this race, the incumbent, Representative Sal C. Esquivel, Republican, and the Democratic Party candidate, Philip M. Moran.
 
1.  Sal Esquivel (R), of Medford.  In 2003 Sal Esquivel was chosen to represent Senate District 3 upon the retirement of then-Senator Len Hannon.  A House seat became open in 2004; Esquivel was nominated, won the seat, and has served continuously since 2005. A detailed biography of him can be viewed on his legislative website.
 
Esquivel has been a steady friend of OFIR and its objectives.  He was a sponsor of the Referendum on driver licenses for illegal aliens.  The bill, SB 833, giving driver licenses to illegal aliens, had been passed by the Legislature.  Sal Esquivel joined in OFIR’s efforts to overturn the bill, which were successful in the General Election of 2014.  He has also sponsored other initiatives advocated by OFIR.  
 
His campaign website contains a Hot Topics section with statements on “Tuition Equity” and “Licenses for Illegals.”   In the 2015 session of the Legislature, he voted against SB 932, Opportunity grants for illegal aliens, which gives public funds to illegal aliens for enrollment in Oregon colleges.  He also voted against HB 2177, the Universal voter registration bill which makes voting by illegal aliens much more likely.   In earlier sessions, he also voted against bills extending benefits to illegal aliens.
 
Campaign email address:  sal@salesquivel.com, or click “Contact” on his website.
 
2. Philip M. Moran (D) of Medford.  Moran is a retired police officer.  He served as Chief of Police for Talent, Oregon, from 2009-2016.  He had previously served, from 1977-2006 as a Medford police officer.
 
His campaign website has little specific information on issues, and there is no mention of immigration. The site carries a general statement:  “He is a champion for education, public safety and transportation.”
 
His views on immigration are unknown; no evidence was found that he has any thoughts on immigration issues.
 
Campaign email address:  info@mikeformedford.com, or click “Contact”on his website.
 

House District 09

 
General Election, November 8, 2016
 
Oregon House District 9, Coos Bay, Florence, North Bend, Reedsport
 
 
There are 3 candidates in this race:  Teri Grier, representing the Republican Party, Rep. Caddy McKeown, incumbent, representing the Democratic and Independent Parties, and Guy Rosinbaum, Libertarian.
 
1. Teri Grier, of North Bend, Republican candidate, had extensive experience in political work in Arizona and Washington DC before coming a few years ago to Oregon.  A recent interview in The World (Coos Bay) describes her background in some detail.  She holds a bachelor's degree in speech communication, a master's of public administration and a certificate in public management from Northern Arizona University. She's also a graduate of Georgetown University's Leadership Coaching Certificate Program.
 
She replied to these questions on immigration from the 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.”
 
Campaign website:  http://www.terigrier.com/
Webform for email:  http://www.terigrier.com/contact/
 
2.  Incumbent Rep. Caddy (Catherine) McKeown, of Coos Bay, is the nominee of the Democratic and Independent Parties.  She was first elected in November 2012 and is now running for a 3d 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  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.
 
Campaign website: http://caddymckeown.com/.  Email:  caddy@caddymckeown.com
 
3.  Guy S. Rosinbaum, of Florence, candidate of the Libertarian Party.  On his filing paper with the Secretary of State, he stated that he is the owner of Rosincloud Inc., and has an occupational background as network engineer.  Some information on his employment history is here.  No website was found for him. As a Libertarian, presumably he supports the party’s platform which includes this statement on immigration:
3.4 Free Trade and Migration -- “... Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. …”
 
The candidate’s filing paper gives an email address:  rosinbaum@gmail.com.
 

House District 19

 
General Election, November 8, 2016
 
Oregon House District 19, Salem, Aumsville, Turner
 
 
There are only two candidates in this race, incumbent Representative Jodi Hack, Republican, and Larry Trott, Democrat. 
 
1. Jodi L. Hack (R), of Salem.   Rep. Hack is now completing her first term in the Legislature.  She is a third-generation Oregonian, and the owner of a small business.  Her occupational background includes work with the North Santiam School District as communications coordinator, and earlier positions as a business manager and loan officer.  See her campaign website here, and her Legislative website here.
 
In the 2015-2016 Legislative session, Rep. Jodi Hack stood tall and voted against Senate Bill 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.
 
Rep. Hack also voted against 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. 
 
All Democrats present in both the House and the Senate voted Yes on both bills except Sen. Betsy Johnson.   OFIR appreciates the support of Rep. Hack in voting No on these two harmful bills.
 
This year, Rep. Hack was selected by the national group, Council of State Governments, to participate in a leadership development program for state government officials.  The program, which she attended in August, fosters exchange of insights and ideas to help state officials shape public policy.  Rep. Hack was the only one this year representing the state of Oregon.
 
 
2. Larry J. Trott (D), of Salem.  On his filing paper with Oregon Secretary of State, he gives his occupation as “Security Specialist, Oregon Lottery.”  He is a retired Naval officer who was deployed to the Persian Gulf during the Iran-Iraq War.  
 
His campaign website contains an Issues section listing these subjects: Video Lottery, Nutrition in School, Governance, and One House Legislature.  No mention of immigration was found on his website, and he is not known to have expressed any views on immigration elsewhere.  It can be assumed he will follow Democratic Party policy supporting benefits for illegal aliens and expanded immigration.
 
 

House District 21

 
General Election, November 8, 2016
 
Oregon House District 21, Salem
 
 
There are three candidates in this race:  the incumbent Representative, Brian Clem, Democrat; Doug Rodgers, Republican; and Alvin M. Klausen Jr., Independent Party.
 
1.  Doug (Douglas P.) Rodgers, Republican Party candidate.  He now works as Safety Director and quality control manager at Advantage Precast, Inc.  He has over 20 years’ experience in the light gauge metal roll-forming industry, and has had varied other employment during his career also. 
 
His campaign website contains a good statement on immigration, and a description of his life experience, government and community involvement. 
 
He replied to the immigration questions in the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project survey for 2016 for State Representative candidates, making clear his positions on important immigration issues:
 
19. Do you support restricting the "emergency clause" in legislation as true emergencies?     “Yes. That is what it is for!!!!! TRUE emergencies.”                           
22. Do you support a constitutional amendment to require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in Oregon?    “Yes. It is sad to have to come to this, but Hey(!), ONLY Citizens should be voting!!”
36. Do you support requiring all Oregon employers to use the federal E-Verify system to determine the employee's work eligibility status?    “Yes.  It has come to this because there are still employers who take away jobs for Oregonians by hiring illegals.”
42. How would you propose screening war refugees to prevent potential terrorists from entering Oregon with them?    “I assume the question stems from the Syrian crisis. This is a Federal Issue and they should be working with Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia who have the means and funds to help care for the refugees until they can go back to their homeland. We have no way to vet them, and as a legislator, my priority is to the safety of my fellow Oregonians FIRST.”
 
 
2.  Incumbent Representative Brian Clem, Democratic Party candidate.  Rep. Clem was first elected in 2006 and has served continuously from 2007.  He is now running for his 4th term.
 
His voting record shows that he sides with Democratic Party leadership in supporting benefits for illegal aliens, and loose controls over voting.  In 2015, he voted in favor of Senate Bill 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.
 
Also in 2015, he voted in favor of 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, he 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. Clem, to thwart the Referendum.
 
Rep. Clem’s campaign website:  http://www.brianclem.com/
Webform for email:  http://www.brianclem.com/contact/
 
3.  Alvin M. Klausen Jr., candidate of The Independent Party of Oregon (IPO).  On his filing paper with the Secretary of State, he gives his occupation as small business owner, and his occupational background as “United States Marine Corp, Oregon National Guard, Veterans Administration.”  He has a bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of Oregon.
 
No campaign website was found for him, or any information on his views on immigration.  The filing paper shows an email address:  aklausen85@gmail.com.
 
 

House District 23

 
General Election, November 8, 2016
 
Oregon House District 23
Dallas, Harrisburg, Jefferson, Sheridan, Willamina
 
 
There are 4 candidates in this race: 1) incumbent Mike Nearman, of Independence, the Republican Party candidate, 2) Jim Thompson, of Dallas, candidate of the Independent, Democratic and Working Families Parties, 3) Garrett Leeds, Libertarian Party, and 4) Alex Polikoff, Pacific Green Party.
 
 1.  Rep. Mike Nearman (Michael J. Nearman), Republican, was first elected to the Legislature in November 2014 and now seeks reelection. He is a strong opponent of illegal immigration.  He has served as a Board member of Oregonians for Immigration Reform for over 2 years.  He is currently a chief petitioner for these initiatives for the 2018 election year:  #5, Voters Must Prove Citizenship to Vote, and  #6, An initiative to repeal Oregon’s sanctuary law. 
 
Sanctuary laws make enforcement of federal immigration laws difficult or impossible.
 
Rep. Nearman’s campaign website is at http://nearmanfororegon.com/.   In the Issues section, there is this statement on immigration:
 
“IMMIGRATION -- Border security is so important for so many reasons. Current policies leave us vulnerable to national security threats, and present overwhelming costs to our social safety nets, schools, and healthcare systems. What’s really maddening is that not only are we failing to uphold the law, in many cases we openly flout the law through sanctuary cities and handouts to illegal aliens.”
 
He replied to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Questionnaire for candidates.  Here are the pertinent questions and answers:
 
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. “Of course.  I'm chief petitioner on this initiative!”        
36.  Do you support requiring all Oregon employers to use the federal E-Verify system to determine the employee’s work eligibility status?    Yes. “Of course.  I'm chief petitioner on this initiative!”         
42.  How would you propose screening war refugees to prevent potential terrorists from entering Oregon with them?          “I don't think this is possible -- certainly not on a large scale. I think they need to be located elsewhere in the middle east.”
 
Mike Nearman can be contacted at: info@nearman4oregon.org
 
2.  Jim Thompson (James L. Thompson), candidate of the Independent Party, also nominated by the Democratic and Working Families Parties, was formerly a Republican.  As a Republican, he served in the Oregon House of Representatives for 3 terms, from 2009 through 2014, when he lost in the Republican Primary election of 2014 to Mike Nearman.
 
During his tenure in the Legislature, Thompson opposed instate tuition bills and in 2013 voted against SB 833 granting driver cards to illegal aliens.  In the 2008 election cycle, he replied to OFIR’s candidate questionnaire answering Yes to the questions, “Would you be willing to introduce or support a bill that would require all employers in Oregon to use the E-Verify program?” and “Would you be willing to introduce or support a bill to repeal ORS 181.850” [a law limiting cooperation between local and federal law enforcement agencies in immigration matters].  Also he answered Yes to the question “Would you be willing to introduce or support a bill that would require individuals registering to vote for first time to show proof of citizenship?”
 
Thompson did not reply to the 2016 Oregon Abigail Adams candidate questionnaire.
 
His campaign website is at: http://www.jimforhouse.com/.  It has an Issues section but there is no mention of immigration, indicating that he does not consider it an important subject for consideration.
 
Thompson’s campaign email address:  Jim@jimforhouse.com
 
3.  Garrett Leeds, candidate of the Libertarian Party, replied to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project survey.  In answer to question 36, he replied that he opposes requiring all Oregon employers to use the federal E-Verify system to determine the employee’s work eligibility status.  See his replies to the other 3 immigration questions (nos. 19, 22, and 42) here.
 
4.  Alex Polikoff, candidate of the Pacific Green Party, did not reply to the OAAVEP survey.  His campaign website displays his positions on some issues, but there is no mention of immigration, indicating he does not view it as an important subject for consideration.
 

House District 24

 
General Election, November 8, 2016
 
Oregon House District 24
 Amity, Carlton Dayton, Dundee, Lafayette, McMinnville, Yamhill
 
 
There are only 2 candidates in this race, one Republican and one Democrat.  This was an open seat formerly occupied by Jim Weidner, who did not run for reelection.
 
1.  The Republican candidate is Ron Noble (Ronald H. Noble), of McMinnville.  He served as Chief of Police, city of McMinnville, from 2006 to 2014.  He was president of the Oregon Association of Chiefs of Police in 2013-2014.  Before coming to McMinnville, he was a Police Lieutenant for the City of Corvallis.  He is currently the Director of Public Safety, Linfield College.  
 
He replied to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project survey including answers to the immigration-related questions:
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.”
42. How would you propose screening war refugees to prevent potential terrorists from entering Oregon with them?  “Our first responsibility is to ensure the safety of the people of Oregon.”
 
His campaign website  contains an About Me section with detailed biographical information.  There is a “Values” section which describes briefly his beliefs in these core areas:  Safe communities, A Growing Economy, and Transparent Government. 
 
You can email him at: ron@noblefororegon.com or through the webform here.
 
2.  The Democratic Party candidate is Ken Moore (Kenneth B. Moore), of Yamhill.  He is a self-employed contractor with experience as an electrical engineer, farmer, and real estate manager.  His campaign website contains an Issues section with general statements grouped under these headings: Excellent Education, Economy That Works, People Not Politics.
 
He did not reply to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Survey, and there is no mention of immigration on his website, indicating that he does not consider immigration an important subject for consideration.
 
You can email him at: Ken@MooreForOregon.com or through the webform here.
 

House District 25

 
General Election – November 8, 2016
 
Oregon House District 25, Keizer, Newberg, St. Paul
 
 
There are only two candidates in this race, incumbent Representative Bill Post, Republican, and Sharon P. Freeman, Democrat.
 
1.  Bill Post (R) of Keizer.   Rep. Post is now completing his first term in the Legislature.  He is well-known from his time as a radio talk-show host from 2009 until he resigned in 2014 to run for the Legislature.  The Oregonian then quoted him: “I love talking on the radio and will miss it greatly …I will remain Program Director and Operations Manager at 1430 KYKN, the leading Conservative talk radio station in the mid-Willamette Valley.” 
 
While hosting his radio program, he often invited OFIR officers to discuss immigration issues, giving OFIR many opportunities to make our case for strengthening enforcement of immigration law and stopping benefits to illegal aliens.
 
In the 2015-2016 session of the Legislature, two harmful bills were passed, and OFIR appreciates the fact that Rep. Post voted NO on both of them. He voted against Senate Bill 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.
 
He also voted against 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. 
 
All Democrats present in both the House and the Senate voted Yes on both bills except Sen. Betsy Johnson.
 
Rep. Post replied to the immigration questions in the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project survey for 2016 for State Representative candidates:
 
19. Do you support restricting the "emergency clause" in legislation as true emergencies?     “Yes. I want it gone completely and replaced with specific dated periods.”                           
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.”
42. How would you propose screening war refugees to prevent potential terrorists from entering Oregon with them?    “I would turn them away until we know for SURE they are not infiltrated by terrorists. That though should be a federal issue, the State of Oregon should just say ‘no’.”
 
Campaign website:  http://billpost.us/; campaign contact, click “Contact” on the home page.
 
2.  Sharon P. Freeman (D) of Newberg.  In her filing paper with the Secretary of State, she gives her occupation as “Chef/Caterer/Certified Sommelier” and her occupational background as “Graphic Design, Interior Design, and Business Management.”  She holds a Master’s degree in history and multicultural studies from the University of Texas.  She indicated that she has no prior governmental experience. 
 
No campaign website was found for her; she has a Facebook page here.  The Newberg Graphic published an interview with her in March 2016 giving some further information.  However, no reference to her views on immigration issues was found; her opinions on the subject are unknown.
 
Email address listed on Secretary of State filing paper:  spaulinef@comcast.net
 

House District 41

 
General Election – November 8, 2016
 
 Oregon House District 41, Milwaukie, SE Portland
 
 
There are only two candidates in this race, one Republican and one Democrat.  This is an open seat, formerly occupied by Kathleen Taylor, who is now running for Oregon Senate.
 
1.  The Republican Party candidate is Tim (Timothy) McMenamin, of Milwaukie.  By occupation, he is a self-employed pharmacist, with bachelor’s degrees in pharmacy and microbiology from Oregon State University.  He is related to the McMenamin family of entrepreneurs known for restoring historic buildings for new business uses.
 
He replied to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project’s questionnaire which included these questions on immigration policy: 
 
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.  Absolutely Yes but then Salem would have to repeal the Motor-Voter Bill.”  
36. Do you support requiring all Oregon employers to use the federal E-Verify system to determine the employee's work eligibility status?    “Yes.  Absolutely Yes. This should be the law in Oregon already.”   
42. How would you propose screening war refugees to prevent potential terrorists from entering Oregon with them?     “A tough situation and one that pulls at your heart strings but first of all refugees need to have documentation of who they are by supplying a passport, government ID, etc. Without any documentation, unfortunately, I would not allow them refuge. This goes for the Cartel members as well. Then, once inside our country make sure they are assimilated and where they are supposed to be living.”
 
He also responded to the VoteSmart questionnaire for candidates, including this question: Do you support the enforcement of federal immigration laws by state and local police?    Answer:  “Yes.”
He said “No” to this question:  Should illegal immigrants who graduate from Oregon high schools be eligible for in-state tuition at public universities?
 
McMenamin’s campaign website is at www.timmcmenamin.com
 
2.  The Democratic Party candidate is Karin Power, of Milwaukie.  She has also been nominated by the Independent Party (IPO).  Her filing paper with the Secretary of State shows her occupation as nonprofit environmental attorney, The Freshwater Trust.  She is a graduate of Mount Holyoke College and the Lewis & Clark Law School.
 
Her website has a section, Meet Karin, which contains a “Priorities” sub-section and this statement: “Progress for Equity and Equality.  As the first LGBT woman on Milwaukie City Council, Karin understands how important it is to make our government more accessible. In Salem, Karin will champion equitable policies, and work for equity - both for the Oregon we are today and the generations yet to come.”
 
No specific information was found about her views on immigration policy.  As of October 12, she had not responded to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project survey or to the Vote Smart questionnaires, and nothing was found elsewhere on the internet about her positions on immigration policy.  One can assume that, if elected, she will follow Democratic Party leadership on immigration issues, i.e., benefits for illegal aliens and expanded immigration.
 
Power’s campaign website:  http://www.karinpower.com/
 

House District 51

 
General Election, November 8, 2016
 
Oregon House District 51 – SE Portland, Clackamas, Damascus, Boring, Estacada, Carver, Springwater, Clarkes, Viola, Beavercreek, Fishers Mill, Logan, Redland, Outlook
 
 
There are only two candidates in this race, one Democrat and one Republican.  This election will  fill the open seat formerly occupied by Shemia Fagan (D) who did not run again.
 
1.  Lorie Chavez-DeReamer, of Happy Valley, Republican candidate.    
 
She has been Mayor of Happy Valley since 2010.  She had previously served on the City Council there from 2004-2010. She has a long record of community and civic service.  She graduated from California State University, Fresno, with a degree in business administration and management.  See her biography here.
 
Her long list of endorsements includes the Oregon Association Chiefs of Police, the Oregon State Sheriff's Association PAC, Clackamas County Sheriff Craig Roberts, several Mayors from neighboring and other nearby towns.
  
She did not reply to the OAAVEP survey, but it is likely she will support the 2016 Oregon Republican Party platform which includes strong immigration policy positions stated in the section on “Immigration and the Rule of Law,” pages 25 and 26 of the document here.
 
Website:  http://lorideremer.org/.    Contact: lori@lorideremer.org
 
 
2.  Janelle Bynum, of Happy Valley, Democratic Party candidate. 
 
She is a small business owner who earlier worked as a steering systems engineer at General Motors.  She holds a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from Florida Agricultural & Mechanical University, and a master’s degree in business from the University of Michigan.
 
The “Meet Janelle” section of her website gives a brief general description of her priorities. Her long list of endorsements includes organizations from the education field, unions of government employees, firefighters, and miscellaneous political groups.
 
She did not reply to the OAAVEP survey, and no mention of immigration was found on her website.  It can be assumed she will follow the Democratic Party’s leadership on this subject, which calls for benefits to illegal aliens, expanded immigration, and loose voting regulation.
 
 

Oregon House candidates replies to OAAVEP questions

OREGON HOUSE CANDIDATES IN NOV. 2016 GENERAL ELECTION  WHO HAVE REPLIED TO THE 2016 OAAVEP SURVEY as of 9/25/16 – 

THEIR REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON IMMIGRATION
 
Immigration-related questions in the 2016 Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project survey for Oregon House candidates were:
 
19. Do you support restricting the "emergency clause" in legislation as true emergencies?
                          
22. Do you support a constitutional amendment to require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in Oregon?
 
36. Do you support requiring all Oregon employers to use the federal E-Verify system to determine the employee's work eligibility status?
 
42. How would you propose screening war refugees to prevent potential terrorists from entering Oregon with them?
 
 
HD 1    Tamie Kaufman (L) -  incumbent candidate, Wayne Krieger (R)
19.[restrict emergency clause] Yes. “definitely”   22.[citizenship to vote] Yes.   36.[E-Verify] No.   42.[how screen refugees] “Immigration/refugees are a federal responsibility, therefore the federal government should be handling the screening and placement of the refuges.”
 
HD 5   Steven Richie (R) – open seat (formerly Peter Buckley, D)
19. [restrict emergency clause] Yes. “Absolutely!”    22. [citizenship to vote] Yes.   36. [E-Verify] Yes.   42. [how screen refugees] Did not reply. 
 
HD 8   Incumbent candidate, Paul Holvey (D)
Mary M. Tucker (R)
19. [restrict emergency clause]  No.   22. [citizenship to vote] Yes.   36. [E-Verify] Yes.    42. [how screen refugees]  “There is no safe way to do so.”
Martha A. Sherwood (L)
19. [restrict emergency clause] Decline. “not enough information to decide.” 22. [citizenship to vote] No.    36. [E-Verify] No.    42. [how screen refugees] “I would oppose any screening mechanism at the state level, first, because it is not the business of the state to restrict movement of people who are legally in the US, and a direct violation of the US Constitution, and second, because screening mechanisms are liable to corruption and typically fail in their task.”
 
HD 10 Thomas M. Donahue (R) – incumbent candidate, David Gomberg (D)
19. [restrict emergency clause] Yes. “Absolutely.”      22. [citizenship to vote] Yes, Providing proof of our identities is common-place throughout our society.  This should be mandatory.”   36.  [E-Verify]  Yes.  “Seems perfectly constitutional to me.”  42. [how screen refugees]  “We are at war with an aggressive ideology that wants to destroy this country. We must have an accurate paper trail of origin and intentions for all refuges who intend to come to Oregon. No exceptions!! We can't take a chance. We are at war at this time.”
 
HD 15 Cynthia Hyatt (Progressive) – incumbent candidate, Andy Olson (R)
19. [restrict emergency clause] Yes.     22. [citizenship to vote] Yes.   36. [E-Verify]  No.   42. [how screen refugees] “Referring to the website, foreignpolicy.com, I think what they are doing is very thorough. In order to be considered for resettlement in the US, refugees must come from a country different from their country of origin and they must be referred by that country. They have their documents verified and an iris scan. I think maybe adding a DNA database could improve the system.”
 
HD 16  Incumbent candidate, Dan Rayfield (D)
Judson McClure (R) 
19. [restrict emergency clause] Decline.   22. [citizenship to vote] No.    36. [E-Verify] No.    42. [how screen refugees] “Other than individuals with family or sponsors already here, I do not support accepting a large number of refugees from war-torn nations.”
Andrew Freborg (L)
19. [restrict emergency clause] Yes. “Too many bills are passed under the emergency clause preventing the people from holding a referendum on them.”     22. [citizenship to vote] Yes.  “If you are not a citizen you should not be allowed to vote.”  36. [E-Verify] Yes.   42. [how screen refugees] “That is a job for the federal government. Once the feds have deemed them not a threat they should be allowed to settle wherever they wish.”
 
HD 17 Jeffrey D. Goodwin (I) -  incumbent candidate, Sherrie Sprenger (R)
19. [restrict emergency clause] Yes.  22. [citizenship to vote] No.   36. [E-Verify]   No.  42. [how screen refugees] “You cannot screen potential terrorists, everyone is a "potential" terrorist, you can only identify actual terrorists based on their actions, communications etc., that is the job of the CIA, NSA, DIA, et al.”
 
HD 21 Doug Rodgers (R) -  incumbent candidate, Brian Clem (D)
19. [restrict emergency clause] Yes. “That is what it is for!!!!! TRUE emergencies.”    22. [citizenship to vote] Yes. “It is sad to have to come to this, but Hey(!). ONLY Citizens should be voting!!”  36. [E-Verify] Yes. “It has come to this because there are still employers who take away jobs for Oregonians by hiring illegals.”  42. [how screen refugees] “I assume the question stems from the Syrian crisis. This is a Federal Issue and they should be working with Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia who have the means and funds to help care for the refugees until they can go back to their homeland. We have no way to vet them, and as a legislator, my priority is to the safety of my fellow Oregonians FIRST.”
 
HD 23  Mike Nearman (R), incumbent 
19.[restrict emergency clause] Yes.   22.[citizenship to vote] Yes. “Of course.  I'm chief petitioner on this initiative!”    36.[E-Verify] Yes. “Of course.  I'm chief petitioner on this initiative!”  42. [how screen refugees] “I don't think this is possible -- certainly not on a large scale. I think they need to be located elsewhere in the middle east.
Garrett Leeds (L) 
19. [restrict emergency clause] Yes.     22. [citizenship to vote] Yes.    36. [E-Verify]  No.             42. [how screen refugees] “Historically, refugees have found refuge much closer to home so that they can return to their homes when it is safe to do so. The refugees being brought over from the Middle East currently seem to be treated more like immigrants or asylum seekers rather than refugees. It would be more appropriate to find the refugees placements closer to home, such as in other Middle Eastern nations. For those who are being brought to the United States, there should be a very thorough screening process. While the situation is different, we can still learn from the security procedures used by the Israeli Airline El Al. They protect their flights through extensive interviewing and profiling. We should apply these techniques as well, and as much as possible, there should be background checks done in the nations and areas where the refugees are from. Additionally, private sponsorship of refugees should be expanded as it has been in other countries. These private individuals or groups would be responsible for helping the refugees see their needs are met, and also help ensure they obey the law and do not engage in any terrorist related activities.” 
     
HD 24 Ron Noble (R) – open seat (formerly Jim Weidner, R)
19.[restrict emergency clause] Yes.    22.[citizenship to vote] Yes.  36. [E-Verify]  Yes.  42. [how screen refugees] “Our first responsibility is to ensure the safety of the people of Oregon.”
 
HD 25 Bill Post (R), incumbent.  
19.[restrict emergency clause] Yes. “I want it gone completely and replaced with specific dated periods.”     22. [citizenship to vote] Yes.   36. [E-Verify]  Yes.   42. [how screen refugees] “(I think you meant ‘refugees’?) I would turn them away until we know for SURE they are not infiltrated by terrorists. That though should be a federal issue, the State of Oregon should just say ‘no’.”
 
HD 28 Gary Carlson (R) – incumbent candidate, Jeff Barker (D)
19. [restrict emergency clause] Yes.  “It seems logical to restrict and ‘emergency clause’ to a true emergency.”      22. [citizenship to vote] No.  “We do not need a constitutional amendment, but only U.S. and Oregon citizens should be allowed to vote in Oregon elections.”  36. [E-Verify] Decline. “This is also a Federal migration problem and if the Federal government is not dealing with the problem don't put the burden on”  42. [how screen refugees] “This is a Federal immigration problem. We have federal immigration laws that do regulate lawful immigration but the Federal government is refusing to enforce the laws that exist.”
 
HD 29  Juanita Lint (R) -  incumbent candidate, Susan McLain (D)
19.[restrict emergency clause] Yes.     22. [citizenship to vote] Yes.  36. [E-Verify]  Yes.           42. [how screen refugees] “I believe we have the means of tracking communications and connections of potential terrorists to ensure they do not enter our state. We just need to feel empowered to use those means without risk of violating civil liberties.”
 
HD 31  Robert Miller (R) -   incumbent candidate, Brad Witt (D)
19. [restrict emergency clause] Yes. “This should be obvious.”     22. [citizenship to vote] Yes.  “If you are not a citizen you cannot vote.”  36. [E-Verify] Yes.    42. [how screen refugees] “once the federal government allows people into the US there is nothing Oregon can do.”
 
HD 32   Incumbent candidate,  Deborah Boone (D)
Bruce L. Bobek (R) 19. [restrict emergency clause] Yes.     22. [citizenship to vote] Yes.  36. [E-Verify]  Yes.   42. [how screen refugees] “I would rely on government only if assurances are made for a complete background check before entering Oregon.”
Zachary (ChenKen LuPi) Seidel (Nonaffiliated)   19. [restrict emergency clause] Yes.     22. [citizenship to vote]   No. “It would effect mostly U.S. citizens, would lead to U.S. Citizen voter suppression.”  36. [E-Verify]  No. “Forcing people to work under the table and live in fear is not the answer.”  42. [how screen refugees] Did not reply.    
 
HD 33 John Verbeek (R) – incumbent candidate, Mitch Greenlick (D)
19. [restrict emergency clause] Yes.     22.  [citizenship to vote] Yes. “I had to when I became a citizen (hopefully not because I wanted to register “Republican in our virtual one party state).”  36. [E-Verify] No.  “It puts employers in bed with the government. They have greater responsibility towards their workers.”  42.[how screen refugees] “This is the price citizens of the west are made to pay for the UN's failed foreign policies. Rather than dumping our fellow human beings in communities, the federal government must do a better job defending the U.S. Constitution in the UN, secure our borders, and working with state government and local charities and churches for local sponsorship.”
 
HD 39 Kenny Semach (L) – incumbent candidate, Bill Kennemer (R)
19. [restrict emergency clause] Yes. “I believe that real emergencies should be present to use emergency clauses.”    22. [citizenship to vote] Yes.  “I support measures that ensure voters are who they claim to be, but there must be no cost to the voter and easy access.”  36. [E-Verify]  Yes. “While I feel we should allow far more people into the country legally, I also feel that workers should be eligible to work.”  42.[how screen refugees] “This is an area I'm not currently familiar with. I would look to experts for advice, and consult with other lawmakers before proposing or supporting any screening processes. That said, the issue of immigration is a federal concern and they should be in charge of the screening process. They are the ones with easy access to foreign governments and with the resources necessary to accomplish through screenings of refuges.”
 
HD 41 Tim McMenamin (R) – open seat (formerly Kathleen Taylor, D) 
19. [restrict emergency clause] Yes.     22. [citizenship to vote] Yes.  “Absolutely Yes but then Salem would have to repeal the Motor-Voter Bill.”  36. [E-Verify]  Yes. “Absolutely Yes. This should be the law in Oregon already.”  42. [how screen refugees] “A tough situation and one that pulls at your heart strings but first of all refugees need to have documentation of who they are by supplying a passport, government ID, etc. Without any documentation, unfortunately, I would not allow them refuge. This goes for the Cartell members as well. Then, once inside our country make sure they are assimilated and where they are suppose to be living.”
 
HD 42 Incumbent candidate, Rob Nosse (D) 
James E. Stubbs (I)
19. [restrict emergency clause] Yes.     22. [citizenship to vote] Yes.  36. [E-Verify]  Yes.  42. [how screen refugees]  “Sadly, there is simply no way to effectively screen people with no identification and no records from nations is total chaos with complete disregard for their own people. Without any means to tell who is who, taking in unknown persons is a huge risk. Once they're here it's up to us to monitor these people and take immediate action if they're found to be up to no good.”
Jeremy Wilson (L) 
19. [restrict emergency clause] Yes.   22. [citizenship to vote] Yes.  36. [E-Verify]  Yes.  42. [how screen refugees]  “If they are looking to become naturalized, they should be allowed to take the test for citizenship, pass a background check, etc and enter the country legally. If not there are plenty of other places they can go.”
 
HD 47 Michael P. Langley (R&I) – open seat (formerly Jessica Vega Pederson, D)
19.[restrict emergency clause] Yes. “Common sense. Allows short staffed law enforcement to be more responsive to real issues.”     22. [citizenship to vote] Yes.  “Only citizens are allowed to vote. I can't vote in another state or country.”  36. [E-Verify]  Yes.  “As part of the overall process yes.”  42. [how screen refugees] “Time and patience and a willingness to be objective with compassion. All due diligence national and international is to be used. The world has changed and not for the better, and our national security is still priority one.”
 
HD 48 – Incumbent candidate, Jeff Reardon (D&I)
George (Sonny) Yellott (R) 
19. [restrict emergency clause] Yes. “I am circulating that petition now.”      22. [citizenship to vote] Yes. “protect our vote!!!!!”     36[E-Verify]. Yes. “American for Americans”    42. [how screen refugees] “Bar all from moslem countries, we don't need that which is incompatible with our Constitution.”
Gary Dye (L)
19.  [restrict emergency clause] Yes. “But we should not have Bill Clintion determine what the definition of”      22. [citizenship to vote] Yes.   36. [E-Verify]  Yes. “But there should be a special tax on guest workers.”  42. [how screen refugees] “I believe citizens of the US should own their citizenship/residency as a property right, and thus be allowed to sell it to a foreigner (and then be required to leave the country). (Only restriction: you must sell your citizenship to a person of the same age.) We should create a free market for US citizenship, and promote this activity so other countries adopt markets for their citizenships, too. Non-profits could form to buy up citizenships and extinguish them, and thus reduce the rate of population increase, or subsidize certain ethnic groups or other groups of people they'd like to bring into the country and thus increase diversity. If all countries adopted a free market for their citizenships, the buying and selling (trading) of citizenships would establish an equilibrium giving an objective, quantitative ranking of the value of living in a certain country. I'll bet America would end up on top.”
 
HD 50 Stella Armstrong (R) – incumbent candidate, Carla Piluso (D)
19.[restrict emergency clause] Yes.    22.[citizenship to vote] Yes.    36. [E-Verify] Yes.  42. [how screen refugees] “I am an immigrant and have undergone the rigorous systems that are already in place (Department of Homeland Security and State Department). It took time but I understood the reasons why and how important it is that all of those wishing to immigrate here be cleared and secured. War refugees should go through the same process.”
 
HD 53 Gene Whisnant (R&I), incumbent
19. [restrict emergency clause] Yes.    22. [citizenship to vote] Yes.    36. [E-Verify]  Yes.  42. [how screen refugees] “The Department of Homeland Security must developed a better screening process and be held responsible for this program. When in doubt; they must hold the individual until they verify he/her is safe to enter the USA. We also need to improve monitoring and reporting students on "student visas at public and private higher education colleges and universities.”

 

Oregon Senate District 1

 
 
Oregon General Election – November 8, 2016
Oregon Senate District 1
 
 
There are only 2 candidates in this election, one Republican and one Democrat.
 
1.  The Republican candidate is incumbent Senator Jeff Kruse, of Roseburg, who was also nominated by the Independent Party.  Senator Kruse has served in the Oregon Legislature continuously since 1997 when he was elected to the Oregon House, continuing as a Representative there through 2004.  He was then elected to the Senate where he has served since 2005.
 
He has a long record of opposing privileges and benefits for illegal aliens.  In 2001 as a Representative, he introduced HB 2507, requiring that Oregon Health Plan participants be Oregon (legal) resident.  The bill had a Committee hearing and was referred to Ways and Means, where it remained upon adjournment. In 2005, as a Senator, he was the only Education and Workforce Committee member to vote Nay on SB 769, a bill granting instate tuition to illegal aliens.  OFIR also opposed the bill and it died in the Ways and Means Committee.  In 2008, Sen. Kruse voted in favor of SB 1080, the bill supported by OFIR that passed and requires proof of legal presence to obtain a driver license.  In 2011, he voted against SB 742, which would have granted instate tuition to illegal aliens. In 2013 he voted against HB 2787, a bill which did pass, granting instate tuition to illegal aliens.  He also voted against SB 833, driver cards for illegal aliens.  SB 833 passed, but OFIR succeeded in overturning it through a Referendum in the general election of 2014.
 
In the current session of the Legislature, Sen. Kruse voted against HB 2177, the universal voter registration bill that makes voting by illegal aliens more likely, and also against SB 932, the Opportunity Grants bill giving public funds to illegal aliens for their college education.
 
Sen. Kruse replied to the 2016 Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project questionnaire, and here are his answers to the immigration-related questions for State Senate candidates:
 
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.
 
2. The Democratic Party candidate in Senate District 1 is Tim Rolek, of Brookings.  He has a website at http://www.rolekforsenate.com/.  It contains a brief section, Where I Stand, that gives his general outlook but there are few details and no mention of immigration.  He apparently does not consider the subject pertinent.  He did not reply to the OAAVEP survey.  His views on immigration are unknown.
 
According to his filing paper with the Secretary of State, he is a self-employed musician, writer, and composer, and the Music Director of the Lake Tahoe Music Festival.  He is a graduate of the University of Minnesota with a degree in Music.
 

Oregon Senate District 12

 
Oregon General Election – November 8, 2016
Oregon Senate District 12
 
 
There are only 2 candidates in this race, one Democrat and one Republican.
 
1. The Republican candidate is incumbent Senator Brian Boquist, of Dallas, first elected to the Senate for the 2009 Session.  He came from the House, where he had been a Representative from House District 24 in the 2005 and 2007 Sessions.
  
He is a native Oregonian with degrees from Western Oregon State College and Oregon State University. He served 34 years in the military as a Special Forces Officer, attaining the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. He has worked in several fields including aviation, forestry, ranching, dairy farming, construction.
 
He has an overall good record for opposing benefits to illegal aliens.  In the 2015 Legislature, he voted NO on SB 932, Opportunity Grants for illegal aliens, also NO on HB 2177, the mandatory voter registration bill which makes voting by illegal aliens more likely.  In 2013, he voted YES on SB 833, the bill granting driver cards to illegal aliens, and NO on HB 2787, instate tuition for illegal aliens.  In 2011, he voted NO on SB 742, granting instate tuition to illegal aliens.  While in the House, in the 2008 special session, he voted YES on SB 1080, requiring proof of citizenship to obtain a driver license.  In the 2007 session, Rep. Boquist was a sponsor of HB 2715, requiring employers to participate in the E-Verify program. However, though OFIR worked hard to advance the bill, it did not receive a Hearing.
 
Sen. Boquist does not have a campaign website.  Information about him and his work in the Legislature can be seen on his section of the Legislature’s website.
 
2.  The Democratic Party candidate is Ross Swartzendrucker, of Salem.  He is  a native Oregonian, and is currently self-employed with Black Sheep Advertising Inc.  His occupational background includes ranch hand, Swartzendruber Sheep Station, and Purification process operator, Genetics Institute.  He is a graduate of Boston University with a bachelor’s degree in biology.
 
His campaign website is at: http://friendsofross.org/.  It lacks specific information on his positions and there is no mention of immigration.  His views on immigration are unknown.  It can be assumed he will follow Democratic Party policy, supporting benefits for illegal aliens and expanded immigration.
 

Oregon Senate District 25

 
General Election, November 8, 2016
 
Oregon Senate District 25 – Fairview, Gresham, Troutdale, Wood Village
 
 
There are 3 candidates in this race, one Democrat/Independent/Working Families, one Republican and one Libertarian.
 
1.  The Republican Party candidate is Tamie Tlustos-Arnold, of Fairview.  She is a registered nurse and small business owner, with previous work in healthcare and fitness occupations.
 
The biography on her website says that she has lived in East County for over 20 years.  She “earned her Associate Degree at Mount Hood Community College, where she served as student body president, before earning a Bachelor of Science in Nursing from Walla Walla College School of Nursing. First elected to the Fairview City Council in 2012, she also serves as Vice President of the West Columbia Gorge Chamber and is a former member of the Reynolds School District Budget Committee. Recently elected to the Mount Hood Community College Board, Tamie is focused on finding local solutions to reduce tuition and make higher education more affordable for students.”
 
An announcement of her candidacy in the Portland Tribune contains some additional information.
 
She did not reply to the OAAVEP survey, but it is likely she will support the 2016 Oregon Republican Party platform which includes strong immigration policy positions stated in the section on “Immigration and the Rule of Law,” pages 25 and 26 of the document here.
 
Website:  http://www.tamieforeastcounty.com/.  There is a webform for contacting her.
 
2.  The Democratic Party candidate is Laurie Monnes Anderson (D), of Gresham, incumbent. She also is the write-in candidate of the Independent Party and the candidate of the Working Families Party.  She has been in the Legislature since 2001, first serving 2 terms in the House before being elected to the Senate in 2004.
 
On immigration issues, she has a long record of 15 years in the Legislature, following the Democratic Party leadership in supporting benefits for illegal aliens and loose voting rules. Most recently, 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 2015 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 for SB 833, driver cards for illegal aliens, and HB 2787, instate tuition for illegal aliens.
 
3.  The Libertarian Party candidate is Jeffrey L. Ricks, of Gresham.  He attended Brooklyn College studying computer science and philosophy.  His filing paper with the Secretary of State says he is self-employed in retail.  
 
Campaign website:  http://jeffricksfororegon.com/.  It contains a section, “Solutions” with brief statements on “Homelessness and Mental Health,” “Jobs and the Economy,” and “Community.”
 
He did not reply to the OAAVEP questionnaire.  No information on his views about immigration was found. As a Libertarian, presumably he supports the party’s platform which includes this statement on immigration:  3.4 Free Trade and Migration -- “... Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. …”
 

Oregon Senate District 27

 
 
Oregon General Election – November 8, 2016
Oregon Senate District 27
 
 
There are only two candidates in this race:  one Democrat and one Republican.
 
1. The Republican Party candidate is incumbent Senator Tim Knopp, of Bend.  Sen. Knopp served three terms in the House from 1999 to 2005, including as Oregon House Majority Leader.  In 2012 he won election to the Senate and is now seeking a second term.  He is a native Oregonian and a resident of Central Oregon for 35 years.
 
In the Senate in 2015, he voted NO on SB 932, Opportunity Grants for illegal aliens, and NO on HB 2177, universal voter registration which makes voting by illegal aliens more likely.  Unfortunately both of those bills passed.  In March 2015, Sen. Knopp introduced a bill, SB 850, calling for state agencies to use the federal E-Verify employment verification program to verify employment eligibility of job applicants. In the Democratic Party-controlled Legislature, the bill was not given a hearing, nor were any of the other 3 bills introduced by Republicans that would have required the use of E-Verify.
 
In 2013, Sen. Knopp voted NO on SB 833, the bill granting driver cards to illegal aliens, which passed and was later nullified by OFIR’s citizen Referendum, Measure 88.  He also voted NO on HB 2787 which granted instate tuition to illegal aliens.
His campaign website is at:  http://timknopp.com.  The website has a form for sending email to him.
 
 
2. The Democratic Party candidate is Greg Delgado, of Bend.  He maintains a campaign website at: http://delgadoforsenate.nationbuilder.com/.  There is an Issues section which does not mention immigration.  
 
On the Meet Greg Delgado page, he says:
“Over 10 years ago Greg moved to Bend and became involved with Jobs with Justice and CAUSA after seeing first hand the abuses of workers.  During his time as a community organizer, Greg has developed extensive relationships with labor unions, the Latino community, and elected officials across the state.
 
“Greg has fought tirelessly on behalf of his community for Drivers Cards, Organizing Hospital Workers, Ban the Box Legislation, A Better Oregon Revenue Campaign, and Protection from Racial Profiling Legislation. He looks forward to carrying on his work on the campaign trail and in the Oregon State Senate.”
 

Oregon Senate District 28

 
 
Oregon General Election – November 8, 2016
Oregon Senate District 28
 
 
There are only 2 candidates in this race, one Republican and one Democrat.
 
1.  The Democratic Party candidate is Todd D. Kepple, of Klamath Falls.  On his filing paper with the Secretary of State, he gives his occupation as County museum manager and his occupational background as Newspaper reporter and editor, Nondenominational minister.  He holds a Bachelor’s degree in Ministry from Abilene Christian University.
 
His campaign website is at: http://keppleforsenate.com/.  It contains an Issues section at:
http://keppleforsenate.com/platform/ but there is no mention of immigration.  He did not reply to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education survey.  His views on immigration presumably align with those of the Democratic Party which stands for amnesties and benefits to illegal aliens, and greatly expanded legal immigration.
 
 
2.  The Republican candidate is Dennis Linthicum, of Beatty, Klamath County.  He is a former Klamath County Commissioner, software developer, rancher, and small business owner.  He holds a bachelor’s degree in economics from University of California at Los Angeles.
 
He replied to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education survey’s questions on immigration:  
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.
 
In the 2014 Primary, Dennis Linthicum ran for Congress in Congressional District 2, and he replied then to the NumbersUSA candidate questionnaire.  On the basis of his replies he was rated a True Immigration Reformer
 
His current campaign website is at:  http://electdennis.com/home.  In the “Contact Us” section, there is a webform for sending email to him.
 

Oregon candidates' voting records on immigration issues in State Legislature, 2015

 
 
This bill gives public funds to illegal aliens for enrollment in Oregon colleges.  See article by Sen. Doug Whitsett, “Changes to tuition act prove doubters right.”  See op-ed on abuse of the emergency clause in this bill, here.  SB 932 was passed by the Legislature on July 3, 2015.
 
All Democrats present in both the House and the Senate voted Yes on this bill except Sen. Betsy Johnson of Scappoose.  Sen. Alan Olsen (R) did not vote.  OFIR opposed this bill and appreciates the votes of legislators who voted against it
 
Senators who voted against the bill and now seek reelection are:  (S1) Jeff Kruse; (S2) Herman Baertschiger Jr.; (S9) Fred Girod; (S12) Brian Boquist; (S27) Tim Knopp; (S29) Bill Hansell; (S30) Ted Ferrioli.  All are Republicans.
 
Representatives who voted against the bill and now seek reelection are:  (H2) Dallas Heard; (H3) Carl Wilson; (H4) Duane A. Stark; (H6) Sal Esquivel; (H7) Cedric Hayden; (H15) Andy Olson; (H17) Sherrie Sprenger; (H18) Victor S. Gilliam; (H19) Jodi Hack; (H23) Mike Nearman; (H25) Bill Post; (H37) Julie Parrish; (H39) Bill Kennemer; (H53) Gene Whisnant; (H54) Knute Buehler, (H55) Mike McLane; (H57) Greg Smith; (H60) Cliff Bentz.   All are Republicans.
 
 
 
This bill makes voting by illegal aliens much more likely. It is a mandatory voter registration bill.  It calls for the state to use drivers’ license data to automatically register voters.  The bill was introduced on January 12, 2015 at the request of then-Secretary of State (now Governor) Kate Brown.  It was passed by the Legislature on March 5, 2015.
 
All Democrats in both the House and the Senate voted in favor of this bill except Sen. Betsy Johnson of Scappoose.  All Republicans in both the House and the Senate voted against the bill except Rep. Bill Kennemer, who did not vote.  OFIR opposed this bill and appreciates the votes of legislators who voted against it.
 
Representatives who voted against the bill and now seek reelection are:  (H2) Dallas Heard; (H3) Carl Wilson; (H4) Duane A. Stark; (H6) Sal Esquivel; (H7) Cedric Hayden; (H15) Andy Olson; (H17) Sherrie Sprenger; (H18) Victor S. Gilliam; (H19) Jodi Hack; (H23) Mike Nearman; (H25) Bill Post; (H37) Julie Parrish; (H39) Bill Kennemer; Greg Baretto (H40); (H53) Gene Whisnant; (H54) Knute Buehler, (H55) Mike McLane; (H57) Greg Smith; (H60) Cliff Bentz.   All are Republicans
 
Senators who voted against the bill and now seek reelection are:  (S1) Jeff Kruse; (S2) Herman Baertschiger Jr.; (S9) Fred Girod; (S12) Brian Boquist; (S27) Tim Knopp; (S29) Bill Hansell; (S30) Ted Ferrioli.  All are Republicans.
 

Secretary of State

 
Oregon General Election – November 8, 2016
 
Secretary of State
 
 
The Secretary of State and the Attorney General have responsibility for managing citizen initiatives and referenda.  OFIR and other citizen groups have had problems in mounting initiatives and referenda because of apparent resistance from the Secretary of State and the Attorney General’s offices.  The Secretary of State administers the process of filing the citizen measures, reviewing petition signatures, etc., and can use delays and other tactics to impede the process.  The Attorney General is empowered to write the ballot titles for initiatives and can slant the title to favor one side or the other.  (See separate report on Attorney General candidates.) 
 
Several issue-oriented groups have recently experienced difficulties as a result of unsatisfactory and slanted ballot titles.  If a group challenges the language of the title, this delays the process and reduces the time available for collecting signatures, which are due well before the election date as they must be verified by the Secretary of State’s office before the measure is officially approved to go on the ballot. Then time is needed to include the measure in voter pamphlets, on ballots, etc.  If activists accept the skewed ballot title, they face severe problems of public misunderstanding and failure of the measure.   Thus incumbent Secretaries of State and Attorneys General can and do cripple the efforts of citizen activists with whom they disagree. 
 
In the November 2016 general election, there are 5 candidates for Oregon Secretary of State, one each from the Democratic, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, and Pacific Green parties.  The major party candidates are Dennis Richardson, Republican, of Central Point and Brad Avakian, Democrat of Portland. 
 
1.  Dennis Richardson, Republican Party candidate, served 6 terms in the State Legislature as Representative from District 4 from 2003-2014.   By occupation, he is a lawyer, having graduated from Brigham Young University and its Law School.  He served as an Army combat helicopter pilot in Vietnam.
 
On his campaign website he addresses the problem faced by activists attempting to pass initiatives and referenda.  He says:  “Dennis believes citizens have the right to petition their government. He’ll work to make the initiative process more transparent and citizen friendly. He’ll advocate for fair and non-partisan ballot titling by proposing a citizen’s commission on ballot titling, which would remove the process from partisan hands.”
 
While serving in the House in 2005, he voted for HB 2583, a bill requiring evidence of citizenship for persons registering to vote for first time.  The bill passed the House but died in the Senate.   In 2008, he voted for SB 1080, the bill requiring proof of citizenship by driver license applicants which is still in effect today.  In March 2013, he voted for SB 2787, giving in-state tuition to illegal aliens.  In April 2013, he voted against SB 833, the bill granting official driver cards and i.d. to illegal aliens.  He was a leader in the opposition to this bill and spoke strongly against it on the floor of the House on April 30, 2013.  In Feb. 2014,  when supporters of SB 833 attempted to change the Referendum ballot title to make it more favorable to their side, Rep. Richardson actively opposed that effort and voted against the bill, H.R. 4054 which would have changed the title.
 
His campaign website is at http://www.dennisrichardson.com/home.
Email available through webform at: http://dennisrichardson.com/email-signup/
 
2. Brad Avakian, Democratic Party candidate, was elected to the Oregon House in 2002, serving there until elected to the Oregon Senate in 2006.  In April 2008 he was appointed by Governor Kulongoski to be Commissioner of Labor and Industries, then elected to the position in November 2008, and has served there now for nearly 8 years.
  
While in the Oregon House in 2005 he voted against HB 2583 requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. In the Senate in 2007, on SB 424, a bill to align Oregon with the federal Real ID program, he voted for the motion to substitute Minority Report for Committee Report on SB 424, which was a maneuver to defeat SB 424.  Then a motion to refer to Ways and Means carried on voice vote, and the bill died without any other vote.  In the 2008 Special Session, he voted against SB 1080 requiring proof of citizenship to obtain a driver license.  That bill passed both houses of the Legislature and became law in February 2008.
 
His campaign website is at: http://www.bradavakian.com/.  It has an Issues section but no mention of immigration as a political issue.  The “About Brad” section contains biographical information.  He authored a commentary article published in The Oregonian in 2010 which described his sympathies for immigrants and touted their value but did not address any issues related to illegal immigration or the volume of immigration. 
Email: webform for email at: http://www.bradavakian.com/contact/
 
3.  The Independent Party candidate is Paul Damian Wells, of Corvallis.  His filing paper with the OR Secretary of State shows that he holds a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from Purdue University and an Associate’s degree from Portland Community College in machine manufacturing technology.  He lists his occupation as CNC machinist.  On his website at www.thekeel.org he discusses some political views but there is no mention of immigration.  His views on immigration are unknown.   Email:  pdamianw@thekeel.org
 
4. The Libertarian Party candidate is Sharon L. Durbin of Lyons, in Linn County.  She replied to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education questionnaire:  2.  Do you support requiring proof of identity before registering to vote?  Yes.  “The motor-voter registration is working well here because you must show proof of citizenship to do so.”  3. Do you support an Oregon Constitutional amendment to require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in Oregon?  No.  “We already have that and constantly amending the constitution is not the best way to handle things.”  9.  Do you support taking steps to make the initiative process more accessible to Oregonians?  No. “It seems to be quite acceptable now.”  10.  Do you support restricting the "emergency clause" on legislation as true emergencies?  Yes.  12.  Do you support requiring all employers to verify citizenship for employee eligibility to work in Oregon?  Yes.  
No website was found for Durbin.  
 
Her filing paper with OR Secretary of State says she holds a doctoral degree in law from AZ State University and is an attorney.
 
5. The Pacific Green Party candidate is Alan F. Zundel, of Eugene.  He replied to the Oregon  Abigail Adams Voter Education questionnaire:  2.  Do you support requiring proof of identity before registering to vote?  Yes.  3. Do you support an Oregon Constitutional amendment to require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in Oregon?  No.  9. Do you support taking steps to make the initiative process more accessible to Oregonians?  Yes.  10.  Do you support restricting the "emergency clause" on legislation as true emergencies?  Yes.  12.  Do you support requiring all employers to verify citizenship for employee eligibility to work in Oregon?  No.  
 
Zundel’s campaign website is at www.voteforalan.org.  No references to immigration were found there.
 

U.S. President

 
Oregon General Election – November 8, 2016
 
U.S. President
 
August 27, 2016
 
The two major party candidates for U.S. President are Hillary Clinton, Democrat, and Donald Trump, Republican.
 
1. DONALD TRUMP has an excellent position statement on immigration policy posted on his website.  In the introduction to the full statement he says:
 
“Real immigration reform puts the needs of working people first – not wealthy globetrotting donors. We are the only country in the world whose immigration system puts the needs of other nations ahead of our own. That must change. Here are the three core principles of real immigration reform:
 
“1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.
“2. A nation without laws is not a nation.  Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced.
“3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation.  Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.”
 
Sections of his statement cover these topics: Make Mexico Pay For The Wall; Defend The Laws And Constitution Of The United States; Triple the number of ICE officers; Nationwide e-verify; Mandatory return of all criminal aliens; Detention—not catch-and-release; Defund sanctuary cities; Enhanced penalties for overstaying a visa; Cooperate with local gang task forces; End birthright citizenship.  Then there is additional information about further steps he would take to ensure effective enforcement of immigration laws and to bring needed improvements to present laws.
 
Trump has spoken at many rallies about his immigration views and had many television interviews on the subject.  He has consulted with Sen. Jeff Sessions, an expert on true immigration reform, and continues to have the Senator’s advice and endorsement.  True immigration reformers can thank Mr. Trump for bringing national attention to the subject.  His campaign has been a sharp contrast to those of many other political figures who avoid frank, open discussion of issues relating to illegal immigration or excessive legal immigration, try to deflect serious questions with clichés and platitudes about the Statue of Liberty, “a nation of immigrants”, etc., and serve the interests of ethnic and business lobbies.
 
NumbersUSA’s new Voter Guide with report on Trump’s positions on immigration is here.  The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) has also analyzed immigration positions of the major candidates. See their report here.
Trump’s campaign website:  https://www.donaldjtrump.com/ .
 
 
2. HILLARY CLINTON is the nominee of the Democratic Party.
 
NumbersUSA’s new Voter Guide with report on Clinton’s positions on immigration is here.  It gives a detailed account of her record on immigration issues during her whole political career, as well as her current campaign positions.
 
A comparison of the Clinton and Trump immigration plans by Marguerite Telford of the Center for Immigration Studies concludes: “Trump’s plan … returns time and time again to immigration policy’s role in helping build America and helping citizens and legal immigrants achieve the American dream, and Clinton’s plan … almost exclusively speaks to providing illegal aliens a path to citizenship and allowing their family members the same.”
 
The Center for Immigration Studies has published a list of questions for candidate Clinton, basic questions on immigration policy to which she has never given clear answers.
 
The huge increases in immigration that would occur under Clinton’s announced policy are discussed here.
 
Clinton’s campaign website:  https://www.hillaryclinton.com/  

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.  

 

U.S. Senate

 
Oregon General Election – November 8, 2016
U.S. Senate
 
 
There are four candidates, one each from the Republican, Democratic, Independent, and Pacific Green Parties
.
1.  The Republican Party candidate is Mark Callahan, of Portland, an Information Technology Consultant and graduate of Oregon State University with degree in Business Administration/MIS.  He is a member of the Board of Oregonians for Immigration Reform.
 
Here are his replies to the Oregon Abigail Adams candidate questionnaire:  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?  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.   42.  How would you propose screening war refugees to prevent potential terrorists from entering the country with them?   “Background checks, before admitting war refugees from entering the country, in order to prevent potential terrorists from entering the country with them.”
 
Mark Callahan also responded to the NumbersUSA questionnaire for candidates and is rated by NumbersUSA as a True Immigration Reformer.  See the report on him at:  https://www.numbersusa.com/candidate-comparison/candidate/2016/senate/ma...
 
Callahan’s campaign website at http://callahanfororegon.com/ contains a long list of Issue statements, including this one on immigration: 
 
“Immigration: Enforce Existing Laws; Secure the Borders; Work on Stopping Illegal Immigration; Say No to Amnesty:  The issue of illegal immigration has been a major topic for many years in America. I personally worked with, and strongly supported, those that were against Measure 88 in the November 2014 election to stop driver’s licenses from being given to illegal immigrants. As the election results indicated, most of Oregon, by strong majority margins in 35 of the 36 counties agreed that driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants was not a good idea, and Measure 88 was voted down.  
“As we are a nation of laws, I believe we should enforce our current immigration laws. With our current high rate of unemployment, and American families already struggling to make ends meet in our troubled economy, it makes no sense to add millions of those here illegally to the work force. If elected, I will fight to do what is best for American families, while keeping us safe by advocating for complete border security. We must get our arms around this issue before irreparable damage is done.
“In regards to sanctuary cities, we don’t need to import and provide sanctuary for those that break our laws in the first place to be here.  We have our own homeless and jobless Americans that are suffering in Oregon, and across the nation, directly because of the abuse of the current immigration system. Trading Americans’ jobs and the ability to feed and take care of their families, in order to help people from other countries instead, is cruel to both parties, and only results in both populations falling into poverty, and nations collapsing under the economic weight of stagnation. We cannot claim to want to solve human rights abuses in the world just by giving food, clothing and housing to one group of people, and by taking it away from another group of people in the process. A nation that cannot take care of its own citizens cannot afford to help other citizens of the World. Americans Need Jobs First!
 
Callahan also includes a statement on Brexit:
 
Brexit: I Support the Decision of the People of the United Kingdom (UK) to Exit the European Union (EU).
 
On June 13th, 2016, I attended a forum in Washington D.C., hosted by the American Conservative Union (ACU), regarding Brexit, and the UK’s decision to exit the European Union.  The room was full, and the panel included great speakers such as ACU Chairman Matt Schlapp, and Fox News National Security Rock Star KT McFarland.  As most may be aware, the people of the UK voted on June 23rd, 2016, to exit from membership in the European Union.  I support this decision, and believe that it is a step in the right direction for the people in the UK, in terms of regaining and maintaining their sovereignty and freedom economically. The effect on the world’s markets, after the decision, is/was short-term and temporary, and as they usually do, the markets will recover. The UK’s decision to leave the European Union represents the UK’s commitment to individualism, as opposed to the failed policies of the European Union’s collectivism mindset. I believe that individualism, not collectivism, is the best solution in terms of building and maintaining freedom and liberty, throughout the world, economically.
 
Email address: Mark@CallahanForOregon.com.
 
2.  The Democratic Party candidate is incumbent Senator Ron Wyden of Portland, who seeks reelection.  He has been in Congress for 35 years, as a Senator since 1996 and as a Representative, 1981-1996.  He has a long and very poor record on immigration issues.  His immigration-reduction report card compiled by NumbersUSA gives him an overall career grade of D-.  On particular immigration subjects, he is graded F- on reducing amnesty enticements, F- on reducing illegal immigration rewards, F- on reducing chain migration, F on reducing unnecessary worker visas, F on reducing illegal jobs and presence; D+ on reducing the visa lottery, C- on reducing refugee and asylum fraud,  C on reducing illegal immigration at borders.  See his career voting record at: https://www.numbersusa.com/content/my/congress/667/gradescoresheet/#tabs....  There are links to the particular bills he voted on.
 
Senator Wyden’s campaign website is at: https://www.standtallforamerica.com/. It contains an Issues section, but there is no mention of immigration, suggesting he sees it as a matter of minor importance and the current status is satisfactory to him.
 
According to Open Secrets, as of July 25, Sen. Wyden has accumulated over $11 million ($11,402,211) in his campaign treasury, an enormous sum, about twice as much as all other Oregon Congressional candidates put together including House and Senate candidates in all three parties.  This raises questions as to whose interests the candidate is serving. When we see the way Congress has failed in recent years to correct major problems with immigration, it certainly appears that money has played a role in long incumbency and not a beneficial one for the public.
 
3.  The Independent Party candidate is Steven C. Reynolds (“Cody”) of Portland, a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point with degree in information systems.  He has a website at www.codyfororegon.com which contains this statement on immigration:  “Our Borders - Our immigration policy is broken. We as a nation must first secure our borders, and then create a real path to citizenship for those undocumented immigrants already within them.”
 
4.  The Pacific Green Party candidate is Eric C. Navickas, of Prospect, Jackson County, who is an organic farmer, and previously worked as a residential designer, according to his filing paper with the Secretary of State.  He holds a Bachelor’s degree in architecture from the University of Oregon.  He has prior governmental experience as a City Councilor for the city of Ashland OR.  He appears not to have a website, and no information was found about his positions on immigration policy.  His email address is given as navickasdesign@gmail.com.
 

2016 Presidential Primary

A Summary of Presidential Candidates' Positions on Immigration

 
Oregon Primary Election – May 17, 2016
 Summary of Presidential Candidates' Positions on Immigration as of April 21, 2016
 
Campaign statements by four Presidential candidates are included in the Oregon Voters’ Pamphlet mailed out recently to registered voters.  Only two of the Presidential candidates mention immigration in their Voters’ Pamphlet statements:
 
Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton says: “We have to … reform our broken criminal justice and immigration systems.”   Republican Party candidate Donald Trump says: “We want free and fair trade. …  We must restore the integrity of our national borders. A country cannot exist without strong borders.  We will welcome international visitors, but we must build a wall to protect our southern border.”
 
Differences in Presidential candidates’ positions on immigration policy have been made very clear by NumbersUSA in their ratings based on voting records if the candidate has been in Congress and on public statements or other actions by the candidates. Presently, Clinton is rated D- and Trump is rated A-.  Cruz is rated A, Kasich, D, and Sanders F-.
 
OFIR has previously presented information on Presidential candidates’ positions on immigration on the OFIR website at: http://www.oregonir.org/immigration-topics/2016-presidential-primary.  Earlier postings included candidates who have since withdrawn from the race.
 
The five candidates currently in the race all have websites which include contact information.
 
Ted Cruz’s website has a lengthy section, “Secure the Border,” which includes many specific proposals that would strengthen immigration controls. https://www.tedcruz.org/issues/secure-the-border/.
 
Donald Trump’s website has a section on “Immigration Reform That Will Make America Great Again,” https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform, and a separate one on  “Compelling Mexico to Pay for the Wall,” https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/pay-for-the-wall.  His immigration control proposals were developed in cooperation with Sen. Jeff Sessions who has for years been a leader in the U.S. Senate advocating for policies that put the interests of U.S. citizens first.
 
John Kasich’s website, https://www.johnkasich.com/,  has no discussion of immigration.
 
Hillary Clinton’s website has a lengthy section, “Immigration reform; America needs comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship.”  https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/immigration-reform/.  It describes her plans for immigration policy should she become president, and shows that she favors nearly unlimited immigration and many benefits for illegal aliens already here.
 
Bernie Sanders’ website has a lengthy section, called “A Fair and Humane Immigration Policy,” at https://berniesanders.com/a-fair-and-humane-immigration-policy/.  There is a brief resume of the points and then a much more detailed version, which shows he would go even further than President Obama in ready acceptance and benefits to illegal aliens.

Bush, Jeb - Positions on immigration policy

 
"The way I look at this is someone who comes to our country because they couldn’t come legally, they come to our country because their families -- the dad who loved their children -- was worried that their children didn’t have food on the table. And they wanted to make sure their family was intact, and they crossed the border because they had no other means to work to be able to provide for their family. Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony. It’s an act of love. It’s an act of commitment to your family. …" --  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/06/jeb-bush...
 
“What we need to do is allow people to earn legal status where they pay a fine, where they work, where they don’t commit crimes, where they learn English, and over an extended period of time, they earn legal status. That’s the path — a proper path.”  -- http://time.com/4107636/transcript-read-the-full-text-of-the-fourth-repu...
 
In his September 2015 speech at the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce conference in Houston Bush stood by his amnesty pledge for illegal aliens. He said, "I've been consistently for the Dream Act kids to get a path to citizenship," Bush continued. "I've been consistently for it, and I'll continue to be consistently for it irrespective of what the political ramifications of that are." Under his plan, Bush said illegal immigrants could apply for legal status after a certain period of time as long as they pay taxes and pay a fine, learn English and hold a job. “That is the dignified American way, the practical way of solving the problem of 12 million immigrants,” he said. “If we did that we could turn immigration into what it has always been - a sustained economic drivers for our country."   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeb-bush-immigration-dreamers_56005c...
 
In an interview with CBS News on August 18, 2015 Bush responded to Trump's immigration plan and pushed back on the birthright citizenship issue, saying “That’s a constitutional right and Mr. Trump can say that he’s for this because people are frustrated that it’s abused. We ought to fix the problem rather than take away rights that are constitutionally endowed.” http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trumps-gop-rivals-blast-immigratio...
 
Gov. Bush supports efforts to give drivers licenses and in-state tuition to illegal aliens.  In addition, Gov. Bush signed the first 287(g) agreement with the government, but later stated that immigration is strictly a federal issue.   http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/198550/jeb-bush-was-local-enforceme...
-------------------------------------------------------------
 
The above references are selected from NumbersUSA’s website on presidential candidates.  NumbersUSA grades candidates based on their voting records and public statements on immigration. Jeb Bush is graded C- as of January 14, 2016.  View the complete report at: https://www.numbersusa.com/content/elections/races/presidential/jeb-bush....
Bush’s campaign website is at https://jeb2016.com.  It contains a section on Border Security but none on other immigration policy. 

Carson, Ben - Positions on immigration policy

 
Four policy statements are grouped together on his website: https://www.bencarson.com/issues/issue/topic/immigration
 
"Securing the Southern Border -- Many Americans have reached out to me to share their concern about sanctuary cities and the seemingly insurmountable problems on the Southern border. One of my top priorities as president would be to seal the border with Mexico to stop the flow of drugs and violence into the United States. Furthermore, I would end federal policies that have permitted cities to harbor criminal illegal immigrants. The tragedies that have occurred due to such criminal illegal immigrants are completely avoidable and should never happen again." - Ben Carson
 
"Birthright Citizenship -- The Obama administration's open border policy has encouraged illegal immigrants to slip into the United States to give birth to their children here, which earns them birthright citizenship. I believe the first steps in addressing birthright citizenship overreach is to begin securing our borders and enhancing visa enforcement." - Ben Carson
 
“Guest Workers and Visas --I would first work to seal the borders and enhance border security. For some illegal immigrants, I would consider integrating them into a guest worker program, but they would not receive amnesty or voting rights." - Ben Carson
 
“Immigration Policy -- The overwhelming majority of Americans want the borders of our country secured and our immigration laws robustly enforced, but many recent administrations have been unwilling to get tough on this issue. This is yet another area where our government's leadership and the wishes of many of the people diverge and the people are being ignored. As president, I will work to end government overreach, reform our immigration policies, boost visa enforcement and secure our borders." - Ben Carson
 
From a general list of issue statements:  “Syrian Refugees -- I was deeply touched by my trip to Jordan to visit major refugee camps. Many refugees told me that they don't want to be relocated in the United States, but hope to be able to return to their country. I believe we should ensure that the United States is offering financial support to countries such as Jordan that are supporting many Syrian refugees. I also believe that at home, given national security concerns, we should terminate all funding for programs to resettle Syrian refugees in the United States, given the risk that such programs might allow ISIS terrorists, disguised as refugees, to infiltrate our country." - Dr. Ben Carson
 
The following references are selected from NumbersUSA’s website on presidential candidates.  NumbersUSA grades candidates based on their voting records (if they have been in legislatures or Congress) and public statements on immigration.  Dr. Carson is graded C as of January 14, 2016.  View the complete report at:  https://www.numbersusa.com/content/content/elections/races/presidential/...
 
In July 2014, Dr. Carson didn't mention E-Verify by name, but he did say that employers should face harsh punishments for hiring illegal aliens: "You have to reduce the incentive for people to want to come here. That's how you fix the problem. I guarantee you that if you remove all the goodies, people will find a way to get out of here just like they found a way to get in here. And one of the most important parts of that are the employers," he said. "As far as I'm concerned, the second offense, if you hire someone who's not here legally, should be a criminal offense -- and they should be treated as such. Absolutely." 
 
During a campaign stop in New Hampshire in July 2015, Dr. Carson sad he opposes sanctuary cities and blocking illegal aliens access to public benefits was an important piece to ending illegal immigration. “No sanctuary cities,” said Carson. “That’s part one [border security]. Part two is, you have to turn off the spigot that dispenses the goodies.” 
 
During a Presidential forum in Baltimore, Md. in June 2015, Dr. Carson said he supported a guest worker program for illegal aliens. "Give them an opportunity to become guest workers so they can at least come out of the shadows." 
 
In May 2015, Dr. Carson applauded a decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a temporary stay against Pres. Obama's executive amnesties. “It’s an important victory for those committed to preserving the rule of law, the essential consent of Congress and ultimately the voice of the people,” Carson said. 
 
In a Nov. 2015 press conference Carson discussed the need for illegal aliens to keep and get jobs. “When you look at farming industries, I’ve talked to farmers with multi-thousands acres farms and they say their business would collapse, I’ve talked to hotel owners and they say that they would have a very difficult time without them,” he said. Source:http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/11/11/carson-proposes-six-month-regi...
 

Clinton, Hillary - Positions on immigration policy

 
"I believe strongly we are missing a great opportunity by not welcoming people like you and 11 million others who have made contributions to our country into a legal status so you don't have to worry, you can go to school, you can work, you can pursue your dreams." "I’m a huge supporter of immigration reform and a path to citizenship and will continue to advocate for that." 
 
After announcing her intention to run for president in April 2015, Sen. Clinton doubled down on President Obama's executive orders and pledged to go even further: “If Congress continues to refuse to act, as president, I would do everything possible under the law to go even further.... There’s much more to do expand and enhance protections for families and communities."  Sen. Clinton also said that Republicans pushing for legal status, but opposing citizenship, for "illegal aliens is 'code for second-class status.'"  Clinton, not only supporting DREAMers, supported their parents as well: Therefore we should put in place a simple, straightforward, and accessible way for parents of DREAMers and others with a history of service and contribution to their communities to make their case and be eligible for the same deferred action as their children." 
 
Speaking at a Politico panel in June 2015, Sen. Clinton's campaign manager Robby Mook explained how Clinton would expand Pres. Obama's executive amnesties. She "is advocating for going even further than President Obama on immigration, to stop deporting the parents of these DREAMers who are contributing to our economy, and are valuable members of our society. Specifically in the policy that she was proposing, she wanted to make it easier for families to appeal some of these deportation decisions, parents of DREAMers who might be facing deportation." 
 
In September 2015 Clinton said the answer to Americans losing jobs to illegal aliens is to give illegal aliens work permits."There are people who say with ... real feeling and evidence that they believe that either they or somebody they know lost a job, didn't get a job because an undocumented worker got it," Clinton told supporters in Iowa on Monday. "Of course, but undocumented workers can be paid less and exploited more, which is why disreputable situations arise where people have been mistreated, and sometimes not even paid for their labor at the end of their workday or week…The answer to that, in my view, is to have this path to citizenship, so that the labor market can be regulated, and nobody, American citizen or somebody on the path to citizenship, can be exploited," she said. "Their wages can't be stolen, they can't be mistreated on the job. That is why I believe comprehensive immigration reform would be good for our economy and good for American workers." 
 
The above references are selected from NumbersUSA’s website on presidential candidates.  NumbersUSA grades presidential candidates based on their voting records and public statements on immigration.  Hillary Clinton is graded F as of January 14, 2016.  View the NumbersUSA report at: https://www.numbersusa.com/content/elections/races/presidential/hillary-...
 
Clinton’s campaign website contains a list of her positions on immigration: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/immigration-reform/
 

Cruz, Ted - Positions on immigration policy

 
On his campaign website, in the Issues section, one of the main points is titled Secure the Border, and there Cruz lists the steps he would take as President to improve immigration management.
 
• Border security is national security. We need to secure the border once and for all. We need to stop Obama’s amnesty and enforce the rule of law. And we need to reform legal immigration to protect American workers.
 
• It’s not that we don’t know how to solve illegal immigration. What is missing is the political will to get it done. As President, Ted Cruz will do what he says. He will stop illegal immigration. He will build a wall that works, triple border security, and put in place the surveillance and biometric tracking to secure the border.
 
• Ted Cruz will end Obama’s amnesty on day one, will end catch-and-release, increase deportations, stop sanctuary policies, and strengthen E-verify.
 
• In order to protect our national security and serve American workers, he will suspend and audit H-1B visas and halt any increase in legal immigration so long as American unemployment remains unacceptably high.
 
• Cruz led the fight in Congress to defeat the Gang of Eight amnesty bill, he has introduced strong legislation to stop illegal immigration, and he has outlined a detailed immigration plan to protect Americans.
 
Sen. Cruz is now serving his first term in the Senate, having been elected in November 2012.
 
He is rated A by NumbersUSA for his positions on immigration policy as related to the interests of U.S. citizen workers.  In November he issued a detailed list of recommendations and promises for restoring proper enforcement and ensuring that immigration serves the best interests of citizens. View the policy paper at:  https://www.tedcruz.org/cruz-immigration-plan/  
 
Below are some quotes that appear on the NumbersUSA website. 
 
November 2015 - Sen. Cruz said that a strong E-Verify system would reduce the number of people living in the U.S. illegally.  “If we put in place a strong E-Verify system and deport criminal illegal aliens, the number of people here illegally will drop significantly, particularly if there’s not a continual flow of people coming in illegally,” Cruz said. Source: http://time.com/4123317/ted-cruz-immigration-reform-amnesty/
 
In a December 2015 CNN interview Sen. Cruz said he would enforce immigration laws and deport those who came here illegally. “I would enforce the law,” Cruz said, explaining that he would first deport criminals without proper papers. “Federal immigration law provides that if someone is here illegally and is apprehended, that they should be sent back to their home country." Source: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/15/politics/ted-cruz-immigration-legalization/
 
"We should end granting automatic birthright citizenship to the children of those who are here illegally,” Cruz, a senator from Texas, says on Michael Medved’s radio show in August 2015. Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/ted-cruz-ending-birthright...
 
At a January 2016 campaign stop Sen. Cruz responded to a DACA recipient question saying that even children who entered the U.S. illegally with their parents must still face the consequences. Cruz told her that there are "human tragedies when people break the law…There's no reason that America's laws should have less respect than the laws of every other country on Earth," Cruz said to audience applause. "We should welcome people who come following the laws, but there are consequences for breaking the laws. And that's part of what makes America the nation that we are." Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/video-ted-cruz-daca-deported-2016-1
 
In a January 2016 op-ed posted on GreenvilleOnline.com (SC), Sen. Cruz, along with Rep. Jeff Duncan, highlighted the federal government's inability to properly vet refugees and wrote, "[t]his is why we also support a moratorium in the refugee program from high-risk countries, at the very least until we are confident in our vetting process and we have seen progress in destroying the Islamic State." Source: http://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/opinion/contributors/2016/01/23/op...
 
In a Nov. 2015 radio interview on the Vince CoakleyShow, Sen Cruz said he would prosecute companies who abused the H-1B visa program. “I have been very concerned about reports of abuse of the [H-1B] program, of companies laying off American workers and replacing them with foreign workers.  That’s not what the H-1B program was designed to do….  If companies are abusing it and laying off American workers, they need to be investigated, they need to be audited — they’ve broken the law, they need to be prosecuted,” he said. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBhDrSgmLL0
 

Kasich, John - Positions on immigration policy

 
John Kasich is rated D by NumbersUSA in its report on Presidential candidates as of April 2016.    The report on Kasich contains links to public statements he has made recently on immigration issues and gives citations to sources.  It also refers to his actions on immigration issues during his years in the U.S. House of Representatives.
 
NumbersUSA rates Kasich “Abysmal”on opposing work permits for illegal immigrants and also abysmal on ending birthright citizenship.”  He is rated “Harmful” on protecting against unfair work-visa competition and “Harmful” on ending chain migration.
 

Rubio, Marco - Positions on immigration policy

 
Rubio’s campaign website is at https://marcorubio.com/.  It contains a section on Immigration Issues at:  https://marcorubio.com/issues-2/marco-rubio-immigration-plan-border-secu....  The section is titled “Secure the border first” and is excerpted from his 2015 book, American Dreams.
 
Some quotes from the discussion posted on his website:
 
“Each year our colleges and universities graduate foreign students who are among the best and the brightest in the whole world. Instead of putting them to work here, innovating products and creating jobs, we send them back to China and India to compete against us. This makes no sense.”
---------------
“The only way we are going to be able to break this impasse [difficulty in passing immigration reform] and make progress on this issue is in a sequential and piecemeal way, with a series of bills that build upon one another until ultimately we have put in place the kind of immigration system our nation needs.
 
The first step must be enforcement measures that are effective and verifiable. Such measures would include securing the most vulnerable and most trafficked sectors of the southern border, mandatory E-Verify and the full implementation of an entry-exit tracking system.”
-------------
“In the end, immigration reform is fundamentally about reforming government and restoring the American people’s faith in the ability of their government to do basic things right. I don’t believe this challenge will be fully met until we have new leaders in Washington who support both the rule of law and the job-creating potential of the free market. Until then, the best way to rebuild trust and reform our broken immigration system is through incremental steps both to fix our immigration system and to realize the full potential of our country.”
----------------
This campaign ad of January 2016 is also posted on his website:
“When I’m president, there will be no amnesty. I’ll cancel Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders; cut sanctuary city funding; and deport criminal aliens. We’ll add 20,000 border agents; finish all 700 miles of border wall; and if we aren’t 100 percent sure who you are and why you’re coming to America, you’re not getting in.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following references are selected from NumbersUSA’s website on presidential candidates.  NumbersUSA grades candidates based on their voting records and public statements on immigration.  Marco Rubio is graded D as of January 14, 2016.  
 
In his Iowa State Fair speech in August 2015, Sen. Rubio said he did not agree with Trump's plan or ending birthright citizenship. "I'm open to doing things that prevent people who deliberately come to the U.S. for purposes of taking advantage of the 14th Amendment, but I'm not in favor of repealing it," he stated. 
 
Sen. Rubio was a main sponsor and driving force of the Gang of Eight's amnesty legislation and is supportive of giving work permits to illegal aliens. However, he does support securing the border prior to the granting of work permits. Sen. Rubio also backtracked on the 2015 DHS budget bill, urging the Senate to pass legislation even if it funds President Obama's illegal amnesties. Rubio said on February 27, 2015, "What I’ve learned is that you can’t even have a conversation about that until people believe [that future illegal immigration will be controlled]." Source: http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/02/27/marco-rubio-hillary-is-yesterday/
 
In an April 2015 Univision interview Sen. Rubio said he would wait to repeal Obama’s amnesty executive actions. “DACA…applies to young people that arrived in this country at a very young age before they were adults and I don’t think we can immediately revoke that… I’m not calling for it to be revoked tomorrow, or this week, or right away…I think it will have to end at some point and I hope it will end because of some reform to the immigration laws,” Rubio said. Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/02/marco-rubio-jorge-ram...
 
Sen. Rubio told the Marietta Journal on May 15, 2015, that "we have to reasonably deal with the fact that there are 10, 11 million people who have been in this country longer than a decade. They will be here for the rest of their lives, legally or illegally. It behooves the country to know who they are, figure out a way for them to be start paying taxes, pay a fine, learn English and be able to live in the country in a legal status that allows for us to account for that so long as we can ensure that this is never going to happen again. But that issue has to eventually be dealt with. Leaving it the way it is is not good for the country.....I've described a process whereby people who meet a certain criteria, meaning they've been in this country a decade or longer, would have to come forward. They would have to pass a background check, and you can make that background test as strict or as lenient as you want. I believe that it needs to be stricter and not more lenient. They'll have to pay a fine as a consequence of violating the laws. They'll have to learn English and they'll have to start paying taxes. In exchange for all that, the only thing they would get is a work permit, and that's all they would have for at least a decade or longer, and then at some point after that period of time has expired, the only thing they would be allowed to do is apply for a green card. They would have to do it just like anybody else would, including people who are here legally or people that are abroad. And that would also take a significant period of time. Some people argue that all they should ever be allowed to have is a work permit. If that's the best we can do, I could support a proposal like that." 
 
Speaking in New Hampshire in July 2015, Sen. Rubio continued to say that he supports amnesty. When asked if he supports a path to citizenship, he said "I do." Then, he said, Americans will be “very generous but responsible.” He would require a background check, paying a fine, paying taxes and receiving legal status; after “at least a decade,” they could apply for permanent residency, and several years thereafter apply for citizenship. 
 
We can find no quotes from Sen. Rubio acknowledging the impacts immigration has on American workers. Rubio was a main sponsor of the Gang of 8 amnesty bill that would have drastically increased foreign worker numbers and his new immigration plan includes increases in worker visas, particularly visas for highly-skilled workers. 
 
 

Sanders, Bernie - Positions on immigration policy

 
Immigration policy initiatives listed on his website:
 
“Allow immigrants to purchase health coverage under the Affordable Care Act.
 
“Issue whistleblower visas for workers who report abuse and employer violations.
 
“Redirect resources away from boondoggle walls to modernize our border and ensure proper oversight that protects border communities.
 
“Employ humanitarian parole to ensure the return of unjustly deported immigrants and unify broken families.
 
“Ensure our border remains secure and protects local communities.
 
“Regulate future flows via a reformed visa system and reworked trade agreements,
 
“Put a stop to the notion that the border must be secured before a legalization can happen.
 
“Dismantle inhumane deportation programs and private detention centers.
 
“Reject ‘The Great Sanctuary City Slander’ as the politics of fear, and support humane local and state laws that integrate immigrants to our society.”
 
 
The list of points is followed by a long, detailed discussion of his views on immigration.  In part, he says:
“In a Sanders Administration, a legislative solution to modernize our immigration system will be a top priority. In addition, Senator Sanders will not stand idly by waiting around for Congress to act. Instead, beginning in the first 100 days of his administration, Senator Sanders will work to take extensive executive action to accomplish what Congress has failed to do and to build upon President Obama’s executive orders …”
 
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has been in Congress for many years and as a Presidential candidate is rated F- by NumbersUSA as of January 14, 2016, on the basis of his voting history and public statements on immigration issues.  See NumbersUSA’s report on their website at:  https://www.numbersusa.com/content/elections/races/presidential/bernie-s...
 

Trump, Donald - Positions on immigration policy

 
“The three core principles of Donald J. Trump's immigration plan 
 
“When politicians talk about ‘immigration reform’ they mean: amnesty, cheap labor and open borders. The Schumer-Rubio immigration bill was nothing more than a giveaway to the corporate patrons who run both parties.
 
“Real immigration reform puts the needs of working people first – not wealthy globetrotting donors. We are the only country in the world whose immigration system puts the needs of other nations ahead of our own. That must change. Here are the three core principles of real immigration reform: 
 
“1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border. 
“2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced. 
“3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.”
 
Other points on his website:
 
Make Mexico pay for the wall. - Defend the laws and Constitution of the United States. - 
Triple the number of ICE officers. - Nationwide E-Verify. This simple measure will protect jobs for unemployed Americans.- Mandatory return of all criminal aliens. - Detention—not catch-and-release. - Defund sanctuary cities. - Enhanced penalties for overstaying a visa. - Cooperate with local gang task forces.- End birthright citizenship.
 
Put American Workers First - Increase prevailing wage for H-1Bs. - Requirement to hire American workers first. - End welfare abuse. - Jobs program for inner city youth.
 
Refugee program for American children. Increase standards for the admission of refugees and asylum-seekers to crack down on abuses. Use the monies saved on expensive refugee programs to help place American children without parents in safer homes and communities, and to improve community safety in high crime neighborhoods in the United States.
 
Immigration moderation. Before any new green cards are issued to foreign workers abroad, there will be a pause where employers will have to hire from the domestic pool of unemployed immigrant and native workers. This will … allow record immigration levels to subside to more moderate historical averages.
 
NumbersUSA grades presidential candidates based on their voting records and public statements on immigration. Donald Trump is graded A- as of January 14, 2016.  View the NumbersUSA report at:
 
 
 

2016 Primary Election

Congressional District 1

 
Oregon Primary Election – May 17, 2016
U.S. House of Representatives Candidates – Congressional District 1
 
There are three Republicans and two Democrats running for this seat.
 
DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATES
 
The incumbent Representative, seeking reelection, is Suzanne Bonamici of Beaverton.  She has a long and very poor record on immigration issues, starting with her service in the State Legislature and continuing in Congress.  She is rated F- for the current Congress and D- for her career in Congress, 2012-2016, by Numbers USA.  On particular aspects of immigration in the current Congress, she is graded F- on reducing unnecessary worker visas, and also F- on reducing refugee and asylum fraud, and F- on reducing amnesty enticements.  NumbersUSA’s website report links to the particular bills on which she voted and which are the basis for her grades.
 
Bonamici was first elected to Congress in January 2012 in a special election.  She was re-elected in November 2012 and again in 2014.  She began her legislative career in the Oregon House in 2007 and moved to the Senate in 2009. While in the Oregon Legislature, in 2008 she voted against requiring proof of legal status to obtain a driver license (SB 1080).  In 2011, she voted for the bill to grant in-state tuition to illegal aliens, SB 742.
 
In the coming primary, she has one Democratic Party opponent, Shabba Woodley of Beaverton.  Mr. Woodley is a native-born Oregonian and lists his occupation as videographer.  He has a website:  http://www.woodleyforcongress.com/ covering his background and priorities but does not mention immigration.
  
REPUBLICAN PARTY CANDIDATES
 
Delinda Morgan of Gaston is a small business owner and pinot noir grape farmer.  She is a graduate of Yucapia (CA) High School.  Website: http://delindamorganforcongress.org/index.php.   Email address:  yes@delindamorganforcongress.org
 
She ran in the Republican primary in 2014, losing to Jason Yates who had a True Immigration Reformer rating from NumbersUSA.  During the primary, Tea Party Cheer posted this statement from her concerning immigration:  “Immigration reform.   Securing our borders is necessary and will protect American Citizens and jobs. Electronic verification needs to be implemented nationwide and all illegal immigrants enter a path to residency which will include learning the English language, American traditions and mandatory community service. Felonious illegal immigrants must be deported and are ineligible for American citizenship.”
 
When she ran in the 2012 General Election as the Republican candidate in Congressional District 1, she replied to the Oregon Abigail Adams questionnaire.  Questions 13 and 14 dealt with immigration, and her answers were:  13.  Do you support requiring all employers to verify employee eligibility to work in the United States? Yes.  14. Do you support spending public funds to benefit illegal immigrants?  No.
 
Brian J. Heinrich of Dundee is a Sales Representative for businesses and holds an Associate’s degree from Portland Community College.  Website: https://heinrichfororegon.org/.  His email address is heinrichfororegon@gmail.com.
 
He replied to the 2016 Abigail Adams questionnaire:  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?  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.     42.  How would you propose screening war refugees to prevent potential terrorists from entering the country with them?      “Due to the dislike many in the Middle East have for the US, I would be very restrictive on allowing any refugees into this country. Since there is very little if any documentation on these refugees, there is no way to vet them for terrorism. It is a very unfortunate situation.”
 
Jonathan E. Burgess of Tigard has a Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/jonathan.e.burgess  but no other website was found.  His Secretary of State filing paper lists an email address: best1.business@gmail.com.  His positions on immigration are unknown.
 

Congressional District 2

 
Oregon Primary Election – May 17, 2016
U.S. House of Representatives Candidates – Congressional District 2
 
REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES
 
Greg Walden, the incumbent, seeks reelection.  He has served in Congress continuously since 1999.  NumbersUSA grades him F for recent years 2013-2016.  In earlier years, he was more supportive of immigration controls, so his all-career grade is B- . His campaign website is at: https://gregwalden.com/.  In the section called Meet Greg, some issues that he supports are listed, but there is no mention of immigration.
 
NumbersUSA’s website contains a complete record of Walden‘s votes on immigration issues from 1999 to date.  Here are some of the 2015 votes – fuller information is on the NumbersUSA website.
He voted for the FY2016 Omnibus Spending bill to increase foreign guest workers.
He voted to grant the President authority to expand immigration levels without Congress' consent via Trade Promotion Authority.
He voted for the FY2016 Omnibus Spending bill to increase refugee resettlement. 
He voted in FAVOR OF funding Executive Amnesties by opposing clean DHS Appropriations bill, H.R. 240. 
He voted in favor of Blackburn Amendment to H.R. 240 to defund Pres. Obama's DACA amnesty. 
He voted in favor of Aderholt Amendment to H.R. 240 to defund Pres. Obama's Nov. 2014 amnesty..
 
Walden’s opponent in the Republican primary is Paul J. Romero Jr. of Prineville.  Romero is a graduate of Southern Illinois University at Carbondale with bachelor’s degree in Workforce Education & Development.  He was in the Navy for 10 years with honorable service and is currently working as an appliance service technician, refrigeration.  
 
His website at  http://www.romero4oregon.com/ gives a detailed biography.   In the list of Issues, he includes:  “LAWFUL Immigration & Immigration Reform” and “END Sanctuary Cities”.  Email:  romero4oregon2@gmail.com
 
DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATE
 
Only one Democrat is running in this district:  He is James A. Crary of Ashland.  Now retired, he formerly worked for British Petroleum and for the Legal Department of Anchorage, Alaska.  He is a graduate of Pacific Lutheran University in Business Administration, and the University of San Diego where he received a doctoral degree in law.  Website: www.crary16.com.  Email: craryja16@gmail.com.
 
In the Issues section of his website, there is this statement on immigration:  “Immigration Reform -- I know that people who came here illegally technically broke the law. But I also know that the reason they came here are the same reasons my ancestors left their homes in Germany, Ireland and Scotland and came to the United States. They came so that they and their children could have a better life. That is hard to fault. If an illegal immigrant has committed a felony or multiple misdemeanors since coming to the U.S. that person should be deported. However, if an illegal immigrant has worked hard and not broken the law then I would allow that person to come out of the shadows, pay a fine and be given a 7 year path to citizenship. As far as stopping this problem from reoccurring I think we need to secure our southern border with a fence.”
 

Congressional District 3

 
Oregon Primary Election – May 17, 2016
U.S. House of Representatives Candidates – Congressional District 3
 
There is no choice in either party in this District.  Only one candidate is running in the Democratic primary, and only one in the Republican primary.
 
The incumbent Representative, Earl Blumenauer, Democrat, of Portland, has been in office continuously since 1996.  He has earned a career (1996-2016) rating of F from NumbersUSA.  See the full report, which has links to every immigration-related bill that he’s voted on, for all details.  For recent years, 2013-2016, his grade is D-, and for the current Congress, 2015-2016, his grade is F-.  
 
For his whole career, he gets C on reducing visa lottery, F on reducing illegal jobs & presence and on Reducing anchor baby citizenship, F- on reducing chain migration, reducing unnecessary worker visas, reducing refugee and asylum fraud, challenging the status quo, reducing illegal immigration at borders, and F- on reducing amnesty enticements.
 
The Republican running in this primary is David W. Walker of Scappoose.  He is a family nurse practitioner who holds a master’s degree in nursing from Washington State University.  Website: http://www.humaucracy.org/home.  There was no discussion of immigration on the website.  His positions on immigration are unknown. Email: dwmwalker@hotmail.com.

Congressional District 4

 
Oregon Primary Election - May 17, 2016
U.S. House of Representatives Candidates – Congressional District 4
 
There are 2 Democratic Party candidates and 2 Republican Party candidates running in this district.
 
REPUBLICAN PARTY CANDIDATES
 
The Republican Party candidates are Jo Rae Perkins and Art Robinson.
 
Jo Rae Perkins, of Albany is rated a True Immigration Reformer by NumbersUSA; her answers to their questionnaire are posted at https://www.numbersusa.com/candidate-comparison/candidate/2016/house/jo%....  She is one of only two Congressional candidates in Oregon with this distinction.  The other is Mark Callahan who’s running for U.S. Senate from Oregon.
 
Also, Ms. Perkins replied to the Oregon Abigail Adams questionnaire for candidates.  Here are her  answers to their questions:  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?  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.   42.  How would you propose screening war refugees to prevent potential terrorists from entering the country with them?     “We need a temporary moratorium on allowing refugees to enter the U.S. They have not been properly vetted and they may turn around and kill their captors”
 
A graduate of Oregon State University with degree in political science, Ms. Perkins works now as an Office Specialist at OSU.  Website: http://www.perkins4oregon.com/.  Email can be sent to her through the Contact link on her website.  The site has an Issues section including this statement regarding immigration:  “Immigration - Protect our borders, enforce laws, e-verify, and end sanctuary cities.  [She then includes URL for the NumbersUSA gumball demonstration of population growth as affected by large-scale immigration:] https://www.numbersusa.com/resource-article/immigration-world-poverty-an...
 
Art Robinson, of Cave Junction, has run for this office previously.  On his 2016 filing paper with Secretary of State, he gives his occupation as chemist.  He is a graduate of California Institute of Technology and holds a Doctoral degree in chemistry from University of California, San Diego.  No website was found for his campaign.  His filing paper gives email address as art@rfcre.com.  In earlier campaigns he spoke firmly against illegal immigration.  See OFIR’s report on his General Election campaign of 2014 here.
 
DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATES
 
The incumbent Representative, seeking reelection, is Peter DeFazio, who has been in Congress continuously since 1987.  For the period 2015-2016 he is rated F- by NumbersUSA based on his voting record on immigration issues.  In earlier years he was more inclined to support immigration controls; thus over his whole career from 1987 to date he is graded C+.  However, for the recent years 2013-2016, he gets only a D.  You can view details of his voting record on particular bills at: https://www.numbersusa.com/content/my/congress/677/gradescoresheet/.  There are links to bill descriptions and history.
 
In 2015, he voted on 7 significant bills dealing with immigration:
Voted for the FY 2016 Omnibus Spending bill to increase foreign guest workers.
Voted against granting the President authority to expand immigration levels without Congress’ consent via Trade Promotion Authority.
Voted for the FY 2016 Omnibus Spending bill to increase refugee resettlement.
Voted against Brooks amendment to remove military amnesty from National Defense Authorization Act.
Voted in FAVOR OF funding Executive Amnesties by opposing clean DHS Appropriations bill, H.R. 240.
Voted against Blackburn Amendment to H.R. 240 to defund Pres. Obama’s DACA amnesty.
Voted against Aderholt Amendment to H.R. 240 to defund Pres. Obama’s Nov. 2014 amnesty.
 
The other Democrat running in Congressional District 4 is Joseph L. McKinney of Eugene.  He is founder and president of Oregon Roads Inc., a finance and leasing company in the car business.  No campaign website was found for him.  His filing paper with OR Secretary of State gives an email address: mcknyz@comcast.net.  His positions on immigration are unknown.

Congressional District 5

 
Oregon Primary Election – May 17, 2016
U.S. House of Representatives Candidates – Congressional District 5
 
There are 6 candidates in this race, 4 Republicans and 2 Democrats.
 
The Republican candidates are Colm Willis, Seth Allan, Earl D. Rainey, and Ben West.  The Democrats in the race are the incumbent Representative, Kurt Schrader, and Dave McTeague.
 
REPUBLICAN PARTY CANDIDATES
 
Colm Willis, of Stayton, is an attorney and owner of Willis Law LLC.  He holds a bachelor’s degree from Boston College and doctoral degree from Willamette University College of Law.  He has served on the staff of the U.S. Senate Joint Economic Committee.  His website, at https://colmwillis.com/, in the Issues section, contains this statement:  “Immigration -- Our nation’s immigration system is broken. For years the federal government has failed to live up to its responsibility to protect our borders. In Congress, I will stand up against the irresponsible politicians who are undermining our legal immigration system. I will work to strengthen a sustainable process that is fair to both new immigrants and current U.S. citizens.”
        A webform for email is available at: https://colmwillis.com/contact-us/
 
Seth Allan, of Canby, is a “Qualified Mental Health Associate” with occupational background as a psychiatric technician, according to his filing paper with the Secretary of State.  He is a graduate of University of Oregon where he studied psychology.  He returned answers to the Oregon Abigail Adams candidate questionnaire:  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?   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.    42.  How would you propose screening war refugees to prevent potential terrorists from entering the country with them?   “I would only support admitting orphaned refugees who are too young to have been radicalized. Twelve and younger would probably be a good age demographic to consider. But we need to address our own citizens needs first. Veterans, homeless etc.” 
 
Website:  http://www.sethallan.com/.  Email available through webform at http://www.sethallan.com/contact/.  His website contains a statement on immigration in the Issues section:  “Immigration - Build a wall, increase border security, ban sanctuary cities, round up the criminal element, and cut off the welfare incentives. We need to be able to track visa overstays which account for half of those here illegally and stop those from returning who continue to abuse the visa system. None of this works unless we actually enforce our current immigration laws. Congress and the White House need to start leading on this issue.”  
  
Earl D. Rainey, of Rickreall, is a driver for Water Truck Services and has been a wildland firefighter also.  He attended Clackamas and Portland Community Colleges.  No website was found for him and his positions on immigration are unknown.  His filing paper gave email address: earldrainey@gmail.com.
 
Ben West, of Wilsonville, gives his personal and occupational background on the homepage of his website, at http://www.benwestfororegon.com/.  He holds an Associate’s degree from Portland Community College.  He has also studied theology at Portland Bible College.  His website has a statement on national security pointing out the dangers we face and calling for greater attention to this though it does not specifically mention immigration.
        Email: Ben@BenWestforOregon.com.
 
DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATES
 
The incumbent Representative, Kurt Schrader, is seeking reelection.  He has been in Congress since 2009; his Career grade there, covering 2009-2016, is D, as measured by NumbersUSA based on his votes on immigration issues.  He is rated F- on reducing chain migration, F on reducing unnecessary worker visas, C- on reducing refugee and asylum fraud, C on reducing illegal jobs & presence, F- on reducing illegal immigration at borders, F- on reducing amnesty enticements, and F- on reducing illegal immigration rewards.
 
In 2015, he voted on immigration bills as follows:
Voted against the FY2016 Omnibus Spending bill to increase foreign guest workers.
Voted to grant the President authority to expand immigration levels without Congress' consent via Trade Promotion Authority.
Voted against the FY2016 Omnibus Spending bill to increase refugee resettlement.
Voted against Brooks amendment to remove military amnesty from National Defense Authorization Act.
Voted in FAVOR OF funding Executive Amnesties by opposing clean DHS Appropriations bill, H.R. 240. 
Voted against Blackburn Amendment to H.R. 240 to defund Pres. Obama's DACA amnesty. 
Voted against Aderholt Amendment to H.R. 240 to defund Pres. Obama's Nov. 2014 amnesty. 
 
Rep. Schrader’s campaign website is at http://www.kurtschrader.com/; it gives this email contact: info@kurtschrader.com.  There is no Issues section on his website and no statement on immigration.
 
The only Democrat opposing Rep. Schrader is Dave McTeague of Milwaukie.  His website at http://mcteagueforcongress.com/home  shows that he is much more tolerant of illegal immigration than Rep. Schrader is.  McTeague faults Rep. Schrader for voting in 2010 against the Dream Act in the U.S. House.  That Act giving amnesty to illegal alien minors failed to pass Congress and then President Obama granted the amnesty on his own through directives to the DHS.  McTeague also accuses Schrader of “voting with the Republicans against the Syrian refugees.”  The accusation apparently refers to Schrader’s vote against the FY2016 Omnibus Spending bill which increased refugee resettlement. In a list of brief Issue statements McTeague says:  “Immigration:  Dave McTeague supports the Dream Act, humane treatment of all people and keeping families together. Also he favors improved relations with Mexico and Central America to curtail human trafficking.”  
         McTeague’s campaign email address is:  McTeagueForCongress@comcast.net.
 

Governor

 
Oregon Primary Election – May 17, 2016
Candidates for Governor of Oregon
 
There are 13 candidates for Governor of Oregon, 6 Democrats, 2 Independent Party candidates, and 4 Republicans. Some candidates do not mention immigration on their campaign websites and did not reply to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project survey.  In that case, we can assume the candidate lacks knowledge about immigration, is indifferent to it, or does not want to reveal his/her views on the subject, all of which are, in OFIR's opinion, major flaws in the candidate.
 
As of May 8, all Republican Party candidates for Governor except Allen Alley, both Independent Party candidates, and 4 Democratic Party candidates have replied to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project Survey, which included these questions on immigration policy:
 
19. Do you support restricting the “emergency clause” in legislation as true emergencies?
 
22. Do you support a constitutional amendment to require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in Oregon?
 
36. Do you support requiring all Oregon employers to use the federal E-Verify system to determine the employee’s work eligibility status?
 
42. How would you propose screening war refugees to prevent potential terrorists from entering Oregon with them? 
 
You can see their answers by visiting the AAVEP website at: https://oregonabigailadams.wordpress.com/2016-elections/. Scroll down past the federal candidates to the section on Governor.  The candidates who replied to the questionnaire will have, in a column beside their name, the word “Answers.”  You can click on “Answers and scan the list of questions and answers for that particular candidate.  Scroll down the list of questions to see the candidate’s answers to questions no. 19, 22, 36 and 42.  Along with answers to questions, the website gives the candidate’s website and email addresses.
 
There is a Candidate Comparison Grid for governor candidates at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FSFGfJDNxTcXV0pzVFDyYtemgX6KDjU8....  You can use this to see all candidates' replies on one chart except for answers to question 42 which required a narrative reply.
 
REPUBLICAN PARTY CANDIDATES FOR GOVERNOR
 
Bud Pierce: 19, Yes.  22. Yes. “Documentation of proof must be easy to do and hassle free.” 36. Yes. “In context of ‘complete’ immigration reform, and system MUST BE accurate, quick, and easy to use!”  42.“With homelessness in Oregon, and so many of our citizens suffering, we do not have the resources to accept refugees; we must first care for the many Oregonians who lack shelter, education and training, treatment of their mental illnesses, and help them to achieve the dignity of a work. If the Federal Government sends refugees to Oregon, we must collaboratively work with local, state, and federal law enforcement to ensure that everything possible has been done to exclude terrorists from entering Oregon.” 
 
Bruce Cuff: 19, Yes.  22, Yes.  36, Yes.   42. “If the Federal Government does not screen them appropriately we will need to develop our own methods using State Police resources to insure anyone settling in Oregon is not a terrorist, or supporting terrorist causes.”
 
Bob Niemeyer: 19, Yes. “Crying”.  22, Yes. “We have far too many people looking for handouts.”  36. Yes. “Just hope the system has not been corrupted.”  42. “It is not Oregon's job to screen. The Federal Government is not doing what they are suppose to do to protect Americans by screening or vetting the refuges. The refuges should not be allowed to come to Oregon. Period.”
 
Bob Forthan:  19, Decline.  22, No. “It’s not the American way of life.”  36, No. “Never!” 42.  “I feel you can’t, then you would be judge, jury, and executioner.”
 
The News-Register report on the April 14 candidate forum in McMinnville included these candidate statements on resettlement of Syrian refugees:
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.
 
INDEPENDENT PARTY CANDIDATES FOR GOVERNOR
 
Both Independent Party candidates sent answers to the OAAVEP survey. 
Patrick Barney: 19, Yes.  22, Yes.  36, Yes.  42. No reply.
Cliff Thomason: 19, Yes. 22, Yes.  36, Yes.  42. “No need for screening. We just need to say no, we can't afford to take on more. We have tens of thousands of Oregonians out of work and/or homeless. We are over 20 billion dollars in debt. We can't afford more displaced people coming to Oregon.”
 
DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATES FOR GOVERNOR
 
Incumbent Governor Kate Brown did not reply to the OAAVEP survey.  Her campaign website at https://katebrownfororegon.com/ does not mention immigration and lists as an accomplishment she is proud of, the universal voter registration bill which makes voting by illegal aliens more likely. Brown served in the Oregon House of Representatives from 1991 to 1996, then was elected to the Oregon Senate, serving there until elected Secretary of State in 2008 and reelected in 2012.  She became Governor automatically upon the resignation of then-Governor Kitzhaber in February 2015, and now seeks election to the office.
          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 universal 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.
 
Democratic Party candidate Kevin M. Forsythe did not reply to the OAAVEP survey and has no website.  
 
These Democratic Party candidates did reply:
 
Julian Bell:  19, Yes. “Yes, although the exact definition of ‘emergency clause’ is critical.  22, No.  “No, I think that this, in some cases, prevents legitimate voters from voting.”  36, Decline. “I don't know a lot about this issue, but I think a verification system for employees is probably valid.” 42. “Use the Mossad system that the Israelis use to look for terrorists who might bomb a plane in an Israeli airport: starting with asking an individual if s/he is a terrorist. I don't think that any screening will exclude all terrorists anyway. I think removing troops from the Middle East and rearranging our priorities in the Middle East will protect us from terrorism. This includes ending the U.S.'s dependency on fossil fuels as our main source of energy. It is also worth noting that there are more deaths in the U.S.A from domestic terrorists than international ones, including 9/11.” 
 
Steve Johnson:  19, Yes.  22, Yes.  36.Yes.  42. “The concern of potential terrorists coming in with refugees is a possibility. The concern of potential homegrown terrorists is by far the more likely probability. I am comfortable with the system in place for screening war refugees. We should resist the temptation to see a terrorist behind every strange face. The aim of terrorism is to scare people into a fearful, blubbering, humanity. Do not let them. Yes I am saying, accept these people who had, but now, do not have, a country. In another context, FDR said, ‘The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself’”.
 
Chet Chance:  19, Decline. “I need to do more research in order to make an informed answer.” 22, Yes.  “I feel in order to participate in the political theater one has to be a citizen of the US and the state in which one resides.” 36, Yes. “In doing this we can protect our jobs for Oregonians.” 42. “We already have a good (not great) system at the federal level. But I would try to detain said refuges at the time of entrance until positive identification and background can be obtained.”
 
Dave Stauffer:  19, Decline.  22, Decline.  36, No.  42. No reply.
 
-----------------------------------------
 
Candidates’ own websites are a useful source of information; the absence or presence of statements on immigration can be significant.  Here are website addresses for governor candidates:
 
Republican Party candidates for governor
 
Allen Alley – http://www.AllenAlley.com
Bruce Cuff – http://www.time4cuff.co/
Bud Pierce – http://www.budpierce.com/
Bob Niemeyer – http://bobniemeyer.com/
Bob Forthan – no website
 
Democratic Party candidates for governor
 
Kevin Forsythe – no website
Steve Johnson –  http://sbjforgovernor.org/
 
Independent Party candidates for governor
 
Cliff Thomason – http://www.makeoregongreat.com/
 

House District 14

Primary Election, May 17, 2016
Oregon House District 14, Eugene, Junction City
 
REPUBLICAN PARTY CANDIDATES
 
Candidates in the Republican primary are Aaron Cluette of Junction City and Kathy Lamburg of Eugene.  Each has a campaign website with a section on Issues, but neither website mentions immigration as a current issue.
 
Aaron Cluette has a website at http://www.cluettefororegon.org/home.html.  He is presently employed as a Business Systems Analyst, Schnitzer Steel Industries.  He is a graduate of Wayne  State University where his course of study was sociology.  His campaign email address is:  cluettefororegon@gmail.com
 
He replied to the Oregon Abigail Adams candidate questionnaire.  Here are his answers to immigration-related questions:
22.  Do you support a constitutional amendment to require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in Oregon?          No
36.  Do you support requiring all Oregon employers to use the federal E-Verify system to determine the employee’s work eligibility status?          No
42.  How would you propose screening war refugees to prevent potential terrorists from entering Oregon with them?          I'm against bringing in unsupported refugees. By unsupported, I mean those who do not have family or an Oregonian who is willing to open their home to a refugee. We do not have the means to house unsupported refugees when we cannot even house our own.
 
Kathy Lamburg has a website at  https://www.kathylambergforstaterep.com/.  It includes a webform for email:  https://www.kathylambergforstaterep.com/contact.html.  On her filing paper with the Oregon Secretary of State, she listed her occupation as “Teacher in private practice, Koine Greek tutor” and says she holds a Bachelor’s degree in psychology from Northwest Christian College, and a Master’s degree in theology from George Fox University.  Her positions on immigration are unknown.
 
DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATES
 
The Democratic Party candidates are Julie Fahey, of Eugene, and James I. Manning, of Eugene.  Each has a campaign website with a section on Issues, but neither website mentions immigration as a current issue.  Neither candidate responded to the Oregon Abigail Adams questionnaire.
 
Julie Fahey -   Her campaign website is at http://juliefahey.org/.  On her state filing paper, she gave her occupation as Business Consultant, Co-Founder of Three Point Consulting.  She is a graduate of Notre Dame University with a major in chemistry.  Her campaign email address is   Julie@juliefahey.org
 
James I. Manning, Jr. -  He is retired from 24 years of active military service.  He says that his top priority will always be education, and that “I strive to advocate for those who need it most, and to give voice to historically under-represented communities.”  His website is at www.electjamesimanningjr.com.  He can be reached by email at  friendsofjames2016@gmail.com.
 

House District 23

Primary Election, May 17, 2016
Oregon House District 23, Dallas, Harrisburg, Jefferson, Sheridan, Willamina
 
REPUBLICAN PARTY CANDIDATES
 
Candidates in the Republican primary are Mike Nearman of Independence, incumbent, and Beth Jones of Dallas.
 
Mike Nearman is serving his first term in the Legislature, having been elected in November 2014.  He is a strong opponent of illegal immigration.  He has served as a Board member of Oregonians for Immigration Reform for over 2 years.  He is currently a chief petitioner for these initiatives:  #51, Voters Must Prove Citizenship to Vote; and #52, Oregon Employment Protection Act.  In the 2015-16 sessions of the Legislature, he voted against HB 2177, universal voter registration, and against SB 932, giving Opportunity Grants for tuition to illegal aliens.
 
His campaign website is at http://nearmanfororegon.com/.   In the Issues section, it contains this statement on immigration:
“Upholding Immigration Laws -- Border security is so important for so many reasons.  Current policies leave us vulnerable to national security threats, and present overwhelming costs to our social safety nets, schools, and healthcare systems.  What’s really maddening is that not only are we failing to uphold the law, in many cases we openly flout the law through sanctuary cities and handouts to illegal aliens.”
 
He replied to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Questionnaire for candidates.  Here are the pertinent questions and answers:
22.  Do you support a constitutional amendment to require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in Oregon?           Of course. I'm chief petitioner on this initiative!        
36.  Do you support requiring all Oregon employers to use the federal E-Verify system to determine the employee’s work eligibility status?         Of course. I'm chief petitioner on this initiative!         
42.  How would you propose screening war refugees to prevent potential terrorists from entering Oregon with them?          I don't think this is possible -- certainly not on a large scale. I think they need to be located elsewhere in the middle east.
 
Mike Nearman can be contacted at: nearman4oregon@yahoo.com
------------------
Beth Jones is the other Republican candidate for House District 23.  She has a campaign website at: http://www.bethjoneshd23.com/.  It does not contain any mention of immigration.  
 
However, she did reply to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education questionnaire for 2016 candidates.  Here are her answers to the questions relating to immigration.
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.  I think it’s important to recognize the limitations of e-verify, and have an appeals process when errors are made.          
42.  How would you propose screening war refugees to prevent potential terrorists from entering Oregon with them?          It should be the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI to investigate refugees before bringing them on our soil. As of now, those departments have stated they cannot effectively screen refugees or be confident of the intentions they have. Oregon would be wise to listen to the DHS and the FBI. I believe we're putting political correctness and emotions ahead of national security. (Public safety/national security should be the #1 priority of our government)
 
Beth Jones can be contacted at:  Contact@BethJonesHD23.com 
 
THERE ARE NO DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATES IN THIS DISTRICT
 
THERE IS ONE INDEPENDENT PARTY CANDIDATE
 
Jim Thompson (James L Thompson) is running as an Independent Party candidate.  As a Republican, he was elected to the Oregon House of Representatives for 3 terms, serving from  2009 through 2014, when he lost in the Republican Primary election that year to Mike Nearman.
 
No campaign website for him was found.  He did not reply to the Oregon Abigail Adams candidate questionnaire.  
 
While in the Legislature previously, he opposed instate tuition bills and in 2013 voted against SB 833 granting driver cards to illegal aliens.  In the 2008 election cycle, he replied to OFIR’s candidate questionnaire answering Yes to the question, “Would you be willing to introduce or support a bill that would require all employers in Oregon to use the E-Verify program?” and “Would you be willing to introduce or support a bill to repeal ORS 181,850” [a law limiting  cooperation between local and federal law enforcement agencies in immigration matters].  Also he answered Yes to the question “Would you be willing to introduce or support a bill that would require individuals registering to vote for first time to show proof of citizenship?”
 
Jim Thompson’s email address from his filing paper with OR Secretary of State: Hijim3380@yahoo.com.
 

House District 26

Primary Election, May 17, 2016
Oregon House District 26, Gaston, Sherwood, Wilsonville
 
REPUBLICAN PARTY CANDIDATES
 
Candidates in the Republican primary are: John Boylston of King City, A. Richard Vial of Hillsboro, and Matt Wingard of Wilsonville.
 
John Boylston has a website at: www.boylston4oregon.com.  It has a “Vision” section which discusses some issues, but immigration is not included and is not mentioned elsewhere on the site.  He did not provide answers to the Abigail Adams candidate questionnaire.  He gives an email address through which he can be contacted:  boylston4oregon@gmail.com.  He is an attorney, a graduate of Sunset High School and the University of Southern California Law School.
 
A. Richard Vial does not have a website.  In his filing paper with the Oregon Secretary of State, he gives an email address through which he can be contacted: arv@arvial.com.  He is an attorney, a graduate of Brigham Young University and the Willamette University School of Law.  He did not provide answers to the Abigail Adams candidate questionnaire. 
 
Matt Wingard, of Wilsonville, has a website at:  http://www.mattwingard.com/.  It has an Issues section but there is no mention of immigration.  He served in the Oregon House previously.  He was appointed to fill a vacancy in the Oregon House of Representatives in 2008, then elected to a full term in November 2008, and re-elected in 2010.  In 2012, he did not seek re-election to a third term.
 
While he was serving in the House, he opposed bills on instate tuition for illegal aliens.  He responded to a candidate questionnaire sent by OFIR in 2010 saying he would be willing to introduce or support a bill that would require all employers in Oregon to use the E-Verify program, and that he also would be willing to introduce or support a bill that would require individuals registering to vote for the first time to show proof of citizenship.
 
In the current election cycle, he has not responded to the Abigail Adams questionnaire, but that site shows link to an 48-minute podcast in which Matt Wingard participates: http://www.kuik.com/washington-county-today-podcasts/32516-washington-co....
 
His website gives this email address for contact:  Matt@MattWingard.com
 
DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATES
 
There are 2 Democratic Party candidates in this district.  They are:  Ray Lister and Patrick Whewell, both of Wilsonville.
 
Ray Lister has a website at: http://www.raylister.com/priorities/ which does not mention immigration. He did not reply to the Abigail Adams questionnaire for candidates.  His website gives this email address for contact:  ray@raylister.com.  An electrician by trade, he is Membership Development and Community Outreach Coordinator for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 48.
 
Patrick Whewell is a software engineer, a graduate of Ohio State University in electrical and computer engineering.  No website was found for him.  His filing paper with Oregon Secretary of State gives this email address: pwhewell@gmail.com
 
He replied to the Oregon Abigail Adams candidate questionnaire as follows:  
22.  Do you support a constitutional amendment to require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in Oregon?          No   36.  Do you support requiring all Oregon employers to use the federal E-Verify system to determine the employee’s work eligibility status?          Yes         
42.  How would you propose screening war refugees to prevent potential terrorists from entering Oregon with them?         The same way it is done now. At a national level. The national government is better equipped to deal with a national issue. They deal with the screening and it is rather strict as it is now.

House District 28

Primary Election, May 17, 2016,
Oregon House District 28, Beaverton
 
REPUBLICAN PARTY CANDIDATES
 
Candidates in the Republican primary are Gary M. Carlson of Aloha, Daniel Martin of Aloha, and Alton R. Mozingo II of Beaverton.  All three responded to the Oregon Abigail Adams questionnaire for candidates.
 
Here are their answers:
 
Gary M. Carlson
22.  Do you support a constitutional amendment to require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in Oregon?          No.    We do not need a constitutional amendment, but only U.S. and Oregon citizens should be allowed to vote in Oregon elections.
36.  Do you support requiring all Oregon employers to use the federal E-Verify system to determine the employee’s work eligibility status?          No.    This is also a Federal migration problem and if the Federal government is not dealing with the problem don't put the burden on           
42.  How would you propose screening war refugees to prevent potential terrorists from entering Oregon with them?          This is a Federal immigration problem. We have federal immigration laws that do regulate lawful immigration but the Federal government is refusing to enforce the laws that exist.
 
Daniel Martin
22.  Do you support a constitutional amendment to require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in Oregon?          No.    I don't know but I am leaning for it.
36.  Do you support requiring all Oregon employers to use the federal E-Verify system to determine the employee’s work eligibility status?          Decline.    I don’t know.          
42.  How would you propose screening war refugees to prevent potential terrorists from entering Oregon with them?          I would need to know more about the relationship between the state of Oregon and Federal Government.
          
Alton R. Mozingo II
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          
42.  How would you propose screening war refugees to prevent potential terrorists from entering Oregon with them?          They should not even be in the USA.
 
Website and miscellaneous information about the Republican candidates:
 
Gary Carlson is an attorney, a graduate of the University of Montana with degree in law.  No campaign website was found.  His law office has a website at:  http://carlsonlawportland.com/index.html.  Email address:  Gary@carlsonlawgroup.org
Daniel Martin is retired.  A graduate of Gresham High School, he had a career in business.  Email address:  dmarti3742@aol.com.  No campaign website was found.
Alton Mozingo is a graduate of Beaverton High School.  In the occupation box of the State filing paper, he entered:  “not working disabled”.  His filing paper with Oregon Secretary of State shows email address as yam8@yahoo.com.  No campaign website was found.
 
DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATE
 
The only Democratic Party candidate in this District is the incumbent, Jeff Barker of Aloha.
 
In 2005, Rep. Jeff Barker voted against HB 2583 requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration. 
In 2008, he voted for SB 1080 requiring proof of citizenship for driver licenses. 
In 2013 he voted for HB 2787 granting in-state tuition to illegal aliens.
Also in 2013 he voted for SB 833 granting official driver cards to illegal aliens.
In 2014 he voted for HB 4054 changing the ballot title for Measure 88 to mislead voters.
In 2015 he voted for HB 2177, universal motor voter registration
In 2015 he voted for SB 932 giving Opportunity grants for college tuition to illegal aliens
 

Initiative Petition 40 - English will be the Official Language in Oregon

 
 
All nations need a single, standard means of communication.  In America, that linguistic glue is English. Nothing encourages assimilation more than speaking a common language.  It would be ridiculous to have every state document printed in the nearly 140 different languages spoken in Oregon.  Unless there are compelling reasons, all official state business should be conducted in English.
 
The petition to make English the official language in Oregon was filed on April 2, 2015 as a statutory measure, requiring 88,184 verified signatures to be placed on the ballot in the November 2016 election for voters to decide whether to adopt or not.  The required 1,000 sponsorship signatures for the initiative to proceed were obtained and verification was completed on June 15, 2015.
 
The Chief Petitioners were Rep. Mike Nearman, Rep. Sal Esquivel, and Sen. Kim Thatcher. The Oregon Attorney General is empowered to write the ballot title for initiatives, and it was received on June 23, 2015.  The ballot title assigned was: “Requires government actions/communications in English (with specified exceptions), limits laws allowing non-English documents/services.” The public was given until July 8, 2015 to make comments on the ballot title.
 
The assigned ballot title was not satisfactory to the petition sponsors or to opponents of the measure. Opponents were represented by two Portland law firms.  Davis Wright Tremaine sent  objections in an 11-page letter on behalf of the ACLU, Asian and Pacific American Network of Oregon, and the Center for Intercultural Organizing.  Stoll Berne sent objections in a 7-page letter on behalf of Andrea Miller, Executive Director of CAUSA.  The result was that the Attorney General rewrote the ballot title, issuing it on July 23, 2015.  The new ballot title:  “Changes state/”subdivision” (undefined) laws regarding English/other-language use and requirements; exceptions; authorizes lawsuits.”
 
This garbled expression of the purpose and effect of the initiative was so unwieldy and misleading that initiative sponsors appealed it to the Oregon Supreme Court on August 7, 2015, causing a further delay in the initiative process. Unfortunately, the Court approved the cumbersome and non-enlightening ballot title without change on December 28, 2015.
 
Saddled with this edict, the sponsors could have no hope of success with the initiative.
 
As OFIR President Cynthia Kendoll pointed out in a press release of September 16, 2015, while the original ballot title was not as good as hoped, at least it was intelligible to the voters.  Of the new title, she said: “Nobody who reads the AG’s ballot description could possibly know that the underlying ballot proposal would make English the default language of government operations in Oregon, with common sense exceptions like protecting public health and safety, and allow Oregon to join the thirty-one other states who already have such laws on their books. … Obviously, Attorney General Rosenblum and the political class are afraid that a fair description of the initiative would result in voters passing the law.” 
 
One of the candidates in the 2016 Primary election, Dennis Richardson, candidate for Secretary of State, has brought the issue of citizens’ petitions into the campaign debate.  He addresses it on his website, saying:  “Dennis believes citizens have the right to petition their government. He’ll work to make the initiative process more transparent and citizen friendly. He’ll advocate for fair and non-partisan ballot titling by proposing a citizen’s commission on ballot titling, which would remove the process from partisan hands.”
 
The handling of citizens’ petitions is an important issue.  OFIR and other citizen groups have had problems in mounting initiatives and referenda because of apparent resistance from the Secretary of State and the Attorney General’s offices. The Secretary of State administers the process of filing the citizen measures, reviewing petition signatures, etc., and can use delays and other tactics to impede the process.  The Attorney General is empowered to write the ballot titles for initiatives and can slant the title to favor one side or the other.  (This year there are no choices within parties for the Attorney General’s office – there is only one Democrat running, Ellen Rosenblum, the incumbent, and Daniel Zene Crowe, Republican.)  Several issue-oriented groups have recently experienced difficulties as a result of unsatisfactory and slanted ballot titles. 
 
A fair and informative ballot title is essential because many voters are not knowledgeable about issues on the ballot; they depend on the words in the ballot title to inform themselves when voting.  The title is limited by law to only 15 words, so it must be carefully prepared to give a true picture of the proposal and its consequences.
 
If a group challenges the language of the title, this delays the process and reduces the time available for collecting signatures, which are due well before the election date as many thousands of signatures must be verified by the Secretary of State’s office before the measure is officially approved to go on the ballot. Then time is needed to include the measure in voter pamphlets, on ballots, etc.  If activists accept the skewed ballot title, they face severe problems of public misunderstanding and failure of the measure.   Thus incumbent Secretaries of State and Attorneys General can and do cripple the efforts of citizen activists with whom they disagree.  Candidate Richardson addresses these problems.

Initiative Petition 49 - No More Fake Emergencies - (ACTIVELY COLLECTING SIGNATURES)

 
This petition would amend the Oregon Constitution to require a two-thirds supermajority for the Legislature to declare an emergency that accelerates a law’s effective date.  Signature gathering for the petition is underway, and if the required number of signatures (117,578) is collected by July 8, 2016, and validated, the Initiative will be on the ballot in the November 2016 General Election.
 
Oregon citizens registered to vote can sign this petition online at: http://nofakeemergencies.com/ until June 22.  See the petition website for further details.
 
Why the subject is important and relevant to OFIR’s mission is well-explained by Richard La Mountain, OFIR Vice-President, in his article published in the Portland Tribune in January 2015.  The article is reproduced below.  Another excellent article on the subject was written by Senator Betsy Johnson (D-Senate District 16); it was published by the Daily Astorian, May 21, 2015, and can be viewed online.
 
My View: Emergency clause abuses democracy
In Portland Tribune, Tuesday, 27 January 2015 | Written by Richard F. LaMountain
 
In Oregon’s political order, do state lawmakers recognize the people’s primacy — or game the system to impose their own?
 
Oregon’s constitution guarantees its citizens the right of referendum, to put laws passed by their Legislature to a public vote. In recent years, however, lawmakers have routinely saddled many laws with an “emergency clause,” which shields those laws from a referendum challenge and thereby nullifies the referendum right. 
 
In the legislative session beginning Feb. 2, voters should demand an end to this cynical, undemocratic practice.
 
“No act shall take effect,” stipulates Oregon’s constitution, “until ninety days from the end of the session at which the same shall have been passed, except in case of emergency; which emergency shall be declared in ... the law.” 
 
Why the wait? The main reason, writes Sen. Doug Whitsett, R-Klamath Falls, “is to provide adequate time for the public to gather sufficient signatures on petitions to refer a measure for the people to decide.” 
 
How does that process work? Within 90 days of a legislative session’s end, citizens who wish to refer a new law must collect signatures of registered voters numbering at least 4 percent of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. If they do, the law is suspended and Oregonians determine its fate at a future election, which is usually the next general election.
 
But back to that constitutional exception, the phrase “in case of emergency.” That empowers lawmakers, via an emergency clause, to declare a law so urgent that it must take effect earlier than the usual 90-plus days. If they do, Oregonians cannot seek to refer the law. 
 
Webster’s defines “emergency” as “an urgent need for assistance or relief.” In recent sessions, however, emergency clauses have been attached to bills that even the wildest imaginations could not construe as addressing true emergencies. Examples include: bills to allow unionization of workplaces via “check-off cards” (2007); to credential undocumented immigrants for in-state university tuition (2013); and even to replace the U.S. Capitol statue of Oregon pioneer Jason Lee with one of the late U.S. Sen. Mark Hatfield (2014). 
 
How prevalent has been the recent use of the emergency clause? “Seventy-one percent of the bills enacted into law during the 2012 session,” writes Whitsett, “had an emergency clause attached that [made] them effective immediately upon their passage.” The clause’s frequent intent? Whitsett contends: “To block the constitutionally guaranteed right of the people to refer the new law.” 
 
Would legislators actually employ the emergency clause to such cynical end?
 
Consider Rep. Mark Johnson, R-Hood River, a supporter of the undocumented immigrant driver card law passed by the Legislature in May 2013 that was referred to and overturned by voters in last November’s election. Last March, Johnson told The Oregonian that if voters rejected the law, then (in the newspaper’s words) “lawmakers could pass the same bill next session” and add “an emergency clause to allow the law to go into effect immediately.” 
 
How to end such misuse of the emergency clause? Oregonians should pressure legislators to do this: Introduce for voters’ approval a constitutional amendment that requires any bill containing an emergency clause to receive two-thirds of the votes of the House and Senate to pass, and until its enactment, pledge to oppose any bill containing such clause unless, in their judgment, it addresses a true emergency. 
 
When used for the intent of thwarting potential referenda, the emergency clause perverts the relationship between Oregonians and the legislators they elect to represent them. We need to restore that clause to its proper, limited role in lawmaking — and the voice of the citizen, as manifested in the referendum, to its paramount place in Oregon’s representative democracy. 
 
Richard F. LaMountain, a Cedar Mill resident, served as a chief petitioner of the 2014 initiative, Measure 88, via which Oregon voters overturned the 2013 state law granting driver cards to undocumented immigrants.
 
 

Initiative Petition 51 - Voters Must Prove Citizenship to Vote

 
OFIR has worked since its founding in 2001 for a state law requiring proof of citizenship for voting.  Such a bill has been introduced into the Legislature in nearly every session since 2003, but has always encountered opposition, chiefly from Democratic Party members.
 
Initiative Petition 51, sponsored by Chief Petitioners James Buchal and Michael Nearman, would give citizens a direct opportunity to enact this requirement which it seems should be basic for any country or state that values its sovereignty and the integrity of its elections.  The petition has not been approved for circulation, and now the time for signature gathering for the petition is too  short for the petition to go forward.  If the petition were approved, 117,578 valid signatures by July 8, 2016 would be required to get the measure on the ballot in the November 2016 General Election.
 
Few petition campaigns can collect so many signatures in such a short time unless they are lavishly funded, with many paid signature gatherers. Petition campaigns depending chiefly on volunteer signature gatherers have little chance of success. 
 
The initiative sponsors have decided it will be necessary to cease campaigning and perhaps try again in the next election cycle.  Delays in the qualification process for the initiative are responsible for this outcome.
 
There was a delay in the process because the ballot title assigned originally by the Attorney General was unsatisfactory to both the petitioners and opponents of the measure and the assigned ballot title was appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled modification was needed.  Not until April 8 was the Certified Ballot Title modifed by the Attorney General; it is currently:  “Amends Constitution:  Voters must register in person using specific citizenship documents: otherwise requires federal verification; registrations expire.” 
 
The status of pending initiatives is posted on the Secretary of State’s website.  The public can check here to follow the course of IP 51: http://egov.sos.state.or.us/elec/web_irr_search.record_detail?p_referenc...
 
It’s very easy for the Secretary of State and the Attorney General’s office to write ballot titles that adversely affect the prospects for an initiative.  Their control over the language of the ballot titles makes it possible for them to hamper or expedite the initiative according to their political views.  The ballot title is critical to the success of a measure because many voters are unfamiliar with the subject matter and depend on the ballot title alone to make their decision whether to vote Yes or No.
 
One of the candidates in the 2016 Primary election, Dennis Richardson, candidate for Secretary of State, has brought the issue of citizens’ petitions into the campaign debate.  He addresses it on his website, saying:  “Dennis believes citizens have the right to petition their government. He’ll work to make the initiative process more transparent and citizen friendly. He’ll advocate for fair and non-partisan ballot titling by proposing a citizen’s commission on ballot titling, which would remove the process from partisan hands.”
 
The handling of citizens’ petitions is an important issue.  OFIR and other citizen groups have had problems in mounting initiatives and referenda because of apparent resistance from the Secretary of State and the Attorney General’s offices.  The Secretary of State administers the process of filing the citizen measures, reviewing petition signatures, etc., and can use delays and other tactics to impede the process.  The Attorney General is empowered to write the ballot titles for initiatives and can slant the title to favor one side or the other.  (This year there are no choices within parties for the Attorney General’s office – there is only one Democrat running, Ellen Rosenblum, the incumbent, and Daniel Zene Crowe, Republican.)  Several issue-oriented groups have recently experienced difficulties as a result of unsatisfactory and slanted ballot titles.  
 
If a group challenges the language of the title, this delays the process and reduces the time available for collecting signatures, which are due well before the election date as they must be verified by the Secretary of State’s office before the measure is officially approved to go on the ballot.  Then time is needed to include the measure in voter pamphlets, on ballots, etc.  If activists accept the skewed ballot title, they face severe problems of public misunderstanding and failure of the measure.   Thus incumbent Secretaries of State and Attorneys General can and do cripple the efforts of citizen activists with whom they disagree.  Candidate Richardson addresses these problems.
 
In the 2015 session of the Oregon Legislature, a universal voter registration bill, HB 2177 was passed that makes voting by non-citizens much more likely.  OFIR opposed the bill, and several OFIR members testified against it.  The testimony of Janice Dysinger, who opposed the bill, is particularly helpful in understanding the issue: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocume...
 
There is a national problem with voting by non-citizens that has been documented by several researchers.  The problem has become so serious that a new organization, True the Vote, has been formed to address it and other voting irregularities that damage the integrity of our elections.
 

Initiative Petition 52 - Oregon Employment Protection Act

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.

After the initial 1,000 sponsorship signatures were gathered and the ballot title had been reviewed by the Oregon Attorney General, OFIR’s attorneys discovered what they termed a “fatal flaw” in the language of the initiative text, and IP 37 was withdrawn.
 
Subsequently, new language was written and a new initiative was filed – Initiative Petition 52, the Oregon Employment Protection Act.  The 1,000 sponsorship signatures were gathered at the Oregon State Fair in August 2015 and turned in immediately.
 
Inititative Petition 52 was filed on August 27, 2015.  It was sponsored by the same persons who had filed the earlier petition: Rep. Sal Esquivel of Medford, Rep. Mike Nearman of Dallas, and Jim Ludwick, past-president of OFIR.  Like IP 37, IP 52 calls for employers to verify the legal status of newly hired workers, using the Federal E-Verify program. 
 
The free Federal E-Verify program is available to employers for the purpose or verifying that the workers they hire are legally entitled to work in the United States.  Honest employers choose to use E-Verify, and they should not have to compete with businesses that cheat by hiring illegal labor. Charges of inaccuracy in the E-Verify program are false and usually made by those who favor illegal hiring.  A special feature has been set up in E-Verify enabling workers at any time to test their Social Security number and confirm accuracy; if error exists, the worker can correct the record.  Read more about E-Verify here and here
 
Inititative 52, like Initiative 37, encountered challenges by opponents.  Public comments can be made on ballot titles assigned by the Oregon Attorney General. In July 2015 the Stoll Berne law firm of Portland presented objections on behalf of CAUSA in a 7-page letter with 7 more pages of Exhibits.  The Davis Wright Tremaine firm of Portland presented letters with objections on behalf of the ACLU, the Asian and Pacific American Network of Oregon, and the Center for Intercultural Organizing, also a second set of objections on behalf of William Perry and Jeffrey Stone, “registered Oregon voters.”   Mr. Stone is Executive Director, Oregon Association of Nurseries.  William Perry may be the Bill Perry associated with the Oregon Restaurant and Lodging Association and the Oregon Farm Bureau.
 
As happened with IP 51, delays from appeals of the ballot title plus slow action by state agencies dragged on so long that in the end, there was insufficient time remaining for a volunteer group with limited funds to collect the 88,184 valid signatures required before the deadline of July 8, 2016. 
 
However, with IP 52, we did win a major battle at the Oregon Supreme Court.  You can read details about the ruling in these two online news reports:
Activists win court battle on measure to restrain hiring of illegal aliens, by Lana Shadwick, 17 March 2016, in Breitbart, and Court rules Oregon attorney general must not distort language in immigration control initiative, by Jonah Bennett, 19 March 2016, in The Daily Caller.
 
We received invaluable assistance in mounting the initiative from the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) of Washington DC.  Their help and cooperation are deeply appreciated.  
 
A fair and informative ballot title is essential because many voters are not knowledgeable about E-Verify and how it helps citizen workers; they depend on the words in the ballot title to inform themselves when voting.  The title is limited by law to only 15 words, so it must be carefully prepared to give a true picture of the proposal and its consequences.
 
One of the candidates in the 2016 Primary election, Dennis Richardson, candidate for Secretary of State, has brought the issue of citizens’ petitions into the campaign debate.  He addresses it on his website, saying:  “Dennis believes citizens have the right to petition their government. He’ll work to make the initiative process more transparent and citizen friendly. He’ll advocate for fair and non-partisan ballot titling by proposing a citizen’s commission on ballot titling, which would remove the process from partisan hands.”
 
The Secretary of State administers the process of filing the citizen measures, reviewing petition signatures, etc., and can use delays and other tactics to impede the process.  The Attorney General is empowered to write the ballot titles for initiatives and can slant the title to favor one side or the other.  Several issue-oriented groups have recently experienced difficulties as a result of unsatisfactory and slanted ballot titles.  
 
In this year’s election, there are no choices within parties for the Attorney General’s office – there is only one Democrat running, Ellen Rosenblum, Democrat, incumbent, and one Republican, Daniel Zene Crowe.  Their websites:
Daniel Zene Crowe: www.crowelawfirm.us
 

Secretary of State

Oregon Primary Election – May 17, 2016
 
Candidates for Oregon Secretary of State
 
There are 6 candidates for Oregon Secretary of State, 2 Republicans, one Independent Party candidate, and 3 Democrats.  This is an open seat, as the elected incumbent, Kate Brown, automatically became Governor in February 2015 upon the resignation of Gov. Kitzhaber. She is now running for Governor, and her replacement as Secretary of State, Jeanne P. Atkins, who was appointed in March 2015 to succeed Brown, did not file for election to the SOS post.
 
The Republican Party candidates are Dennis Richardson of Central Point and Sid Leiken of Springfield.  The Independent Party candidate is Paul Damian Wells of Corvallis.  The three Democrats include Brad Avakian of Portland, Richard Devlin of Tualatin, and Val Hoyle of Eugene.
 
REPUBLICAN PARTY CANDIDATES
 
Dennis Richardson served 6 terms in the State Legislature as Representative from District 4 from 2003-2014.   By occupation, he is a lawyer, having graduated from Brigham Young University and its Law School.  He served as an Army combat helicopter pilot in Vietnam. 
        While serving in the House in 2005, he voted for HB 2583, a bill requiring evidence of citizenship for persons registering to vote for first time.  The bill passed the House but died in the Senate.   In 2008, he voted for SB 1080, the bill requiring proof of citizenship by driver license applicants which is still in effect today.  In March 2013, he voted for SB 2787, giving in-state tuition to illegal aliens.  In April 2013, he voted against SB 833, the bill granting official driver cards and i.d. to illegal aliens.  He was a leader in the opposition to this bill and spoke strongly against it on the floor of the House on April 30, 2013.  In Feb. 2014,  when supporters of SB 833 attempted to change the Referendum ballot title to make it more favorable to their side, Rep. Richardson actively opposed that effort and voted against the bill, H.R. 4054 which would have changed the title.
        On his campaign website he addresses a problem faced by activists attempting to pass initiatives and referenda.  He says:  “Dennis believes citizens have the right to petition their government. He’ll work to make the initiative process more transparent and citizen friendly. He’ll advocate for fair and non-partisan ballot titling by proposing a citizen’s commission on ballot titling, which would remove the process from partisan hands.”
      The handling of citizens’ petitions is an important issue.  OFIR and other citizen groups have had problems in mounting initiatives and referenda because of apparent resistance from the Secretary of State and the Attorney General’s offices.  The Secretary of State administers the process of filing the citizen measures, reviewing petition signatures, etc., and can use delays and other tactics to impede the process.  The Attorney General is empowered to write the ballot titles for initiatives and can slant the title to favor one side or the other.  (This year there are no choices within parties for the Attorney General’s office – there is only one Democrat running, Ellen Rosenblum, the incumbent, and Daniel Zene Crowe, Republican.)  Several issue-oriented groups have recently experienced difficulties as a result of unsatisfactory and slanted ballot titles.  If a group challenges the language of the title, this delays the process and reduces the time available for collecting signatures, which are due well before the election date as they must be verified by the Secretary of State’s office before the measure is officially approved to go on the ballot.  Then time is needed to include the measure in voter pamphlets, on ballots, etc.  If activists accept the skewed ballot title, they face severe problems of public misunderstanding and failure of the measure.   Thus incumbent Secretaries of State and Attorneys General can and do cripple the efforts of citizen activists with whom they disagree.  Candidate Richardson addresses this problem.
      His campaign website is at http://www.dennisrichardson.com/home.
      Email available through webform at: http://dennisrichardson.com/email-signup/
      His Facebook page shows that he supports the initiative ending abuse of the Emergency Clause that prevents citizens from obtaining referendums on a bill passed by the Legislature. https://www.facebook.com/DennisRichardsonforOregon
 
Sid Leiken, of Springfield, is the other Republican candidate for Secretary of State.  He is a Lane County Commissioner and small business owner.  He completed the junior year at Northwest Christian University, studying business.  He has an extensive record of public service as Springfield Mayor, City Council member, etc.  
      He replied to the Oregon Abigail Adams candidate questionnaire for Secretary of State candidates, with these answers: 2.  Do you support requiring proof of identity before registering to vote?  Yes.  3. Do you support an Oregon Constitutional amendment to require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in Oregon?  Yes.  9. Do you support taking steps to make the initiative process more accessible to Oregonians?  Yes.  10.  Do you support restricting the "emergency clause" on legislation as true emergencies?  Yes.  12.  Do you support requiring all employers to verify citizenship for employee eligibility to work in Oregon?  “Decline, need to gather more information from the Ag business in OR.”
      His website: www.sidleiken.com.   Email:  info@sidleiken.com
 
INDEPENDENT PARTY CANDIDATE
 
Paul Damian Wells, of Corvallis, is the Independent Party candidate.  He holds a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from Purdue University and an Associate’s degree from Portland Community College in machine manufacturing technology.  He lists his occupation as CNC machinist.  On his website at www.thekeel.org he discusses his political views but there is no mention of immigration.  His views on immigration are unknown.
      Email:  pdamianw@thekeel.org
 
DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATES
 
The 3 Democratic Party candidates, Brad Avakian of Portland, Richard Devlin of Tualatin, and Val Hoyle of Eugene,  have all served in the Legislature at some time, Devlin and Hoyle recently, and Avakian served there prior to his terms as the elected Commissioner of Labor and Industries.
 
Brad Avakian was first elected to the Oregon House in 2002, serving there until elected to the Oregon Senate in 2006.  In April 2008 he was appointed by Governor Kulongoski to be Commissioner of Labor and Industries, then elected to the position in November 2008, and has served there now for nearly 8 years.  
      While in the Oregon House in 2005 he voted against HB 2583 requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. In the Senate in 2007, on SB 424, a bill to align Oregon with the federal Real ID program, he voted for the motion to substitute Minority Report for Committee Report on SB 424, which was a maneuver to defeat SB 424.  Then a motion to refer to Ways and Means carried on voice vote, and the bill died without any other vote.  In the 2008 Special Session, he voted against SB 1080 requiring proof of citizenship to obtain a driver license.  That bill passed both houses of the Legislature and became law in February 2008.
      Campaign website: http://www.bradavakian.com/.  It has an Issues section but no mention of immigration as a political issue.  The “About Brad” section contains biographical information.
      Email: webform for email at: http://www.bradavakian.com/contact/
 
Richard Devlin has been serving in the Legislature since 1997, as a Representative from 1997-2002, and as a Senator from 2003 through 2016 representing Senate District 19.  In the 2015 session he voted for SB 932 giving Opportunity Grants for tuition to illegal aliens.  He also voted Yes on HB 2177, the universal voter registration bill that makes voting by illegal aliens more likely.  In 2013 he voted for SB 833, granting official driver cards to illegal aliens.  In the same year, he voted for HB 2787, granting in-state tuition to illegal aliens.
      In 2011, he voted for SB 742 giving in-state tuition to illegal aliens, but the bill was not voted on in the House, thus did not pass.  In 2008 he voted in favor of SB 1080 calling for proof of citizenship to obtain a driver license. In 2007, on SB 424, a bill to align Oregon with the federal Real ID program, he voted for the motion to substitute Minority Report for Committee Report on SB 424, which was a maneuver to defeat SB 424.  In 2003, he voted for SB 10 granting in-state tuition to illegal aliens.
      His campaign website at http://devlinfororegon.com/ has a Priorities section but no mention of immigration was found there or elsewhere on the website.  The “About Richard” section contains biographical information.
 
Val Hoyle has been a State Representative since 2009, representing House District 14.  She was 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.  Thus she has had an influential role in the management of bills.
      Her record on immigration issues is poor.  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.  
      Campaign website: http://www.valhoyle.com/.  There is an issues section but no mention of immigration was found on the website nor any concern about the effects of illegal immigration on citizens and the country.
      Email: val@valhoyle.com
 

U.S. Senate

Oregon Primary Election – May 17, 2016
U.S. Senate Candidates
 
There are 9 candidates for U.S. Senate, including 4 Republicans, 2 Independent Party members, and 2 Democrats besides the incumbent Senator, Ron Wyden, who seeks reelection.
 
Here is a brief summary of the candidates’ positions.  More complete information is below. 
 
Among the Republicans, Mark Callahan and Faye Stewart have announced detailed pro-enforcement positions on immigration.  The other two Republicans, Sam Carpenter and Dan Laschober have made general statements indicating support for immigration controls.  Of the two Independent Party candidates, Marvin Sannes favors amnesty and benefits to illegal aliens while Steven Reynolds recommends securing the border along with “a real path to citizenship for those undocumented immigrants already [here].”  Of the two Democrats challenging Sen. Wyden, Paul Weaver strongly opposes amnesty and Kevin Stine opposes international free trade treaties although he doesn’t articulate the connection between them and increases in foreign workers.  Sen. Ron Wyden is rated D- by NumbersUSA based on his votes on immigration issues during his career in Congress.
 
REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES
 
Mark Callahan of Portland is a graduate of Oregon State University with degree in Business Administration/MIS.  His occupation is Information Technology Consultant.  He is a member of the Board of Oregonians for Immigration Reform.  Here are his replies to the Oregon Abigail Adams candidate questionnaire:  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?  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.   42.  How would you propose screening war refugees to prevent potential terrorists from entering the country with them?   “Background checks, before admitting war refugees from entering the country, in order to prevent potential terrorists from entering the country with them.”
        Mark Callahan also responded to the NumbersUSA questionnaire for candidates and is rated by NumbersUSA as a True Immigration Reformer.  See his report at:  https://www.numbersusa.com/candidate-comparison/candidate/2016/senate/ma...
 
Callahan’s campaign website at http://callahanfororegon.com/ contains this statement on immigration in the Issues section:  “Immigration: Enforce Existing Laws; Secure the Borders; Work on Stopping Illegal Immigration; Say No to Amnesty:  The issue of illegal immigration has been a major topic for many years in America. I personally worked with, and strongly supported, those that were against Measure 88 in the November 2014 election to stop driver’s licenses from being given to illegal immigrants. As the election results indicated, most of Oregon, by strong majority margins in 35 of the 36 counties agreed that driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants was not a good idea, and Measure 88 was voted down.  As we are a nation of laws, I believe we should enforce our current immigration laws. With our current high rate of unemployment, and American families already struggling to make ends meet in our troubled economy, it makes no sense to add millions of those here illegally to the work force. If elected, I will fight to do what is best for American families, while keeping us safe by advocating for complete border security. We must get our arms around this issue before irreparable damage is done.”
          Email address: Mark@CallahanForOregon.com.
 
Faye Stewart of Cottage Grove is a Lane County Commissioner.  He attended Oregon State University through the junior year studying business management and has worked in the business field.  He replied to the Oregon Abigail Adams candidate questionnaire:  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?  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.   42.  How would you propose screening war refugees to prevent potential terrorists from entering the country with them?  “We should provide financial support for nations in the region, like Jordan, who are willing to house the refugees while we complete the mission to destroy ISIS. There is no infrastructure in place to properly vet refuges from Syria and other war torn nations. Until we can safely vet refuges we should not accept any new refuges from nations like Syria.”
        Faye Stewart’s campaign website is at http://fayestewart.us/.  It contains a statement on border security relating to immigration:  “Border Security – “America was founded by immigrants. We have always deeply believed that this nation should be a place where immigrants may lawfully come, assimilate into our society and build a future for themselves and their families. We must secure our borders, update technology to identify and track those here illegally, and create a fair, simple system for those who wish legally immigrate.”
        Email address:  info@fayestewart.us.
 
Sam Carpenter of Bend is CEO and owner of Centratel telephone answering service.  There is some information on his immigration positions in the candidate comparison section of the NumbersUSA website:  https://www.numbersusa.com/candidate-comparison/candidate/2016/senate/sa....  Carpenter is rated Yes for Opposing amnesty, implementing interior enforcement, assisting local police, and securing the border.  He’s rated No for reducing legal immigration.  
        His campaign website is at http://www.carpenterforsenate.com/.  It includes a statement on immigration in the Issues section:  “Illegal immigration is out of control.  The problem? Many elected officials at the federal, state, and local level refuse to enforce our laws.  The result is undue strain on our social services systems, and even the specter of serious national security threats on American soil, not to mention the impact on jobs.  Ours is a nation built by immigrants — legal immigrants. I’m for legal immigration — at levels currently allowed by law.  Let’s secure our southern border and enforce the laws currently on the books and let’s put Oregon first.” 
        Email address:  info@carpenterforsenate.com
 
Daniel Laschober of Wilsonville is a self-employed software and general finance consultant.  He holds a Bachelor’s degree in finance and accounting from Arizona State University and a master’s degree in finance and international marketing from Northwestern University.  He presents a full account of his personal and extensive business background on his website at www.laschober2016.com.  It also contains a list of pledges on various subjects, the first being:  “I Pledge… to protect the United States from external threats. Without secure borders there is no sovereign nation and there is no liberty.”  No further information on his positions on immigration was found.  
        Email address: dan@laschober2016.com
 
INDEPENDENT PARTY CANDIDATES
 
Marvin Sannes, of Salem, is self-employed, owning and managing real estate.  He has also had experience as a lobbyist.  He holds a bachelor’s degree in social sciences from Portland State University.  He replied to the Oregon Abigail Adams candidate questionnaire with these answers:   22. Do you support requiring all employers to verify employee eligibility to work in the United States?  No.  23.  Do you support securing the borders before any form of amnesty?  No.  24.  Do you support spending public funds to benefit illegal immigrants?  Yes.  25.  Do you support automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. when both parents are not legal residents? “Decline.  It is the law.”  42.  How would you propose screening war refugees to prevent potential terrorists from entering the country with them?  “Less than 60 Americans have been killed by terrorist acts since 2001, the war on terror is a fraud. From the U. of Maryland International Data Base on Terror. 28,000+ American bombs dropped on Islamic countries in 2015 - from the Council on Foreign Relations.”
        Email:  marvinsannes@msn.com
 
Steven C. Reynolds (“Cody”) of Portland is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point with degree in information systems.  He has a website at www.codyfororegon.com which contains this statement on immigration:  “Our Borders - Our immigration policy is broken. We as a nation must first secure our borders, and then create a real path to citizenship for those undocumented immigrants already within them.”
        Email available on webform at: http://codyfororegon.ruck.us/?target=_blank
 
DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATES
 
Kevin H. Stine of Medford is a City Councilor in Medford.  He hold an Associate’s degree in applied sciences/electronics from Thomas Edison State College, and he served 9 years in the US Navy, 2004-2013.  His campaign website is at http://www.kevinstine.org/ .  While it does not contain a statement specifically on immigration, his statement on international trade policy is relevant, as trade deals have massive impacts on entry of foreign workers.  Stine says:  “Free trade is not free, as the cost of these agreements have been an enormous detriment to the middle class in our country. The Economic Policy Institute reports that Oregon has lost or displaced more jobs on a percentage basis, than any other due to China entering the WTO. More of these trade deals will further outsource our jobs.”
        Email address: info@kevinstine.com
 
Paul B. Weaver  of Toledo is retired from his occupation as locomotive engineer.  He’s a graduate of Eastern Washington University with degree in business administration.  He replied to the Oregon Abigail Adams candidate questionnaire:  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?  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.   42. How would you propose screening war refugees to prevent potential terrorists from entering the country with them?   “Stop all immigration. Period. Set up refugee camps closer to their home country so they can be repatriated when the war is resolved.”
        His website at http://www.paulweaverforussenate.com/ contains this issue statement on immigration:  “AMNESTY - We should close the border and suspend all immigration immediately!  I will never vote to give automatic citizenship or voting rights to illegal aliens.  No matter what the Obama Administration says, we have about 20 million unemployed that need jobs!  I believe we should put our American citizens first!   There is no data base with which to vet the Syrian refugees, therefore we should not allow any into the United States! Our policies should put American safety and security first.”
        Email address: pbweaver@peak.org
 
Ron Wyden of Portland, the incumbent Senator, seeks reelection.  He has been in Congress for 35 years, as a Senator since 1996 and as a Representative, 1981-1996.  His immigration-reduction report card compiled by NumbersUSA gives him an overall career grade of D-.  On particular immigration subjects, he is graded F- on reducing chain migration, D+ on reducing the visa lottery, F on reducing unnecessary worker visas, C- on reducing refugee and asylum fraud, F- on challenging the status quo, D- on reducing illegal jobs and presence; C on reducing illegal immigration at borders, F- on reducing amnesty enticements, and F- on reducing illegal immigration rewards.  See his immigration reduction report card at:  https://www.numbersusa.com/content/print/my/congress/667/printreportcard//.  See his career voting record at: https://www.numbersusa.com/content/my/congress/667/gradescoresheet/#tabs....  There are links to the particular bills he voted on.
        Senator Wyden’s campaign website is at: https://www.standtallforamerica.com/.
        Email through webform at:  https://www.standtallforamerica.com/contact/
 
According to Open Secrets, as of April 14, Sen. Wyden has accumulated $9,571,127 in his campaign treasury, an enormous sum, more than twice as much as all other Oregon Congressional candidates put together including U.S. House and Senate candidates in all three parties.  This raises questions as to whose interests the candidate is serving.  That most of the high-figure campaign chests are associated with long incumbency raises further questions.  When we see the way Congress has failed in recent years to correct major problems with immigration, it certainly appears that money has played a role in long incumbency and not a beneficial one for the public.
 

2014 General Election

2014 General Election

Congressional District 1

 
September 6, 2014
 
The incumbent Representative in Congressional District 1 is Suzanne Bonamici (D), who is running for reelection.  Her major party challenger is Jason Yates (R).  
 
JASON YATES, of Newberg, is a certified True Immigration Reformer, by NumbersUSA. -- he replied to their candidate questionnaire with answers  earning him that name.
  
In addition, he replied to the candidate questionnaire posted online by Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project.  Here are his replies to these questions:
19.  Do you support requiring all employers to verify employee eligibility to work in the United States?  Yes.  All workers in the US should be citizens or have proper paperwork to work here.  No illegal aliens should hold an American job.  
20.  Do you support securing the borders before any form of amnesty is legalized?  Yes.  The border must be secured at all costs.  Amnesty should never be considered under any circumstance.    
21.  Do you support spending public funds to benefit illegal immigrants?  No.  Public funds should only be used for citizens and those who are here legally.    
22.  Do you support automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. when both parents are not legal residents?  No.  Anchor children are currently legal but I will propose legislation to end this. 
   
Jason Yates’ campaign website is at: http://www.yatesforcongress.com/ .  It contains an Issues section including a statement on Immigration, as follows:  “This nation was founded on immigrants coming to this land to look for a better opportunity. I support legal immigration and the harsh enforcement of strong border control, including a well-armed border fence.”
 
His website gives information on his education, personal and career history.  This is his first run for Congress.
Contact for Jason Yates is through the webform on his website:  http://www.yatesforcongress.com/Contact.aspx or by email to:  YatesForCongress@gmail.com.
 
SUZANNE BONAMICI (D) of Beaverton, incumbent, has a long and very poor record on immigration issues.  She is rated D- by NumbersUSA based on her voting record in Congress, 2012 to date.  She recently sent an email to constituents stating her position on amnesty and the current surge of illegal immigrants coming across the Mexican border, which makes it very clear that she protects illegal aliens and wants them to have taxpayer-funded benefits.  During her time in Congress, Rep. Bonamici has displayed little to no concern for the volume of illegal or legal immigration and how it impacts citizens, nor any understanding of the importance of immigration law enforcement.  The record of her votes in Congress is summarized at https://www.numbersusa.com/content/my/congress/7047/reportcard/CAREER/, which gives links to details on each vote.
 
While serving in the House chamber of the Oregon Legislature, in the February 2008 Special Session, she voted to continue giving Oregon driver licenses to illegal aliens, when she voted against requiring proof of legal status to obtain a driver license (SB 1080).   As an Oregon State Senator in 2011, she voted for the bill to grant in-state tuition to illegal aliens, SB 742.   This pattern of voting in the State Legislature has continued during her tenure in the U.S. Congress.
 
Bonamici’s campaign website is at:  http://www.bonamiciforcongress.com
Her website includes a section on priorities which has no mention of immigration.
Campaign email address:  info@bonamiciforcongress.com
 
Candidates in Addition to the Major Party Candidates
 
James Foster is the candidate of the Libertarian Party, and Stephen C. Reynolds represents the Progressive Party and the Pacific Green Party.  Both have expressed positions on immigration which are opposed to OFIR’s.  See Foster’s replies to questions 19-22 in the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project questionnaire.  See Reynoldswebsite statement on immigration and his replies to the NumbersUSA questionnaire.
 

Congressional District 2

 
October 9, 2014
 
In Congressional District 2, the incumbent Representative is GREG WALDEN (R), of Hood River, who is seeking reelection to his 9th term.  His major party opponent is ADELEA CHRISTOFFERSON (D) of Bend. 
 
Rep. Walden has been in Congress since 1999.  He has a career grade of B+, based on his votes in Congress on immigration issues, as tabulated by NumbersUSA.  This is the best grade of any member of Oregon’s Congressional delegation.
 
NumbersUSA organizes vote histories of members of Congress into several subjects, and assigns a grade to each.  Here are Rep. Walden’s grades. 
A+ on reducing illegal jobs and presence, reducing visa lottery, reducing illegal immigration at the borders, reducing anchor baby citizenship; 
A on reducing amnesty entitlements and reducing illegal immigration rewards; 
A- on reducing refugee and asylum fraud;  
F- on reducing unnecessary work visas.
 
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) issued on Oct. 6 their voting record for the U.S. House, 113th Congress (Jan. 2013 to Sept. 2014). This record is a pdf document linked from http://www.fairus.org/legislation/federal/voting-reports.  It lists specific bills with amendments voted on, and gives legislators plus or minus marks for their votes according to agreement or non-agreement with FAIR’s recommendations.  The record for Oregon shows that Rep. Walden received 8 plus marks.  All the other Oregon Representatives received 8 minuses except Rep. Schrader who received one plus along with his 7 minuses.  Rep. Blumenauer is reported as Not Voting on 2 of the 8 measures, leaving him with 6 minuses.  FAIR explains the bills well and in detail.
 
Rep. Walden maintains a campaign website at: http://www.gregwalden.com/meet-greg/.  It contains an Issues section but there is no mention of immigration.  You can contact Rep. Walden through a webform on his campaign website at: http://www.gregwalden.com/contact/
 
ADELEA CHRISTOFFERSON is the candidate of the Democratic Party.  Her campaign website at http://www.aeleaforcongress.com/ includes an Issues section, and under the heading “Supporting Citizenship” she reveals her position on immigration in this statement:
 
“Aelea became passionate about immigration reform when the Dream Act was first being debated. Her introduction to this issue was a young high school senior she tried to hire; a great student and athlete who wanted to be a special education teacher. The young woman wouldn’t take the job because she had come here when she was 2 years-old and was undocumented and didn’t want to cause trouble. 
“When the Dream Act didn’t pass Aelea was shocked. “We are a nation built on moral decisions and not helping these young people go to college or enter the military is a waste of their talents and the investment of our tax dollars.” 
“Aelea supports finding a long term plan for everyone who is working and law abiding. We can no longer leave families with an uncertain future.”
 
There is no indication that she sees immigration in any broader perspective than that of the illegal immigrant who wants to continue to live and work here.  She appears oblivious to the effects of unlimited, uncontrolled immigration on citizens and this country.
 
Contact information for Ms. Christofferson:  
Email: info@aeleaforcongress.com;  Phone: 541-728-3141
Mail: Aelea Christofferson for Congress, PO Box 7042, Bend, OR 97708
 
Other candidate in District 2:
Sharon L. Durbin of La Pine, who is a retired attorney, is the candidate of the Libertarian Party. There is some information about her on The Oregonian’s Voter Guide, but her views on immigration are unknown.  No website for her was found.
 

Congressional District 3

 
October 9, 2014
 
The incumbent Representative in Congressional District 3 is Earl Blumenauer (D) who is seeking reelection.  His major party challenger is James Buchal (R). 
 
JAMES BUCHAL, of Portland, maintains a website at:  http://buchal.nationbuilder.com/.  It contains an Issues section with link to an very good statement on illegal immigration.  Here’s an extract:
 
“Allowing millions of illegal aliens into the country depresses the wages of the poor and entry-level working class.  It overwhelms demand for public services, also injuring our own citizens most in need of help.  Open borders are a policy that benefits only the rich, whether it is corporations seeking cheap labor, or rich people seeking cheap nannies, gardeners, and house-keepers.  
“There is no moral imperative for open borders.  American can serve as a model of freedom and enterprise for the world; it can never provide enough welfare for the world.  As to the children, the idea that foreigners visiting here can create an American citizen by giving birth here is just dumb.  No other nation does this, and no one ever voted to create this doctrine.  It is again the product of elites serving the rich.”
 
Mr. Buchal replied to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project questionnaire that included 4 questions on immigration:
19. Do you support requiring all employers to verify employee eligibility to work in the United States?  No.  We need to get control of borders, not burden employers further.
 20. Do you support securing the borders before any form of amnesty is legalized?    Yes.
 21. Do you support spending public funds to benefit illegal immigrants? No.  I oppose any expenditure of federal funds on this, but states and localities can make up their own minds.
 22. Do you support automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. when both parents are not legal residents?   No.
 
You can contact James Buchal through his website at http://buchal.nationbuilder.com/.  Click Contact Us for a webform to use.
 
EARL BLUMENAUER (D), of Portland, incumbent, has been in Congress since 1996, when he was elected to fill the unexpired term of then-Rep. Ron Wyden.  Rep. Blumenauer is now completing his 9th full term.  He has a career grade of F, based on his votes in Congress on immigration issues, as tabulated by NumbersUSA.
 
NumbersUSA organizes vote histories into several subjects, and assigns a grade to each.  On bills for reducing chain migration, illegal immigration at the borders, unnecessary worker visas, amnesty enticements, refugee and asylum fraud, Rep. Blumenauer is graded F-.  On bills to reduce illegal jobs and presence, and to reduce illegal immigration rewards, he is graded F.
To view the particular bills on which these grades are assigned, click on the links included at:
 
Rep. Blumenauer’s campaign website is:  http://earlblumenauer.com/.  There’s a page on “Priorities” with no mention of immigration.  He can be contacted through a webform on the homepage of his website.
 
Other candidates in District 3:  Candidate of the Pacific Green Party is Michael Meo, who replied to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project questionnaire.  His answers:
19. Do you support requiring all employers to verify employee eligibility to work in the United States?  Yes.
 20. Do you support securing the borders before any form of amnesty is legalized?    Yes.
 21. Do you support spending public funds to benefit illegal immigrants? Yes.
 22. Do you support automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. when both parents are not legal residents?   Yes.  jus soli. It's in the Constitution, I believe.
No website for Michael Meo was found.  Some further information is on his filing paper at Secretary of State’s website.  
The Libertarian Party candidate is Jeffrey J. Langan who has a Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/libertyjeffreyforoffice.  No mention of immigration was found there.  David Walker is a non-affiliated candidate also running.  His views on immigration are unknown.
 
 
 

Congressional District 4

 
October 6, 2014
 
The incumbent Representative in Congressional District 4 is Peter DeFazio (D) who is seeking reelection to a 15th term.  His major party challenger is Art Robinson (R).   
 
ART ROBINSON, of Cave Junction, Josephine County, maintains a campaign website at:  http://www.artforcongress.com/.  It contains an Issues section but there is no mention of immigration.  His 2014 primary campaign website did contain a statement on immigration.
 
Here are the first 3 paragraphs: 
“Congress is not fulfilling its responsibilities to regulate the flow of foreign nationals into the United States.
“The U.S. borders are not secure and the problem of illegal immigration into the U.S. is not being effectively addressed, thus creating a situation wherein many millions of illegal immigrants have crossed our borders and reside in our country. 
“A country without secure borders will not long remain a country. It is absolutely essential to secure our borders and for Congress to appropriate all of the resources necessary to do this. Congress should also withhold funding from agencies and branches of the U.S. government, especially the Executive Branch, when they fail to do their part to secure the borders.”
 
Mr. Robinson answered 2 of the 4 questions on immigration in the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project questionnaire, and left 2 of them unanswered.
19. Do you support requiring all employers to verify employee eligibility to work in the United States?  [No answer]
 20. Do you support securing the borders before any form of amnesty is legalized?    Yes.
 21. Do you support spending public funds to benefit illegal immigrants? No.
 22. Do you support automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. when both parents are not legal residents?   [No answer]
 
You can contact Art Robinson through his website at http://www.artforcongress.com/contact_us.  He is also the candidate of the Constitution Party.
 
PETER DEFAZIO (D), of Springfield, has been in Congress since 1987.  He is now completing his 14th term.  Rep. DeFazio has an overall career grade of C+ based on his votes on immigration issues as tabulated by NumbersUSA.  However, recently, for the period, 2013-2014, his overall grade has slipped to D, with a grade of F- on reducing amnesty enticements and D on reducing unnecessary work visas.
 
In 2014, he voted against legislation to end DACA.  In 2013, he voted against the King Amdt to DHS Appropriations bill to prevent amnesty by prosecutorial discretion. Also in 2013, he cosponsored H.R. 15 to provide amnesty to illegal aliens.  In 2010 he voted for the DREAM Act amnesty, which would have rewarded illegal aliens with amnesty.  While the DREAM Act did not pass in Congress, President Obama later implemented it by his executive actions. 
 
You can view Rep. DeFazio’s voting record on NumbersUSA’s website at http://www.numbersusa.com; click on Congress – Immigration Grade Cards.
 
For further information, you can visit Rep. DeFazio’s campaign website at: http://www.defazioforcongress.org/, or contact him at http://www.defazioforcongress.org/contact/.  His website does not have an Issues section, and no mention of immigration was found.
 
Other candidates in District 4:  The Libertarian Party candidate is David L. Chester, of Florence. The Pacific Green candidate is Michael Beilstein of Corvallis.  Contact information and some other details about these candidates is posted at: http://onyourballot.vote411.org/candidate-detail.do?id=12554852#.VC3OUGd...
 
Mr. Beilstein replied to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project questionnaire, and his answers were exactly opposite to OFIR’s positions. 
19. Do you support requiring all employers to verify employee eligibility to work in the United States?   Decline.
 20. Do you support securing the borders before any form of amnesty is legalized?    No.
 21. Do you support spending public funds to benefit illegal immigrants? Yes.
 22. Do you support automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. when both parents are not legal residents?    Yes.
 

Congressional District 5

 
September 30, 2014
 
The incumbent Representative in Congressional District 5 is Kurt Schrader (D), of Oregon City, who is running for reelection.  His major party challenger is Tootie Smith (R), of Molalla.
 
TOOTIE SMITH replied to the 4 immigration questions in the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project’s questionnaire, and 3 of her 4 answers are in agreement with OFIR’s positions.  In the 4th question, she supports birthright citizenship, while OFIR stands with other true immigration reform organizations in supporting an end to birthright citizenship.
 
19.  Do you support requiring all employers to verify employee eligibility to work in the United States?    Yes.
20.  Do you support securing the borders before any form of amnesty is legalized?   Yes.
21.  Do you support spending public funds to benefit illegal immigrants?    No.
22.  Do you support automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. when both parents are not legal residents?    Yes, according to the US Constitution, all natural born people are awarded citizenship.
 
Mrs. Smith has a campaign website at http://tootiesmith.com/.  A statement on immigration is prominently linked from the homepage; the statement is rather general.  She proclaims support for enforcing immigration laws while also expressing concern for the desires of immigrants and employers who use illegal labor.
 
Her website’s “About” section gives a full biography.  She has served in the Oregon House of Representatives, and more recently on the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners.
 
KURT SCHRADER (D), incumbent, has a poor record on immigration issues.  He is rated D- on his career in Congress, 2009-2014, by NumbersUSA.  The record of his votes in Congress on immigration bills is summarized at
which gives links to details on each vote.
 
He has voted on immigration bills in several categories of the subject matter considered by NumbersUSA in calculating grades.  In each of the following categories, he is graded F-:  on reducing illegal immigration at the borders, on reducing unnecessary workers visas, on reducing amnesty enticements, on reducing illegal immigration rewards, and on reducing refugee and asylum fraud.  On bills in all of these categories, he voted against the interests of citizens and for the interests of immigrants, especially illegal immigrants.
 
Schrader’s earlier record in Oregon -- While serving in the Oregon State Senate in 2003, he voted in favor of SB 10, “relating to resident status for higher education.”  That bill would have granted instate tuition to illegal aliens, but as it failed to pass the House, largely due to strong opposition from OFIR and friends, it did not become law.  In February 2008, he voted with the majority of both parties, in favor of SB 1080, the bill requiring proof of citizenship to obtain an Oregon driver license.
 
OTHER CANDIDATES – The Constitution Party candidate is RAYMOND BALDWIN, of Canby.  His website is at:  http://rbaldwinelection2012.wix.com/raymond-baldwin.  It includes his platform principles, and under the heading, Sovereignty, says “We are firmly committed to the protection of our borders, our trade and our common defense.”
 
19.  Do you support requiring all employers to verify employee eligibility to work in the United States?    Yes.
20.  Do you support securing the borders before any form of amnesty is legalized?   Yes, absolutely.
21.  Do you support spending public funds to benefit illegal immigrants?    No, only to arrest, fine, detain, and return to origin …
22.  Do you support automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. when both parents are not legal residents?    No.
 
MARVIN SANNES is running as the candidate of the Independent Party.  His website, at http://www.marvinsannes.com/ contains an Issues section, but there is no mention of immigration.  He replied to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project questionnaire, and all 4 of the stated positions there are exactly opposite to OFIR’s positions.
 
19.  Do you support requiring all employers to verify employee eligibility to work in the United States?    No.
20.  Do you support securing the borders before any form of amnesty is legalized?   No.
21.  Do you support spending public funds to benefit illegal immigrants?    Yes.
22.  Do you support automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. when both parents are not legal residents?    Yes
 

Congressional race, U.S. Senate

 
October 14, 2014
 
The two major party candidates for U.S. Senate are incumbent Senator Jeff Merkley (D)  and Dr. Monica Wehby (R).
 
MONICA WEHBY is a pediatric neurosurgeon and very knowledgeable about health insurance issues.  This is her first political campaign, although she has considerable experience in leadership positions with national medical organizations.  She gives a full account of her background and career achievements in the About section of her website:  http://www.monicafororegon.com/about-monica/
 
She has reached out to OFIR to learn more about immigration issues and had several meetings with OFIR officers.  Her website at http://www.monicafororegon.com/home/ contains an Issues section without a statement on immigration.  During her Primary campaign, this statement was displayed on her website:
 
Dr. Monica Wehby believes that before we make any reforms to our immigration system that we must secure the border. Border security must be the immediate priority. Monica is also against amnesty for those who came here illegally. That simply isn’t fair to the people who came here through the proper channels. Dr. Monica Wehby also believes that we need to increase the amount of H1B visas for skilled workers. It doesn’t make any sense to train and educate these workers in the U.S. and then force them to take the skills they learned here to another country. Dr. Monica Wehby also believes we should work with Oregon’s agriculturists to develop a temporary guest worker program that works.
 
You can email her using the webform for email at: http://www.monicafororegon.com/contact-us/
Campaign telephone: (503) 954-2717.
 
JEFF MERKLEY, incumbent Senator, was first elected to Congress in Nov. 2008 and was sworn into office in January 2009.   His 6-year term is now ending, and he seeks reelection.
 
His immigration-reduction report card from NumbersUSA is F for the current Congress, 2013-2014, and D- over his whole term, 2009-2014.  Broken down by subjects of bills, his grades for 2009-2014 include:
 
           F- on reducing illegal jobs and presence, reducing unnecessary worker visas, reducing amnesty entitlements and illegal immigration rewards, reducing refugee and asylum fraud, reducing chain migration; F on reducing illegal immigration at the border.
 
A detailed record of the immigration bills on which the grades are based is available on the website of NumbersUSA, http://www.numbersusa.com.  Click Congress – Immigration Grade Cards – Oregon, then click on Sen. Merkley’s name.
 
In 2013, Sen. Merkley voted in favor of S.744, a so-called immigration reform bill, which would give immediate amnesty to unknown millions of illegal aliens while only promising to enforce border security at some indefinite time in the future, thus ensuring permanent future illegal immigration.  It would also bring a record surge in legal immigration, doubling the current legal immigration level which is already triple the traditional average.  It would give green cards to 33 million workers in the first decade.  There are many other dangerous features of this bill, which has already passed in the Senate, but not the House.  More information on the bill is at  http://www.fairus.org/legislation/amnesty/s-744-bill-resources.
 
Prior to being elected to the U.S. Senate, Merkley was Speaker of the Oregon House and had served as a Representative there since 1999.  In 2005, he voted against House Bill 2583 requiring evidence of citizenship for persons registering to vote for first time.  In 2007 Democrats controlled both houses of the Legislature, and as Speaker of the House, Merkley was an important part of the leadership team.  OFIR and our friends in the legislature made heroic efforts to advance several good bills addressing illegal immigration, and all were stymied by the Democratic Party leadership.  In the special session of February 2008, after Governor Kulongoski had issued an Executive Order calling for proof of legal presence to obtain a driver license, Merkley did vote in favor of SB 1080, the driver license bill which passed the Legislature and became law.
 
His campaign website is at: http://jeffmerkley.com; it contains a Contact link.
 
Considering his overall record in Congress and the Oregon Legislature, it’s clear that Jeff Merkley if reelected to the U.S. Senate, will likely continue to support 1) the interests of illegal aliens and their employers over the interests of citizens, and 2), virtually unlimited legal immigration.
 

Oregon Governor

 
October 15, 2014
 
The two major party candidates for Governor are Dennis Richardson (R) and John Kitzhaber (D), incumbent governor, who is now running for a 4th term.
 
DENNIS RICHARDSON, of Central Point, has served as Representative from District 4, in the Oregon House since 2003.   By occupation, he is a lawyer, having graduated from Brigham Young University and its Law School.  There’s a full account of his background and career linked from the homepage of his website at http://www.dennisrichardson.com/home.
 
While serving in the House in 2005, he voted for HB 2583, a bill requiring evidence of citizenship for persons registering to vote for first time.  The bill passed the House but died in the Senate.   In 2008, he voted for SB 1080, the bill requiring proof of citizenship by driver license applicants which is still in effect today.  In March 2013, he voted for SB 2787, giving in-state tuition to illegal aliens.  In April 2013, he voted against SB 833, the bill granting official driver cards and i.d. to illegal aliens.  He was a leader in the opposition to this bill and spoke strongly against it on the floor of the House on April 30, 2013.  See his newsletters discussing the issue at:  http://www.oregonir.org/immigration-topics/oregon-legislators-opposing-s....  In Feb. 2014 he voted No on H.R. 4054, when supporters of SB 833 attempted to change the referendum ballot title to make it more favorable to their side.
 
A contact link for Richardson is on the homepage of his website.
 
JOHN KITZHABER, of Portland, has shown his loyalty to illegal aliens in public appearance at their Capitol rally where he spoke enthusiastically in favor of benefits to them.  He is responsible for calling together a study group for the purpose of extending driving privileges to illegal aliens, a group which invited supporters only without allowing representatives of the public interest. OFIR’s officers specifically requested to join the group and were denied.
 
His campaign website at http://johnkitzhaber.com/ gives information about his background.  He was a physician when first elected to the Oregon House in 1978.  He served one term, then was elected to the Oregon Senate, continuing there for 12 years, to 1993.  He has been elected Governor 3 times and now seeks a 4th term.
 
Although he’s been in public life for many years, there is no available evidence that he understands or cares about the broader implications of illegal immigration.  He has demonstrated only a concern for the welfare of illegal aliens in Oregon with no reference to the effects of illegal immigration on citizens’ wages and job opportunities or the multiple dangers of uncontrolled immigration.
 
A contact link for Kitzhaber is on the homepage of his website.
 
The Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project at http://oregonabigailadams.wordpress.com/ has links to videos of 6 debates between Richardson and Kitzhaber that you can listen to for further information on their views on various issues.
 

Oregon Legislators Who Voted Aye on SB 833

 
October 16, 2014
 
Who voted Aye on SB 833?   This was a critical test for Oregon legislators.
 
SB 833, the bill granting official driver cards and i.d. to illegal aliens passed the Oregon Legislature on April 30, 2013.  All Democrats in both chambers of the Legislature voted Aye for SB 833,  except Senators Betsy Johnson and Chip Shields and Representative John Lively who did not vote and were reported as Not Voting.
 
Seven Senate Republicans voted Nay; one did not vote, and 6 voted Aye.  In the House, 20 Republicans voted Nay to SB 833, one did not vote, and 5 voted Aye. 
 
Many of those who voted Aye are now running for reelection.
 
The following is a list of those legislators who voted for SB 833 and are now seeking reelection.  Only half of the Senate seats are up for election this year; the other half will be up for election in 2016.
 
Democratic Senators who voted for SB 833 and now seek reelection:
 
Bates, Alan (SD-3);
Beyer, Lee (SD-6);
Courtney, Peter (SD-11);
Devlin, Richard (SD-19); unopposed
Dembrow, Michael (SD-23), unopposed; was a Representative in 2013 and voted in the House.
Edwards, Chris (SD-7); unopposed
Monroe, Rod (SD-24); unopposed
Prozanski, Floyd (SD-4);
Steiner Hayward, Elizabeth (SD-17).
 
Sara Gelser is running for Senate in SD-8 and voted for SB 833 while in House in 2013.
 
Republican Senator who voted for SB 833 and now seeks reelection:
 
Thomsen, Chuck (SD-26), a sponsor of SB 833.
 
Democratic Representatives who voted for SB 833 and now seek reelection:
 
Barker, Jeff (HD-28); unopposed
Barnhart, Phil (HD-11);
Barton, Brent (HD-40);
Boone, Deborah (HD-32);
Buckley, Peter (HD-5); unopposed
Clem, Brian (HD-21);
Dembrow, Michael (HD-45), now running unopposed for Senate (SD-23);
Doherty, Margaret (HD-35); unopposed
Fagan, Shemia (HD-51);
Frederick, Lew (HD-43); unopposed
Gallegos, Joe (HD-30);
Gelser, Sara (HD-16), now running for Senate (SD-8);
Gomberg, David (HD-10); unopposed
Gorsek, Chris (HD-49); unopposed
Greenlick, Mitch (HD33); unopposed
Holvey, Paul (HD-8); unopposed
Hoyle, Val (HD-14);
Keny-Guyer, Alissa (HD-46); unopposed
Komp, Betty (HD-22);
Kotek, Tina (HD-44);
McKeown, Caddy (HD-9);
Nathanson, Nancy (HD-13);
Read, Tobias (HD-27); unopposed
Reardon, Jeff (HD-48
Vega Pederson, Jessica (HD-47), a sponsor of SB 833; unopposed
Williamson, Jennifer (HD-36); unopposed
Witt, Brad (HD-31); unopposed
 
Republican Representatives who voted for SB 833 and now seek reelection:
 
Davis, John (HD-26);
Gilliam, Vic (HD-18), a sponsor of SB 833;
Johnson, Mark (HD-52), a sponsor of SB 833;
Smith, Greg (HD-57); unopposed.
 
 
---------------------------------------
Many of the above Representatives voted also for HB 4054, the bill to change the ballot title of the referendum on SB 833 into a wording favorable to supporters of SB 833.  HB 4054 never reached the Senate.  It passed the House by a vote of 36-24.  
 
Ayes, 36.  All Democrats voted for HB 4054 except Brent Barton.  Republicans who voted Aye:  Bob Jenson, Vic Gilliam, Greg Smith.  Jenson is not running for reelection.  Both Gilliam and Smith are up for reelection.  For Democrats up for reelection, see list for SB 833; names are the same except for Brent Barton.
 
 

Oregon Legislators Who Voted NO on SB 833

 
 
October 17, 2014
 
Those who are candidates for reelection in 2014 are noted here.
 
All No votes on SB 833 were from Republicans.  No Democrat cast an opposition vote.
 
In the Senate, these 7 Republican Senators voted No:
 
Betsy Close, Albany.  She is running for OR Senate against Rep. Sara Gelser (D).
Fred Girod, Stayton.  Will be up for reelection in 2016.
Tim Knopp, Bend. Will be up for reelection in 2016.
Jeff Kruse, Roseburg.  Will be up for reelection in 2016.
Alan Olsen, Canby.  He is running for reelection against Jamie Damon (D).
Bruce Starr, Hillsboro.  He is running for reelection against Chuck Riley (D).
Doug Whitsett, Klamath Falls. Will be up for reelection in 2016.  
 
Jackie Winters, Salem, did not vote.  She is running unopposed for reelection.
 
In the House, these 20 Republican Representatives voted No:
 
Cliff Bentz, Ontario.  He is running for reelection against Peter W. Hall (D).
Vicki Berger, Salem.  She is not running for reelection.
Kevin Cameron, Salem,   He is not running for reelection to the House.
Jason Conger, Bend.  He is not running for reelection.
Sal Esquivel, Medford.  He is running unopposed for reelection.
Tim Freeman, Roseburg.  He is not running for reelection.
Wally Hicks, Grants Pass.  He is not running for reelection.
John Huffman, The Dalles.  He is running unopposed for reelection. 
Bill Kennemer, Oregon City.  He is running unopposed for reelection.
Wayne Krieger, Gold Beach.  He is running for reelection against Jim Klahr (D).
Mike McLane, Medford.  He is running for reelection against Richard V. Phay (D).
Andy Olson, Albany.  He is running unopposed for reelection.
Julie Parrish, West Linn.  She is running for reelection against Gerritt Rosenthal (D)
Dennis Richardson, Central Point.  He is running for Governor.
Sherrie Sprenger, Scio.  She is running for reelection against Rich Harisay (D).
Kim Thatcher, Keizer.  She is running for OR Senate against Ryan Howard (D).
Jim Thompson, Dallas.  He is not running for reelection.
Jim Weidner, Yamhill.  He is running for reelection against Ken Moore (D).
Gene Whisnant, Sunriver.  He is running unopposed for reelection.
Gail Whitsett, Klamath Falls.  She is running unopposed for reelection.
 
Bruce Hanna, Roseburg, did not vote.  He is not running for reelection.
 
Sources:
--------------------------
 
NO votes on HB 4054, the bill to change the ballot title of the referendum on SB 833 into a wording favorable to supporters of SB 833.
 
One Democrat voted No on HB 4054 – Brent Barton, Oregon City.
These 23 Republicans voted No on HB 4054: Bentz, Berger, Cameron, Conger, Davis, Esquivel, Freeman, Hanna, Hicks, Huffman, Johnson, Kennemer, Krieger, McLane, Olson, Parrish, Richardson, Sprenger, Thatcher, Thompson, Weidner, Whisnant, Whitsett.
The 3 Republicans who voted Yes on HB  4054: Vic Gilliam, Silverton; Bob Jenson, Pendleton; Greg Smith, Heppner.
 
Sources:
 
 

Oregon Legislature House District 23

 
October 21, 2014
 
The major party candidates in House District 23 are Mike Nearman (R), of Independence, and Wanda Davis (D) of Dallas.
 
MIKE NEARMAN maintains a campaign website at http://nearmanfororegon.com/
giving information on his background and beliefs.  He is a software engineer by occupation.  He replied to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project’s candidate questionnaire, which included these questions on immigration:
 
15.  Do you support AUTOMATICALLY registering people to vote using DMV data?  NO
17.  Do you support requiring proof of eligibility when registering to vote?  YES
32.  Do you support mandating all Oregon employers to use the federal E-Verify system to determine the employee's work eligibility status?  YES 
 
He has attended meetings of Oregonians for Immigration Reform, participated in its activities, and helped in the campaign for a NO vote on SB 33.  He serves on the OFIR Board.
 
Mr. Nearman won the primary election over a long-term incumbent showing that concerned voters respond to his ideas, enthusiasm, and energy.
 
WANDA DAVIS did not reply to the OAAVEP questionnaire.  There is some information about her in this Polk County Itemizer article of Oct. 14, as well as other candidates in the race.
 
Her campaign website, at http://wandadavis4oregonhouse23.nationbuilder.com/, gives her background and lists supporting organizations.  These include:  United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 555, Service Employees International Union Local 503, and Oregon AFSCME Council 75.  All of these organizations are large contributors to the YES on Oregon Safe Roads PAC, the main group campaigning to give driver cards to illegal aliens.  The SEIU Local 503 alone has given $100,000 to the campaign to accommodate illegal aliens and their employers.
 
Since Ms. Davis has not addressed immigration issues, and in view of the organizations supporting her candidacy, it can reasonably be expected she will follow the Democratic Party’s leadership, meaning she will vote for more benefits to illegal aliens, amnesties, and lax to no enforcement of the immigration laws.

Oregon Legislature House District 24

 
October 21, 2014
 
The major party candidates in House District 24 are Jim Weidner (R), incumbent, of Yamhill, and Ken Moore (D) of Yamhill.
 
JIM WEIDNER, incumbent, has served as Representative from District 24 from 2009 to date.  His campaign website at http://www.jimfororegon.com/ gives a moving account of his personal principles and how he became involved politically.  In his time at the Legislature, he has voted consistently for respecting and enforcing immigration laws.
 
When first running for office, in 2008, Weidner was quoted in the McMinnville News-Register of May 3 thus:  “When a guy is arrested and booked, we need to find out his immigration status, and at that point, he needs to be deported.”  The newspaper said that state law currently prohibits that, and that Weidner supports its repeal. 
 
During his first term in the Legislature, in 2009, he introduced HB 3364 for OFIR, a bill that would have had Oregon participate in the federal Rapid REPAT program, which allowed states to transfer certain illegal alien prisoners (those not convicted of violent crimes) to the federal government for early release and deportation.
 
In February 2013, Rep. Weidner voted no on HB 2787, the bill giving in-state tuition to illegal aliens.  In April 2013, he voted no on SB 833, the bill giving official state driver cards and i.d. to illegal aliens.  In Feb. 2014, he voted no on HB 4054, the bill that would have changed the ballot title of our referendum on SB 833 to a wording more favorable to supporters of driver cards for illegal aliens.
 
KEN MOORE has a campaign website at http://moorefororegon.com/ containing an Issues section, but there is no reference to immigration.
  
On his candidate filing paper with the Secretary of State, he lists his occupation as Self-employed Handyman.
 
In the About section of his website, there is a long list of community organizations and institutions with which he has done volunteer work. 
 
He lists 10 organizations endorsing his candidacy, using acronyms for each.  One is SEIU, (Service Employees International Union), which through its locals 49 and 503 in Oregon, has contributed $120,000 to the YES on Oregon Safe Roads campaign, the main group working to get official driver cards and i.d. for illegal aliens.
 
Absent any indication of Mr. Moore’s views on immigration issues, it’s reasonable to expect he would follow Democratic Party leadership and support benefits for illegal aliens, amnesties, and lax to no enforcement of the immigration laws.

Oregon Legislature House District 25

 
October 21, 2014
 
The major party candidates in House District 25 are Bill Post (R) of Salem, and Charles Lee (D) of Keizer.
 
BILL POST’s website at http://www.billpost.us/ gives an interesting account of his life so far, and discusses several public issues.  A radio talk show host now, he has lived in Oregon since 1971 and worked in radio here since college days.  He is Operations Manager as well as talk show host at Willamette Broadcasting, Salem.
 
He replied to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project questionnaire, including these questions on immigration:
15.  Do you support AUTOMATICALLY registering people to vote using DMV data?    No.
17.  Do you support requiring proof of eligibility when registering to vote?    Yes, always.
32.  Do you support mandating all Oregon employers to use the federal E-Verify system to determine the employee's work eligibility status?    Yes, always. 
 
He has given considerable airtime to immigration issues, and been welcoming to OFIR officers, often inviting them to speak on his program about bills at the state Legislature, in Congress, and related matters.
 
CHUCK LEE is President of Mountain West Career Technical Institute and previously was President for many years of the Blanchet Catholic School.  He describes his personal and career history on his website at http://www.votechucklee.com/.
 
Lee’s Issues section is rather brief and covers mainly education and job training issues.  He did not reply to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project questionnaire.
 
He displays a long list of individuals and organizations supporting his campaign.  Among the organizations is the Service Employees International Union, whose locals 49 and 503 in Oregon have contributed $120,000 to the YES on Oregon Safe Roads campaign, the main group working to get official driver cards and i.d. for illegal aliens.
 
Since there seems to be no public indication of Mr. Lee’s views on immigration, it’s reasonable to expect he would follow Democratic Party leadership and support benefits for illegal aliens, amnesties, and lax to no enforcement of the immigration laws. 

Senate District 08

 
October 19, 2014
 
The candidates in District 8 are Betsy Close (R), of Albany and Sara Gelser (D), of Corvallis.
 
BETSY CLOSE was appointed in October 2012 to the Oregon Senate, to serve the unexpired term of Senator Frank Morse who resigned.  She had previously served 3 terms as Representative, from 1999 through 2004, first from House District 36, which was renumbered to be District 15 for the 2003 session.  Her ability was recognized by the Party which named her Assistant Majority Leader.  She was in the Legislature during the early days of OFIR and in 2003, she introduced a bill at OFIR’s request, HB 2578, calling for proof of citizenship to obtain a driver license.  The bill did not pass then, but later after years of effort by OFIR and others, a similar bill did pass in 2008.
 
As a Senator in 2013, she voted against SB 833, the bill granting driver cards to illegal aliens, and against HB 2787, the bill giving instate tuition to illegal aliens.  The 2014 bill, HB 4054, changing the ballot title for the referendum on SB 833, did not reach the Senate; strong and widespread opposition stopped it after passing the House.
 
Sen. Close describes her background as the daughter of educators and a teacher herself,  on her campaign website at http://www.betsyclose.com/meet-betsy/.  She can be contacted through a webform on her website.
 
SARA GELSER has a campaign website at http://www.saragelser.com/, listing the organizations supporting her; the top listed one is SEIU Local 503, a union that has contributed $100,000 to the YES on Safe Roads PAC, the main group campaigning for driver cards for illegal aliens.
 
She has served as Representative from Oregon House District 16 since 2005, replacing Kelley Wirth who resigned in November 2005.  In 2008 she was one of 15 Democrats in the House to vote No on SB 1080, the bill to require proof of citizenship for driver license applicants.  The bill passed the House 45-15 and is now law.  In 2011, she was a sponsor of SB 742 granting in-state tuition to illegal aliens; that bill passed the Senate but failed to pass the House.
 
In 2013 she was again a sponsor of an in-state tuition bill, HB 2787, that passed the Legislature on March 21.  On April 30, she voted Aye on SB 833, the bill giving driver cards to illegal aliens, and later, in 2014, also voted Aye on HB 4054 that would have changed the ballot title on the veto referendum on SB 833 to a wording favorable to supporters of SB 833.
 

Senate District 11

 
October 20, 2014
 
The candidates in District 11 are Patti Milne (R), of Woodburn, and Peter Courtney (D) of Salem.
 
PATTI (PATRICIA) MILNE has served as a Marion County Commissioner for the past 15 years, from 1999 to date.  She is thoroughly familiar with the county, its government, economy, and population.  Previously she served 3 terms as State Representative, 1993-1998, including service as Majority Whip in 1995.  Before that she was a member of the Woodburn School Board from 1989-1992.
 
While serving on the Marion County Commission, she was instrumental in having the  County sign up with the Federal E-Verify program, and now the County government is able to check its  newly hired employees to be sure they’re legally eligible to work in the U.S.  
 
Her campaign website is at http://www.pattimilneforsenate.com/.  It contains background, lists supporters, and gives contact information. 
 
Incumbent PETER COURTNEY has been in the State Legislature for many years.  He began as a Representative, serving 1981-1984 and 1989-1998, then moving to the Senate in 1999 where he has remained since then.  He has been President of the Senate since 2003.
 
In his position as President of the Senate from 2003 to date, he has played a leading role in the management of bills, and he favors publicly-funded benefits to illegal aliens.  He has opposed bills requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote, efforts to require employers to use E-Verify, efforts to strengthen cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities.  He has consistently supported in-state tuition for illegal aliens.  In 2013 he voted to give official state driver cards to illegal aliens (SB 833). 
 

Senate District 13

 
October 19, 2014
 
The two candidates in Oregon Senate District 13 are Kim Thatcher (R) and Ryan Howard (D).
 
REP. KIM THATCHER has been serving in the Oregon House since 2005.  She has always been supportive of immigration control measures.  In 2007 she and a colleague introduced a slate of bills, called the Sensible Immigration Package, which included bills requiring evidence of citizenship for persons registering to vote for first time; a bill prohibiting state government from employing individual who is not legally present or legally employable; one permitting law enforcement agencies to apprehend person based upon probable cause that person is in violation of immigration law, and one requiring Dept. of Human Services to verify lawful presence in U.S. of applicants for public assistance.  All were stifled by the Democratic Party leadership.
 
Again in 2011, she introduced several good bills, including one requiring evidence of citizenship to register to vote for first time, one prohibiting state agencies from providing employment, products, services or licenses to persons who are not lawfully present in the U.S., and one requiring all business to sign up for the federal E-Verify program.
 
During the current campaign she replied to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project’s candidate questionnaire, giving these answers to the questions on immigration:
15. Do you support AUTOMATICALLY registering people to vote using DMV data?   No.
17.  Do you support requiring proof of eligibility when registering to vote?  Yes.
32. Do you support mandating all Oregon employers to use the federal E-Verify system to determine the employee's work eligibility status?      Reluctantly, because until borders are effectively controlled, incentives (jobs, benefits, etc.) need to be carefully guarded.
 
Her campaign website is at http://kimthatcher.us/.  In the Issues section, in Protecting Freedoms and 2d Amendment Rights, there is this statement:
“Kim continues to push for measures that will increase the integrity of our elections process.  One simple improvement Kim is pushing for is the adoption of Federal ID standards for voting in state and local elections. There are thousands of people weighing in on how our cities, counties, and state will be governed, who have not even met minimal Federal ID requirements.”  
 
RYAN HOWARD has served on the Newberg City Council since 2010 and as President of the Council since Jan. 2014.  He is an attorney and a graduate of Lewis & Clark Law School.  
 
For his campaign for Oregon Senate, he maintains a website is at: http://www.howardfororegon.com/.    His website has an Issues section but there is no mention of immigration in the Issues section or elsewhere in the website.  He did not reply to the OAAVEP questionnaire.  In the absence of any statement, we can assume he will take the Democratic Party leadership’s position which supports benefits for illegal aliens and their employers, along with lax or no enforcement of the immigration laws.

Senate District 20

 
October 19, 2014
 
The candidates for Senate in District 20 are Alan Olsen (R), incumbent, of Canby, and Jamie Damon (D), of Eagle Creek.
 
ALAN OLSEN was elected to the Oregon Senate in 2010 and is now completing his first term of 4 years.  In addition to his work in the legislature, he is a general contractor and small business owner building homes and structures across Oregon. He is also a veteran of the U.S. Army, serving from 1969 to 1971.
 
In 2011, he voted No on Senate Bill 742 granting instate tuition to illegal aliens.  The bill passed the Senate but failed in the House.  In March 2013 he voted No on HB 2787 granting instate tuition to illegal aliens.  This bill passed both chambers and became law.  OFIR worked hard to stop the bill but solid Democratic majorities forced the bill through.  They were joined by 5 House Republicans and 3 Senate Republicans.  No Democrats voted against the bill.
 
In April 2013, Senator Olsen voted No on SB 833, the bill granting driver cards to illegal aliens, which is now the subject of a citizens’ veto referendum, Ballot Measure 88.  He also voted No on HB 4054, the bill to change the Ballot title to wording more favorable to supporters of SB 833.
 
His campaign website is at http://www.alanolsen.com/.  He gives email and postal addresses at:  http://www.alanolsen.com/contact.php
 
JAMIE DAMON maintains a campaign website at http://votejamiedamon.com/.  It contains a Priorities section with no mention of immigration.
 
She was appointed to the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners in 2011 and served until 2013.  Her website states that she “has worked as a mediator and facilitator with individuals, citizen groups and all levels of government to guide individuals and groups through controversial and highly contentious situations.”  There is little information given about the particular projects involved.
 
An article in the Oregon Catalyst, Sept. 6, accuses her of not reporting income received from work as a state bureaucrat over the last year on an ethics disclosure form required of all state candidates.  See: http://oregoncatalyst.com/28499-ethics-complaint-filed-jamie-damon-conce...
 
Lacking any statement on immigration issues, and citing Sen. Wyden and Rep. Kurt Schrader among her main supporters, it’s reasonable to assume that Jaime Damon would follow the Democratic Party leadership on immigration issues, meaning she would vote for amnesties, continued very high levels of legal immigration, benefits to illegal aliens, and lax or no enforcement of the immigration laws.
 

Some candidates state their positions clearly

 
October 21, 2014
 
The questionnaire of the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project for this year’s general election is a rich resource for learning what candidates think about important public issues, including immigration.
   
Listed here are the people who replied to the OAAVEP questions on immigration for 3 groups of candidates: Congressional, Oregon Legislature, and county commissioners.  Questions were different for each group.
 
All who replied to the OAAVEP questionnaire are persons who’ve thought about public issues and are willing to say what their views are.  Politicians are often accused of vagueness and speaking only in generalities, but those who answered the OAAVEP questionnaire are stating specific opinions for voters to consider.
 
OAAVEP questions for Congressional candidates:
19.  Do you support requiring all employers to verify employee eligibility to work in the United States?    
20.  Do you support securing the borders before any form of amnesty is legalized?    
21.  Do you support spending public funds to benefit illegal immigrants?    
22.  Do you support automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. when both parents are not legal residents? 
   
The only major party candidates who answered these questions are all Republicans: Jason Yates, CD 1; James Buchal, CD 3; Art Robinson, CD 4; Tootie Smith, CD 5.
 
OAAVEP questions for Oregon Legislative candidates:
15.  Do you support AUTOMATICALLY registering people to vote using DMV data?
17.  Do you support requiring proof of eligibility when registering to vote?    
32.  Do you support mandating all Oregon employers to use the federal E-Verify system to determine the employee's work eligibility status? 
Major party candidates for Oregon Legislature who answered these questions are listed below.  Many of those replying gave answers supporting E-Verify and voter restrictions, but some opposed or added qualifications to their answers.  All are Republicans except those with an asterisk before the name.  
 
State Senate candidates:  Kim Thatcher, S13; John Verbeek, S17.
 
State House candidates:  
*Jim Klahr, H1; Duane Stark, H4; Sal Esquivel, H6; Casey Runyon, H9;
Laura Cooper, H13; Mike Nearman, H23; Bill Post, H25; 
Larry Ericksen, H31; Rick Rose, H32; Brenden King, H34; *Gerritt Rosenthal, H37; 
Tim McMenamin, H41; Michael Harrington, H44; George Yellott, H48; Bill Beckers, H49; 
Gene Whisnant, H53; *Richard Phay, H55; Gail Whitsett, H56; Greg  Baretto, H58; 
John Huffman, H59; *Peter Hall, H60.
 
Candidates for local county offices (Commissioners and Clerks)  also had the opportunity to complete the OAAVEP questionnaire, and several did.  These local offices are nonpartisan in some counties and partisan in others.  Here are the questions on immigration in the questionnaire for local offices:
  9.  Do you support AUTOMATICALLY registering people to vote using DMV data?
10.  Do you support requiring proof of eligibility and identity when registering to vote?
27.  Do you support mandating all Oregon employers to retroactively use the federal E-verify system to determine the employee’s work eligibility status?
 
Columbia County – Wayne Mayo
Coos County – Don Gurney
Crook County – Walt Wagner
Deschutes County – Jack Stilwell
Douglas County – Jeff Admire, Gary Leif
Jackson County – all 4 candidates for Position 1, and the 2 candidates for Position 3.
Jefferson County – Mae Huston
Yamhill County – Mary Starrett
 
To see replies to the OAAVEP questions, please visit http://oregonabigailadams.wordpress.com/ 
 

2014 Primary Election

This section focuses on the 2014 primary election.

Primary election for U.S. Senator from Oregon

April 22, 2014

Oregon's biggest political contest this year is probably for the seat in the U.S. Senate occupied by Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat, who is finishing his first term of 6 years and is up for reelection.  Although there are 2 other Democratic candidates, Merkley is almost a certainty to win the Democratic nomination, even with a grade of F in NumbersUSA’s record of votes on immigration issues.
 
There are 5 Republican candidates for U.S. Senate.  Already, the race appears to have developed into a contest between Dr. Monica Wehby and Representative Jason Conger, who seem to be the clear leaders in both publicity and financial contributions.
 
We encourage OFIR members to ask questions of the candidates at any events they attend or through the Contact links on their websites.  Ask them about driver cards, E-VERIFY and illegal immigration in general.  We MUST make immigration a topic of conversation, or candidates won't have any need to speak about the issue at all.
 
U.S. SENATE CANDIDATES CONGER AND WEHBY
 
Representative Jason Conger was first elected to the Oregon House of Representatives in 2010 and is now serving his second term.  On April 30, 2013, during House debate on SB 833, the bill to give driver cards to illegal aliens, Rep. Conger stood on the floor of the House and spoke forcefully against it.  He voted against SB 833.  He also voted against HB 4054 that would have changed the ballot title of the referendum on SB 833.
 
His website at www.congerfororegon.com contains this Issue statement on immigration:
 
IMMIGRATION
 
Enforce the border first. The first reform to our now dysfunctional immigration system must involve effective enforcement along the border and at the job site.
 
Oppose amnesty. The concept of amnesty would only encourage more illegal immigration.
 
Create temporary visa or adjusted-status programs that allow law-abiding currently undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States (as non-citizens) to work in agriculture and other industries if they have a community-based sponsor (such as a church, association or employer).
 
Reform the temporary visa program for high-skilled workers from foreign countries so U.S. companies have the workforce they need to be competitive globally.
 
Contact Rep. Conger’s campaign at:  jason@congerfororegon.com or visit his website and use the webform for email at:  http://www.congerfororegon.com/contact/.  The campaign telephone number is:  (541) 317-5076.
 
His website contains much information about his background, education and career that is interesting, enlightening, and inspiring.  Please visit it at: www.congerfororegon.com
 
Dr. Monica Wehby, the other leading Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, is a pediatric neurosurgeon and very knowledgeable about health insurance issues.  This is her first venture into legislative politics, although she has considerable experience in leadership positions with national medical organizations.  Please visit her website at:  http://monicafororegon.com/
 
She has reached out to OFIR to learn more about immigration issues and had several meetings with OFIR officers.  She is open to communication on the subject and is working on developing positions in more detail.
 
This is the current statement on immigration on her website:
 
Dr. Monica Wehby believes that before we make any reforms to our immigration system that we must secure the border. Border security must be the immediate priority. Monica is also against amnesty for those who came here illegally. That simply isn’t fair to the people who came here through the proper channels. Dr. Monica Wehby also believes that we need to increase the amount of H1B visas for skilled workers. It doesn’t make any sense to train and educate these workers in the U.S. and then force them to take the skills they learned here to another country. Dr. Monica Wehby also believes we should work with Oregon’s agriculturists to develop a temporary guest worker program that works.
 
You can email her using the webform for email at:  http://monicafororegon.com/contact/.
Campaign telephone: (503) 954-2717.  Fax: (503) 327-8957
 
Please read the About section of her website at: http://monicafororegon.com/about/
that gives a dramatic story of her background and outstanding achievements.
 

Additional candidates for U.S. Senate

April 23, 2014

While Monica Wehby and Jason Conger appear more frequently in media coverage, there are three other Republican candidates also.
 
Mark Callahan is an information technology consultant and a graduate of Oregon State University, now living in Salem.  His website is at http://callahanfororegon.com/.
 
His Issue statement on immigration follows:
 
• Immigration: Enforce Existing Laws; Secure the Borders; Work on Stopping Illegal Immigration; Say No to Amnesty:
 
The issue of illegal immigration has been a major topic for many years in America. When blanket amnesty was granted in 1986, it created a message that spread across the world. The message became “the welcome mat is out in America with no repercussions”. For over two decades this problem of illegal immigration has been compounded by having porous borders and lack of enforcement.
 
As we are a nation of laws, I believe we should enforce our current immigration laws. With our current high rate of unemployment, and American families already struggling to make ends meet in our troubled economy, it makes no sense to add millions of those here illegally to the work force. If elected, I will fight to do what is best for American families, while keeping us safe by advocating for complete border security. We must get our arms around this issue before irreparable damage is done.
 
You can contact Mark by email at Mark@CallahanForOregon.com
 
This page on his website, http://callahanfororegon.com/events/, includes dates and places where candidate forums will be held for U.S. Senate candidates.
 
See his answers to immigration questions in the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project questionnaire at end of this message.  Callahan is the only Republican candidate responding to the questionnaire who agrees with OFIR’s position opposing the granting of automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal aliens.
 
Mark Callahan completed NumbersUSA’s candidate survey and on that basis is rated a True Reformer.  Please visit NumbersUSA’s candidate comparison chart at  http://www/numbersusa.com; click Candidate Comparisons on the homepage, or click Congress – Elections – Candidate Comparisons.
 
Timothy Crawley’s website is at www.crawleyfororegon.com.  He is a native Oregonian and a Portland lawyer.  His website contains a section on “Prorities” but there is no mention of immigration.  Read more about him at:  http://timothycrawley.com/about-tim/.  His email address is tim@timothycrawley.com and you might point out to him that immigration is an important subject to many voters.
 
Jo Rae Perkins, of Albany, shows a long record of community and public service on her website at: www.PerkinsForUSSenate.com.   Email address:  JoRae@PerkinsForUSSenate.com.
 
From Perkins’ statements on immigration posted on her website:
 
Immigration laws need to be updated and streamlined. Enforcement of current laws must be enforced. If the Federal Government is not willing to enforce the laws and protect the borders of the United States, the States Governments should then be able to protect their borders. Jo Rae does not support a pathway to citizenship for illegal residents. However, she is not calloused and cold hearted. For those who have lived in the U.S. in excess of 30 years and meet certain criteria, permanent residence could be offered; not citizenship. If these long-term illegal residents desire citizenship no matter how long they have lived in the U.S., it will be necessary for them to return to their homeland and seek legal entry.
 
Immigration S744.  [To read the statement on S.744, please visit her website at:
________________________________________
 
Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project
  
The Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project circulates questionnaires to Oregon candidates, using different sets of questions for the different offices.  Here are the questions related to immigration included in the 2014 questionnaire for U.S. Senate candidates:
 
19.  Do you support requiring all employers to verify employee eligibility to work in the Untied States?  [OFIR position – Yes]
20.  Do you support securing the borders before any form of amnesty is legalized?  [OFIR position – Yes]
21.  Do you support spending public funds to benefit illegal immigrants?  [OFIR position – No]
22.  Do you support automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. when both parents are not legal residents?  [OFIR position – No]
 
Five candidates for U.S. Senate responded to the questionnaire:  3 Republicans and 2 Democrats.  Some respondents to the questionnaire added comments to their Yes or No replies.  Please visit the website to see full information:  http://oregonabigailadams.wordpress.com/
 
Here are the answers of the Republican Party candidates for U.S. Senate who responded to the Abigail Adams questionnaire.
 
Callahan (R) – 19, yes; 20, yes; 21, no; 22, no.
Crawley (R) –  19, no; 20, yes; 21, no; 22, yes.
Perkins (R) –   19, yes; 20, yes; 21, no; 22, yes.
 
Here are the answers of the Democratic Party candidates for U.S. Senate who responded to the Abigail Adams questionnaire.
 
William Bryk (D) –          19, yes; 20, yes; 21, no; 22, yes
Pavel Goberman (D)  –    19, yes; 20 yes; 21, no; 22, no
 
All respondents except Crawley said Yes to question 19, on verifying eligibility to work.  All five respondents said Yes to question 20 on securing borders first, and said No to 21 on spending public funds to benefit illegal immigrants.    Question 22 on birthright citizenship shows that only Callahan and Goberman share the OFIR position opposing automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. when both parents are not legal residents.
 
Democratic Party Candidates for U.S. Senate 
in addition to Incumbent Senator Jeff Merkley
 
William Bryk is a resident of Brooklyn NY.   See article about his simultaneous candidacy in Oregon, Alaska, and Idaho at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/17/william-bryk_n_5167474.html. 
 
Pavel Goberman, of Beaverton, has been a frequent candidate, running for various offices over the past 10 years.  As reported in The Oregonian in 2012 when Goberman was running for Mayor of Beaverton, he has “unsuccessfully sought election to offices including the First Congressional District, the state Legislature, state labor commissioner and Beaverton School Board.”   He is now retired from his business as a physical fitness advocate.  See his campaign website at:  http://www.getenergized.com/content/vote-for-me-in-2014.php.  Email address:  allbefit@aol.com
 
*********************************************************
 
A write-in candidate for U.S. Senate, Paul Weaver (D), has completed NumbersUSA’s candidate questionnaire and is rated a True Immigration Reformer.  Weaver lives near Toledo in Lincoln County.  His website is at  http://www.paulweaverforussenate.com/.  It contains an Issues section with paragraphs on Immigration.
 
See his answers to the NumbersUSA questionnaire at http://www.numbersusa.com.  In right-hand column menu, click Candidate Comparisons, then Oregon, then 2014 Oregon U.S. Senate Race. 
 
includes quotes from Weaver that appear inconsistent with his answer to question 1 (about  amnesty) on the NumbersUSA questionnaire:
 
“On immigration he says the U.S. government should put illegal immigrants that are already here and working, on a pathway to citizenship.  
 
“If a person has a job, give him a green card and let him stay with his wife and kids,” says Paul. “As long as they are law abiding, let them stay. This nation is built on immigration.” 
 
The question on amnesty is the first one in the NumbersUSA questionnaire.  It says:  1.) Oppose Amnesty?  Do you OPPOSE offering the officially estimated 11 million people illegally in the U.S. a path to U.S. citizenship and/or long-term work permits (whether through a blanket amnesty or an "earned legalization" or other form)?   Weaver replied Yes. 
 
To view the NumbersUSA candidate questionnaire, visit the homepage at: http://www.numbersusa.com.  Click on Congress – Elections – under Congressional, click View Congressional Elections – underneath map of U.S., click on link “download the PDF.”  
 
 

Primary election in Congressional District 1 - Update

 
May 2, 2014
 

Jason Yates is a True Immigration Reformer

Updating the report on candidates’ positions on immigration, we are happy to announce that Jason Yates is now rated a True Immigration Reformer, having completed and returned the detailed questionnaire of NumbersUSA on immigration issues.
 
He said Yes to opposing amnesty, attrition through enforcement, mandating E-Verify, assisting local police, defunding sanctuary cities, funding entry/exit system, border security, ending birthright citizenship, ending chain migration, ending visa lotteries, and reducing total immigration.
 
Please take a look at the candidate comparison for Bonamici, Morgan, and Yates at NumbersUSA’s website: http://www.numbersusa.com.  Click on Candidate Comparisons in the right-column menu, then on Oregon, then on 2014 Oregon 01st Congressional District.
 
We encourage OFIR members to contact legislative candidates, express your views, give them information on immigration issues, and urge their support for strong enforcement against illegal immigration and for reductions in legal immigration.  If you can help good candidates financially or with your time and energy in campaign tasks, please do so.
 
Jason Yates’ website:  http://www.yatesforcongress.com
 

Primary election in Congressional District 1

April 23, 2014

The incumbent, Suzanne Bonamici, a Democrat, is seeking reelection.  She has no opposition in the Democratic Party primary.  She is graded D- by NumbersUSA on her immigration votes while in Congress.  To see her voting record, please visit NumbersUSA’s website at http://www.numbersusa.com, and click on Congress – Immigration Grade Cards.  
 
Bonamici has been in office since 2012 when she was elected to fill the unexpired term of David Wu.  In letters to constituents, she makes clear that she supports amnesty for illegal aliens.   In 2013 she co-sponsored H.R. 15, the House Democrats’ version of S.744 giving amnesty to illegal aliens and greatly increasing legal immigration. 
 
Prior to serving in Congress, she was a member of the Oregon Legislature.  During the 2008 legislative session,  in spite of the known role that drivers licenses played in the 911 tragedy, she voted to continue giving Oregon driver licenses  to illegal aliens, when she voted against Senate Bill 1080,  requiring proof of legal status to obtain a driver license.  In the 2011 session, she voted for Senate Bill 742, granting in-state tuition to illegal aliens in perpetuity with little fact-checking.
 
Republicans running in the May Primary 
 
Jason Yates, Newberg OR.  He is Service Manager for a pest control company; he graduated from Portland State University, 2013, majoring in Film Studies.
Website statement on immigration:
This nation was founded on immigrants coming to this land to look for a better opportunity. I support legal immigration and the harsh enforcement of strong border control, including a well-armed border fence.
 
Delinda Morgan, Gaston OR
Her website contains no reference to immigration issues.
 
Bob Niemeyer, Tigard OR
He is President and owner of New Ventures Engineering, LLC; degree in mechanical engineering from Oregon State University in 1978.  There is no mention of immigration on his website.
 
We encourage OFIR members to contact the Republican Party candidates, express your views, give them information on immigration issues, and urge their support for strong enforcement against illegal immigration and for reductions in legal immigration.  OFIR emails sent over the past year include much pertinent information these candidates need to learn about and understand.  There are blogs and articles on the OFIR website also that can be used.
 

Primary election in Congressional District 2

March 20, 2014, updated April 28, 2014

The incumbent, Rep. Greg Walden (R) is seeking reelection.  He has served in Congress since 1999.  You can see a detailed record of his votes on immigration issues at NumbersUSA’s pages on Congress – Report Cards.  On the basis of this record, NumbersUSA’s grade for him is currently C+.  (http://www.numbersusa.com)
 
Advocates for amnesty to illegal aliens claim that Walden supports amnesty, and he has made statements tending to agree with that claim. 
 
Walden’s campaign website is at: http://www.gregwalden.com/.  It contains an Issues section but there is no mention of immigration.
 
He is being challenged in the Primary by Dennis Linthicum (R) who is now the Chair of Klamath County‘s Board of Commissioners.  Linthicum returned NumbersUSA’s candidate questionnaire showing very good positions.  Linthicum is rated a True Reformer by NumbersUSA, based on his answers to the detailed questionnaire. 
 
Linthicum said Yes to opposing amnesty, attrition through enforcement, mandating E-Verify, assisting local police, defunding sanctuary cities, funding entry/exit system, border security, ending birthright citizenship, ending chain migration, ending visa lotteries, and reducing total immigration.
 
Please take a look at the candidate comparison for Linthicum and Walden at:  https://www.numbersusa.com/content/elections/races/congressional/house-e...
 
If the link doesn’t work for you, you can visit the homepage of NumbersUSA at https://www.numbersusa.com, click Congress – Candidate Comparisons – then, on the map of U.S., or on the list of states, click Oregon – then on 2014 Oregon 2d Congressional District.  You will see a comparison of positions on a list of 12 immigration subjects.
 
Linthicum’s website is at:  http://www.dennis2014.com/home.  The site has an Issues section including a statement on immigration at http://www.dennis2014.com/issues.
 
You can call or send emails to the candidates through the Contact links on their websites.
 
Three Democrats are vying for their party’s nomination in Congressional District 2:  
Aelea Christofferson -  www.aeleaforcongress.com  (has no page on issues)
Barney Spera -  no web site; email address: SpBrn3@aol.com
Frank Vulliet -  www.frankanswers.us (website pending)
No information on their immigration positions has been found.
 

Primary election in Congressional District 3

April 24, 2014

The incumbent, Earl Blumenauer, a Democrat, is seeking reelection.  He has no opposition in the Democratic Party primary.  Blumenauer has been in office since 1996.  He is graded F by NumbersUSA on his immigration votes while in Congress.  NumbersUSA keeps a detailed record of Congressional measures on immigration and how individual members voted on them.  To see Blumenauer’s record, please visit NumbersUSA’s website at http://www.numbersusa.com, and click on Congress – Immigration Grade Cards.
 
While his overall grade is F, he is graded F- in several areas:  F- on reducing chain migration, F- on reducing unnecessary work visas, F- on reducing amnesty enticements, F- on reducing refugee and asylum fraud, F- on reducing illegal immigration rewards.
 
The only other candidate in the District 3 primary is James Buchal, a Republican.  Both Buchal and Blumenauer are slated to win nomination in the primary as neither has any opponent.  Therefore the real contest will come in the November general election.
 
James Buchal, an attorney, has a website at http://buchal.nationbuilder.com/.  He has an Issue statement on illegal immigration at: http://buchal.nationbuilder.com/illegal_immigration.  Here are the first 2 of 5 full paragraphs giving his views:
 
Allowing millions of illegal aliens into the country depresses the wages of the poor and entry-level working class.  It overwhelms demand for public services, also injuring our own citizens most in need of help.  Open borders are a policy that benefits only the rich, whether it is corporations seeking cheap labor, or rich people seeking cheap nannies, gardeners, and house-keepers.
 
There is no moral imperative for open borders.  American can serve as a model of freedom and enterprise for the world; it can never provide enough welfare for the world.  As to the children, the idea that foreigners visiting here can create an American citizen by giving birth here is just dumb.  No other nation does this, and no one ever voted to create this doctrine.  It is again the product of elites serving the rich.
 
To read his complete statement, please visit: http://buchal.nationbuilder.com/illegal_immigration. 
 

Primary election in Congressional District 4

April 24, 2014

This is a summary of available information on candidates in the May primary for office of U.S. Representative in Congress, Oregon District 4.  Since neither of the 2 candidates in this District has any opposition, each will be probably be the nominee of their parties to run in the general election this November.
 
The incumbent, Peter DeFazio, a Democrat, is seeking reelection.  He has been in Congress since 1987 and has a career grade from 1989-2014 of C+ based on his votes on immigration issues as tabulated by NumbersUSA.  
 
For the 2013-2014 period, his overall grade has slipped to D, with several components at F-, including F- on reducing unnecessary work visas, F- on reducing amnesty enticements, F- on reducing refugee and asylum fraud, F- on reducing illegal immigration rewards.  You can view his record on NumbersUSA’s website at http://www.numbersusa.com; click on Congress – Immigration Grade Cards.
 
The only other candidate in the primary is Art Robinson, a Republican.  His website is at:
http://www.artforcongress.com/.  It contains a presentation of his views on illegal immigration.  (http://www.artforcongress.com/issues/immigration.)  The statement does not deal with larger questions of the levels and types of legal immigration, but is an excellent analysis of the problems of illegal immigration.
 
Here are the first 3 paragraphs:
 
Congress is not fulfilling its responsibilities to regulate the flow of foreign nationals into the United States.
 
The U.S. borders are not secure and the problem of illegal immigration into the U.S. is not being effectively addressed, thus creating a situation wherein many millions of illegal immigrants have crossed our borders and reside in our country.
 
A country without secure borders will not long remain a country. It is absolutely essential to secure our borders and for Congress to appropriate all of the resources necessary to do this. Congress should also withhold funding from agencies and branches of the U.S. government, especially the Executive Branch, when they fail to do their part to secure the borders.
 
Mr. Robinson answered 2 of the 4 questions on immigration in the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project, and left 2 of them unanswered.
19. Do you support requiring all employers to verify employee eligibility to work in the United States? [No answer]
 20. Do you support securing the borders before any form of amnesty is legalized? Yes
 21. Do you support spending public funds to benefit illegal immigrants? No
 22. Do you support automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. when both parents are not legal residents? [No answer]
 
See the Abigail Adams questionnaire at: http://oregonabigailadams.wordpress.com/
 

Primary election in Congressional District 5

April 26, 2014

The incumbent, Kurt Schrader, a Democrat, is seeking reelection.  He has been in Congress since 2009 and has a career grade from 2009-2014 of D based on his votes on immigration issues as tabulated by NumbersUSA.
 
For the 2013-2014 period, his overall grade has slipped to D-, with several components at F-, including F- on reducing chain migration, F- on unnecessary worker visas, F- on reducing amnesty enticements, F- on reducing refugee and asylum fraud, F- on reducing illegal immigration rewards.  To view his record on NumbersUSA’s website, please visit http://www.numbersusa.com; click on Congress – Immigration Grade Cards.
 
Rep. Schrader has one opponent in the Primary, Anita Brown, but he is widely expected to be the Democratic Party’s nominee in the November General Election.
 
Two Republicans are competing in the primary to be their party’s nominee for U.S. Representative.  They are Ben Pollock and Tootie Smith.  
 
Ben Pollock spoke at the March meeting of OFIR and was enthusiastically received.  A 4th generation Oregonian, he holds a Bachelor’s degree from Trinity University, majoring in political science, and a Master’s degree in public policy from American University.  He has worked in small business management, also as a legislative director and  Congressional staffer.  Please visit his website at:   www.benforcongress.com,  He describes his background at:  http://www.benforcongress.com/about/
 
Here is the excellent Issue statement on immigration posted on his website:
Immigration
The immigration debate is often depicted as having only two options: amnesty for all of the 12 million people in the country illegally, or rounding up and deporting all of them. There are, however, many reasonable steps we can implement that enjoy widespread support.
 
We must first and foremost secure our borders and enforce the laws on the books. This is important in preventing not only illegal workers from coming to the U.S., but human traffickers and drug cartels as well. Any plan that addresses the status of those already in the country illegally cannot take place until this happens. The government also cannot deport the over 12 million people in this country illegally in any sort of timely or economical manner; it just is not possible. Therefore, we ought to enact proven verification programs, such as the free E-Verify system, that will make it far more difficult to employ those in the country illegally.
 
To address future legal immigration, we should implement a modernized work visa system that matches the number of visas awarded in any given year to our nation’s actual labor needs. Finally, it is important to ensure that those in the country illegally do not have access to the generous entitlement programs afforded to the American taxpayers.
 
You can contact Ben Pollock by email at: info@benforcongress.com, or use the webform for email at: http://www.benforcongress.com/contact/.
 
Mr. Pollock replied to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project, and gave these answers to the 4 questions on immigration:
19.       Do you support requiring all employers to verify employee eligibility to work in the United States?         Yes.
20.      Do you support securing the borders before any form of amnesty is legalized?            Yes
21.      Do you support spending public funds to benefit illegal immigrants?         No
22.      Do you support automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. when both parents are not legal residents?       No.
See the Abigail Adams questionnaire at: http://oregonabigailadams.wordpress.com/
 
The other Republican candidate seeking nomination is Tootie Smith, who served a term as State Representative, 2003-2004, and in 2012 was elected to the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners.  Her website is at:  http://tootiesmithoregon.com/home.html.  It contains a section in Issues but does not mention immigration.  She did reply to the questionnaire of the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project and here are her answers to the 4 questions on immigration:
 
19.   Do you support requiring all employers to verify employee eligibility to work in the United States?     Yes 
20.   Do you support securing the borders before any form of amnesty is legalized?    Yes 
21.   Do you support spending public funds to benefit illegal immigrants?    No 
22.   Do you support automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. when both parents are not legal residents?     Yes
 
On the question of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens, Ms. Smith indicates support for that policy, and Mr. Pollock does not support the policy.  OFIR’s position is that granting automatic birthright citizenship is not in the best interests of this country.  To learn more about the subject, please visit:  http://www.fairus.org/issue/birthright-citizenship
 
You can contact Ms. Smith by email at: tootie@tootiesmith.com or use the webform for email on her website at: http://tootiesmithoregon.com/contact-us.html.  Her campaign telephone number is:  (971) 777-3273
 

Primary election in House District 18

April  30, 2014
 
David L. Darnell (R) of Hubbard, is challenging incumbent Representative Vic Gilliam (R) in House District 18.
 
Mr. Darnell discusses his differences with Vic Gilliam on illegal immigration in the Issues section of his website at:  http://www.darnellfororegon.com/issues.   Darnell strongly criticizes the favoring of illegal aliens which Gilliam demonstrated in his votes for SB 833 and HB 4054.
 
Darnell also replied to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project, and answered the 3 questions there related to immigration:
 
15.  Do you support AUTOMATICALLY registering people to vote using DMV data?    No
 
17.  Do you support requiring proof of eligibility when registering to vote?    Yes
 
32.  Do you support mandating all Oregon employers to use the federal E-Verify system to determine the employee's work eligibility status?    Yes
 
See the OAAVEP questionnaire at: http://oregonabigailadams.wordpress.com/
 
Thanks to Mr. Darnell for taking these positions.
 
You can visit Darnell's campaign website at:  http://www.darnellfororegon.com/.  The Contact section contains a webform for email or you send email to this address:  david@DarnellforOregon.com.  Telephone:  503-468-3298. 
 
Incumbent Representative Vic Gilliam of Silverton is seeking reelection.  He has served in the House since 2007 and is now running for a 5th 2-year term.
 
In the 2013 session of the Legislature, Vic Gilliam was a sponsor of, and voted for, SB 833, the bill giving official driving privileges and driver cards to illegal aliens.  He also voted for HB 4054, the bill to change the ballot title of the referendum on SB 833, rewording the title to hide the fact that the overwhelming numbers of people benefitting from SB 833 are illegal aliens.
 
His campaign website is at:  http://www.repvicgilliam.com/index.html.  It has a section on Issues but there is no mention of immigration.  The campaign email address is info@repvicgilliam.com.
 
Rep. Gilliam did not reply to the OAAVEP questionnaire, and neither did the lone Democrat in the primary, Scott Mills.  No information on the immigration positions of Scott Mills was found, nor any website.  
 
We encourage OFIR members to contact legislative candidates, express your views, give them information on immigration issues, and urge their support for strong enforcement against illegal immigration and for reductions in legal immigration.  If you can help good candidates financially or with your time and energy in campaign tasks, please do.
 

Primary election in House District 25

 
May 3, 2014
 
This is a summary of available information on the immigration positions of candidates in the May Primary for office of Oregon State Representative, House District 25.  The incumbent, Kim Thatcher, is now running for Oregon State Senator in Senate District 13.  There are 2 Republican candidates, Bill Post and Barbara Jensen, both from Keizer, and no Democratic Party candidates in the Primary.
 
Bill Post is Operations Manager and talk show host, Willamette Broadcasting LLC, Salem (1430 KYKN).  He is a graduate of Southern Oregon State College with a B.S. degree in history.  The press release announcing his candidacy said: “Bill Post’s broadcasting career spans thirty years, with the last five years focused on the unique role of interviewing state and national legislators, analyzing Oregon policies and reporting on every significant policy that has come before the legislature.”
 
Bill Post replied to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project's questionnaire for State Representative candidates, and gave these answers to the 3 questions that were included dealing with immigration:
 
15.  Do you support AUTOMATICALLY registering people to vote using DMV data?    No
 
17.  Do you support requiring proof of eligibility when registering to vote?    Yes
 
32.  Do you support mandating all Oregon employers to use the federal E-Verify system to determine the employee's work eligibility status?    Yes 
 
See the OAAVEP questionnaire at: http://oregonabigailadams.wordpress.com/
 
On his radio program, Bill Post has often invited OFIR spokespersons as guests, and he has frequently discussed immigration issues, including bills before the legislature such as SB 833, HB 4054.  His radio program has a large audience and his views are well-known.
 
Post has a campaign website at http://billpost.us/index.php, and another at  http://billpostoregon.wordpress.com/.  You can email him at vote@billpostfororegon.com or through the webform at: http://billpost.us/index.php?feedback_form=1.
 
The other Republican Party candidate is Barbara Jensen.  She is a graduate of Linfield College with a B.S. in business management.  Her filing statement says she has more than 30 years experience in IT and Business Employment with the State of Oregon.
 
She has an extensive website, including an Issues section, at: http://www.electbarbarajensen.com/ but there is no mention of immigration, nor did we find any public mention of the subject elsewhere.   She did not reply to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project questionnaire.  It appears she does not see uncontrolled illegal immigration as an important matter of public interest.
 
In the Contact Us section of her website visitors are asked to contact Jesse, the campaign manager, for campaign related questions, at 503-320-6114, or to use the webform at:  http://www.electbarbarajensen.com/contact-us/
 
------------------------------
 
We encourage OFIR members to contact legislative candidates, express your views, give them information on immigration issues, and urge their support for strong enforcement against illegal immigration and for reductions in legal immigration.  
 
If you can help good candidates financially or with your time and energy in campaign tasks, please do.
 

Primary election in House District 58

April 30, 2014
 
District 58 was formerly represented by Bob Jenson (R) who did not seek reelection.  Two Republicans and one Democrat have filed as candidates: Greg Barreto (R), John Turner (R), and Heidi Van Schoonhoven (D).
 
Greg Barreto participated actively in the OFIR and Protect Oregon Driver Licenses campaign, collecting many signatures for the referendum on SB 833.  The referendum was successful and will be on the ballot in November giving citizens the opportunity to vote NO to SB 833, a harmful bill that would give official driver privileges and driver cards to illegal aliens.
 
He replied to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project’s questionnaire, which included 3 questions related to immigration:
15.  Do you support AUTOMATICALLY registering people to vote using DMV data?    No
17.  Do you support requiring proof of eligibility when registering to vote?    Yes
32.  Do you support mandating all Oregon employers to use the federal E-Verify system to determine the employee's work eligibility status?    Yes 
 
Greg Barreto’s campaign website is at:  www.barretoforhd58.    You can contact Barreto at: barretoforhd58@gmail.com.  He is CEO of Barreto Manufacturing, Inc. which makes professional lawn and garden equipment, a business he built up himself that now employs over 75 workers.
 
According to an article in the East Oregonian, at a recent meeting of candidates, Ken Matlack, the sheriff of Morrow County, which is in House District 57, asked about the state law granting driver cards to undocumented residents, mentioning that the Oregon sheriff’s association opposes the law.
 
Barreto said he was against it as well, because it would hamper law enforcement and shows the federal government is not taking care of the illegal immigrant issue.
  
However, candidate Turner spoke in favor of Senate Bill 833, (driver cards for illegal aliens), and said the agriculture, logging and transport industries want voters to pass it.  “It’s a means so people can work,” Turner said. “As long as it’s not a path to citizenship, I’m for it.”
 
Evidently Turner doesn’t think it matters whether the “people” he refers to are legal workers or not.
 
John Turner is a retired Marine Corps Colonel and former president of Blue Mountain Community College.  His campaign website is at:  http://www.friendsofjohnturner.com/.  There is a section on Issues, but no mention of immigration.
 
Supporters of SB 833 are endorsing John Turner (R).  He is endorsed by these area legislators who voted for SB 833:  Representative Greg Smith (R-H57) and Senator Bill Hansell (R-S29).  Rep. Smith also voted for HB 4054, the bill to change the ballot title of the referendum on SB 833.
 
Retiring Representative Bob Jenson (R), who is endorsing Turner also, was an enthusiastic supporter of SB 833; he voted for it and he also voted for HB 4054, the bill to change the ballot title for the referendum on SB 833.  The changed ballot title which he and Rep. Smith supported would have hidden the real effect of the bill, confusing voters unfamiliar with the issue.
 
Voters should contact candidate Turner and try to elicit more information about his views on immigration.  His campaign email address is: johnturnercampaign@gmail.com
 
Heidi Van Schoonhoven is the only candidate in the Democratic primary.  She is a small business owner and a graduate of Lewis & Clark College with a degree in theater and a master’s degree from Marylhurst University in art therapy.  Contact her at: heidikvan@yahoo.com.  She does not have a website and no information on her immigration views was found.
 

Agriculture and Immigration


 

Agriculture and Immigration - A List of References

 
January 2014
General
 
Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).    Illegal immigration and agribusiness: the effect on the agriculture industry of converting to a legal workforce.   May 2013.    33 p.
 
Krikorian, Mark.   Ag employers cry wolf on immigration.  (Center for Immigration Studies blog, June 3, 2012) 
 
Martin, Philip.    Farm exports and farm labor: Would a raise for fruit and vegetable workers diminish the competitiveness of U.S. agriculture?    March 21, 2011.    (EPI briefing paper no.295)     http://www.epi.org/publication/farm_exports_and_farm_labor/
      The pdf document linked from this webpage contains an appendix on pp.15-17: “Status of mechanization in fruits and vegetables.”
     Dr. Martin has written extensively on farm labor issues.  A list of his publications is posted  at: http://agecon.ucdavis.edu/people/faculty/philip-martin/selected-publicat...
 
North, David.   Caution: Watch for farmers' fibs on “Labor Shortages.”   (CIS blog, Jan. 9, 2012)      http://www.cis.org/print/north/watch-for-farmers-fibs
 
___________.  S. 744 would eliminate modest existing benefits for some groups of aliens    (CIS blog, May 21, 2013.
     “ … H-2A is, compared to what both houses of Congress are contemplating in terms of a non-immigrant farm worker program, a program that affords mild worker protections to some 85,000 workers each year. …”
 
___________.    Some illegals to get legal status after only four months in the U.S.   (CIS blog, April 29, 2013)
 
___________.  We should remember the bracero program ... and shudder.  (CIS blog, March 12, 2013. 
 
NumbersUSA.    Immigration and agriculture.    [a summary of the issue]
     Contents:  AgJobs amnesty.- H-2A visa program = no need for illegal workers.- H-2A example.- Complaints about H-2A.- Pres. Obama/s changes to H-2A.-How real is the labor shortage in agriculture?
 
Ruark, Eric.   Georgia Department of Agriculture finds big ag lobby made false claims about HB87.   Federation for American Immigration Reform, Jan. 17, 2012.    (Immigration Reform Blog)
     “…deflates the apocalyptic claims by the agribusiness lobby that the law would cause ‘crops to rot in the fields’ and food prices to skyrocket. FAIR’s analysis of the report shows the claims made by corporate farms are false, and that those who benefit from employing illegal workers can afford to pay wages up to 40 percent higher and still remain profitable. It is not surprising that the GADOA report would substantiate FAIR’s work, but what is surprising is that the passage of HB87 had virtually no impact on the profitability of even the largest growers in Georgia.”
 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.   H-2A temporary agricultural workers.
           Contains general information. 
 
Mechanization
 
Bussewitc, Cathy.   Machines replacing men in the vineyard.  In  The Press Democrat, Santa Rosa CA, October 2, 2011.
 
Harvest automation [a commercial website].    http://www.harvestai.com/
 
Jones, Joseph.   Harvey: A working robot for container crops.  Oct. 23, 2013.  
 
Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis.   High-tech robotic wine: the future of winemaking is robots.   Oct. 9, 2013)      http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/10/high-tech-robotic-win...
 
Mohan, Geoffrey.    As California’s labor shortage grows, farmers race to replace workers with robots.  In Los Angeles Times, July 21, 2017.
 
Projections, mechanization.    In Rural migration news, Jan. 2014, v.20, no.1.
http://migration.ucdavis.edu/rmn/more.php?id=1804_0_3_0
 
Vinson, John.    Mechanization: a solution to the farm labor issue.  (American Immigration Control Foundation Policy Brief)     March 2013.     4 p. 
     A pdf document linked from publications list at: http://www.aicfoundation.com/publications
 
Wheat, Dan.    New tools aid harvest: Prototypes could dramatically improve efficiency,  expand labor pool.    In Capital Press, Thursday, July 19, 2012.
 
Miscellaneous
 
Beck, Jeremy.  New York Times withholds key fact in story.   NumbersUSA blog, April 26, 2012.   2 p. ,          "…portrayed farmers as the hapless victims of state enforcement laws run amok …”
 
Congressional and Administrative Actions on Farm Labor, arranged by date
 
2013
 
USCIS circumvents federal law governing time limits on temporary work visas.  (In FAIR’s Legislative Update, Nov. 25, 2013).
     “Last week U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a policy memorandum (dated November 11, 2013) that will allow the Obama Administration to circumvent existing time limits for guest worker visas. (See Policy Memorandum, Nov. 11, 2013) The memo specifically applies to H-2A (agricultural workers), H-2B (low-skilled workers), and H-3 (“trainee”) visas, and achieves its goal by amending the USCIS Adjudicator’s Field Manual, the guide instructing USCIS officials on how to process applications. …”
 
House bill grants amnesty to illegal aliens working in agriculture.  (In FAIR’s Legislative Update, April 29, 2013.    http://www.fairus.org/legislative-updates/fair-legislative-update-april-29-2013#9
 
H.R. 1773: Agricultural Guestworker "AG" Act.  (In FAIR’s Legislation in the 113th Congress, April 26, 2013)
 
Senate gang finalize ag-worker amnesty provisions, set to unveil bill tomorrow.  (In FAIR Legislative Update,  April 15, 2013.    http://www.fairus.org/legislative-updates/fair-legislative-update-april-...
 
Democrats, GOP advocate expanding agricultural guest worker programs.  (In FAIR Legislative Update, March 4, 2013.  http://www.fairus.org/legislative-updates/fair-legislative-update-march-...
 
H.R. 242: Legal Agricultural Workforce Act.  (In FAIR’S Legislation in the 113th Congress; Jan. 24, 2013. 
 
2012
 
House Subcommittee advocates for ag guest workers.    (In FAIR Legislative Update, Feb. 13, 2012)
Account of a Hearing on Feb. 9, 2012, House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement.
     “Bruce Goldstein, president of Farmworker Justice, argued against the expansion of guest worker programs, stating that illegal alien farmworkers reduce wages and thus discourage Americans from performing agricultural labor. ‘The presence of undocumented workers depresses wages for all workers, including the roughly 700,000 U.S. citizens….Guest workers will toil to the limits of human endurance at low wages, when U.S. workers seek more sustainable productivity requirements,’ he testified. (Id.)
     “Proponents of guest worker programs continue to argue that there are no U.S. workers, or not enough of them, to meet the needs of the agriculture industry. But this argument, standing alone, overlooks the fact illegal labor inherently depresses wages, thus discouraging American workers from taking agriculture jobs. When it comes to raising wages, employers mistakenly argue that increasing wages to attract Americans would result in significantly higher food prices or a decline in U.S. food production. To the contrary, a report released by FAIR last year studying the impact of immigration on the agricultural industry found that employers would be only minimally impacted if they increased wages to attract a legal workforce. (See FAIR Report: The Effect on the Agriculture Industry of Converting to a Legal Workforce, April 2011) The report found that increasing wages results in a legal and increasingly native-born workforce. Specifically, the study concluded that large corporations (those making over $250,000 annually) can increase employee wages by 30 percent without passing the cost onto consumers. This would allow companies to maintain a profit and attract more American workers.”
 
2011
 
Feinstein promises to introduce new AgJOBS bill.    (In FAIR Legislative Update, Oct. 11, 2011)
     Account of a Hearing at which agribusinesses complained of labor shortages.
     “The lone voice testifying on behalf of the American worker was Eric Ruark, Director of Research at FAIR. Mr. Ruark informed the committee of how corporate farm industries are capitalizing on illegal farm workers by underpaying the workers to increase profit. Depressed wages not only exploit illegal workers, he explained, but also drive down wages for all workers and discourage U.S. workers from engaging in agricultural labor. Ruark testified that commercial farms could pay substantially higher wages, as much as a 30 percent increase, and still be profitable. If farms insisted on passing such a wage increase to the American consumer, Ruark asserted that a 30 percent wage increase would only increase the cost of produce by pennies.”
 
Rep. Lungren proposes alternative agricultural guest worker program.  (In FAIR Legislative Update, Sept.19, 2011.
     “Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) last week introduced the “Legal Agricultural Workforce Act,” legislation that would create a large new agricultural guest worker program in addition to existing guest worker programs.  (See H.R. 2895) Rep. Lungren’s bill would create a new “W” visa program to admit foreign agricultural labor as an alternative to both the current H-2A guest worker program and to Rep. Lamar Smith’s (R-TX) “American Specialty Agriculture Act,” which significantly amends the H-2A program. (H.R. 2895 at § 2(a); See FAIR’s Legislative Update, Sept. 12, 2011) The W agricultural guest worker program would be administered by the Department of Agriculture, in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security. ..”
 
Chairman Smith introduces new guest worker program [to import agricultural workers].    (In FAIR Legislative Update, Sept. 12, 2011)
Description of the bill (H.R. 2847) and summary of testimony at Hearing on Sept. 7.
 
Critics deride H-2A guest worker program.  (In FAIR Legislative Update, April 28, 2011) 
     Account of Congressional Hearing on farm employers’ complaints, with quotes from some witnesses.  
     “Others testified that employers who employ H-2A agricultural guest workers are still getting a bargain over American workers. Mr. Leon Sequeira [former Assistant Secretary of Labor] reminded the committee members that under H-2A visas, employers do not pay Social Security or unemployment taxes on the visa workers’ wages. This saves the employers roughly 10% over hiring a U.S. citizen. Such a system makes it extremely difficult for U.S. citizens to find work on American farms. Mr. Sequiera testified that employers routinely turn away U.S. workers, discourage them from applying for H-2A jobs, or subject them to unfair and illegal working conditions. He provided an example of two American women in Georgia who were recently fired from an H-2A employer after only a few days in the fields for allegedly failing to meet a production standard which had not been approved by the government and about which the workers had not been told until arriving at the farm.
     “Despite employers’ claims that the H-2A process is slow and burdensome, Ms. Oates [Asst. Secretary,  Dept. of Labor] testified that 70 percent of applications are processed within the 15 calendar day window provided by law. Still, growers urged Congressman that if they are going to be required to use a guest worker program that it be timely and consistent.”
 
Farm laborers and the United States.  Congressional testimony of Eric Ruark, FAIR.   2011?
 

Amnesty

This section discusses amnesty for illegal aliens. Read more about the issue below:

Exercising prosecutorial discretion with respect to individuals who came to the United States as children - 2012 DHS directive

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:

  • came to the United States under the age of sixteen;
  • has continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and is present in the United States on the date of this memorandum;
  • is currently in school, has graduated from high school, has obtained a general education development certificate, or is an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States;
  • has not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise poses a threat to national security or public safety; and
  • is not above the age of thirty.

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):

  • With respect to individuals who meet the above criteria, ICE and CBP should immediately exercise their discretion, on an individual basis, in order to prevent low priority individuals from being placed into removal proceedings or removed from the United States.
  • USCIS is instructed to implement this memorandum consistent with its existing guidance regarding the issuance of notices to appear.

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:

  • ICE should exercise prosecutorial discretion, on an individual basis, for individuals who meet the above criteria by deferring action for a period of two years, subject to renewal, in order to prevent low priority individuals from being removed from the United States.
  • ICE is instructed to use its Office of the Public Advocate to permit individuals who believe they meet the above criteria to identify themselves through a clear and efficient process.
  • ICE is directed to begin implementing this process within 60 days of the date of this memorandum.
  • ICE is also instructed to immediately begin the process of deferring action against individuals who meet the above criteria whose cases have already been identified through the ongoing review of pending cases before the Executive Office for Immigration Review.

3.  With respect to the individuals who are not currently in removal proceedings and meet the above criteria, and pass a background check:

  • USCIS should establish a clear and efficient process for exercising prosecutorial discretion, on an individual basis, by deferring action against individuals who meet the above criteria and are at least 15 years old, for a period of two years, subject to renewal, in order to prevent low priority individuals from being placed into removal proceedings or removed from the United States.
  • The USCIS process shall also be available to individuals subject to a final order of removal regardless of their age.
  • USCIS is directed to begin implementing this process within 60 days of the date of this memorandum.

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.

References on Amnesty Bills, S.744 & H.R. 1417, 113th Congress, 2013

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

S.744- Bad for America

S.744 -- 4 Big Problems

Heritage: Amnesty will cost taxpayers $6.3 trillion

National poll finds little support of Gang of Eight

FAIR: Top Reasons to Oppose S.744

12 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

S.744 Dear Colleague Letter

Congressional Opposition to the Gang of Eight's bill

Letter to Congress Opposing Gang of Eight Amnesty bill

USCIS Union opposes S.744

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

 


 

Senators Question President's Authority to Issue Immigration Directive, 2012


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.]

 


 

References on DACA ("Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals"), 2017

 
 
1.  The DACA Amnesty Must Be Ended, by Kris W. Kobach, Secretary of State for Kansas.  On Breitbart.com, 30 August 2017.  .
Excerpt: “The DACA amnesty allows virtually any illegal alien up to the age of 31 (as of June 15, 2012, when it was announced) who claims that he entered the United States before the age of 16 to gain “deferred action” and lawful presence in the United States. The alien also becomes eligible for employment authorization. In practice, today illegal aliens up the age of 36 are getting the amnesty. It’s not limited to “children” as the Left is so eager to pretend. It’s estimated that the DACA amnesty could extend to approximately 1.7 million illegal aliens. More than 886,000 have already applied for, and received, the amnesty.”
Kobach is an expert on immigration law, and he cites the legal bases for ending DACA.
 
Excerpt:  “Amid the hysterical criticism of President Trump’s decision to review government protections for young illegal immigrants, it is instructive to recall how the Obama administration bypassed Congress and usurped legislative powers to implement the controversial policy of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, in the first place.”
The article is a concise account of how the DACA program developed and who created it.
 
3.  700K American Job Openings If DACA Ends, by John Binder. On Breitbart.com, 31 August 2017.
Excerpt: “A study by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s open borders organization revealed that if an Obama-created amnesty program for young illegal aliens is ended, it would open nearly 700,000 American jobs.
“Zuckerberg’s FWD.us group – a pro-immigration lobbying group – released the study with the intention to show the hardships of ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, where more than 850,000 young illegal aliens have been given temporary amnesty would have on the American economy.
“The study unintentionally revealed how many more job opportunities American workers would have if President Trump were to repeal DACA, as he promised his supporters he would do.”
 
4.  45,000 Illegals Using DACA Backdoor to Get Green Cards, by Neil Munro.  On Breitbart.com, 1 September 2017.
Excerpt:  “President Barack Obama’s deputies opened a little-known immigration backdoor to put 45,000 DACA illegals on a multistep path to citizenship, according to the Senate Judiciary Committee. …”
 
5.  Data Indicate Unauthorized Immigrants Exploited Loophole to Gain Legal Status, Pathway to Citizenship.  News release from office of Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), September 01, 2017, Washington, DC.
Full text:  “Preliminary data provided by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in response to recent inquiries from the House and Senate Judiciary Committees indicate that the Obama administration allowed thousands of DACA recipients to exploit an immigration law loophole to obtain green cards. The data also show that more than a thousand DACA recipients have already obtained citizenship. The DACA program was never intended to provide a pathway to citizenship, and the program’s legal future is in jeopardy.
“As of August 21, 2017, 45,447 DACA recipients have been approved for advance parole through an I-131 Application for travel documents. This approval allows a DACA recipient to travel out of the country and legally return, making them eligible to adjust their immigration status and receive a green card.  Another 3,993 had their applications denied.
“The data provided indicates 59,778 DACA recipients have applied for Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) status—also known as a ‘green card’—and 39,514 have been approved.  Of those who received LPR status, 2,181 have applied for U.S. citizenship and 1,056 have become U.S. citizens.”
 
6.  Research on Dreamers Contradicts Public Image, by Jessica Vaughan, Center for Immigration Studies, August 31, 2017
Excerpt:  “ … the reality is that only Congress can give authentic and permanent legal status to the Dreamers. Before they do, they should take the time to find out more about the characteristics of this population. As it turns out, the actual educational attainment and economic contributions of this group of illegal aliens does not quite match up with the public image that has been cultivated by amnesty activists and their supporters. …” 
 
7.  14 Things the MSM Won’t Tell You About DACA, by John Nolte.  On Breitbart.com, 5 September 2017.
Partial contents.- DACA Is a Massive Amnesty Program.- DACA Recipients Are Not the Children.- DACA Recipients Take Jobs Americans WILL Do.- Some DACA Recipients are Criminals.- DACA Is Not a Law, It Is the Violation of Law.- Most DACA Recipients are Not Overachievers.- DACA Is Wildly Unfair to Americans, Most Especially Young Americans Just Starting Out.- Unless It Is Stopped, DACA Will Never Stop Growing.
 
8.  Arguments For DACA Put Americans Last, by Scott Greer.  On Daily Caller, September 4, 2017.
The author exposes motives of those arguing in favor of keeping the DACA program.
Excerpt:  “The outrage over DACA has only started, and in the coming days we are guaranteed to be inundated with claims Trump is going to tear eight year olds from their mothers’ arm and the economy is about to collapse without Dreamers.
“In the upcoming cacophony of cries and shrieks, it’s worth looking at the real motivations for keeping DACA. For failed Mexican presidents and corporations, the concern for Dreamers isn’t so noble.”
 
9.  CNN And MSNBC Claim DACA-Recipients Are ‘Children’, by Amber Athey.  On Daily Caller, September 5, 2017.
Excerpt:  “CNN and MSNBC are repeating the false claim that DACA recipients are “children” or “kids,” while actually most are adults.
“While DACA recipients were illegally brought to the United States by their parents when they were children, the minimum age to apply for the program is 15 years old. In fact, the majority of the applicants were over the age of 20 based on 2014 data from the US government. Some have estimated that the average age of dreamers is 25 or 26 years old–hardly children. …”
 
10.  Statement of President Donald Trump on DACA, September 5, 2017.  Issued as a White House news release.
“…in keeping with the obligations of my office, the Department of Homeland Security will begin an orderly transition and wind-down of DACA…”
 
11.  Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks on DACA.  News release from U.S. Department of Justice, September 5, 2017.
“Good morning. I am here today to announce that the program known as DACA that was effectuated under the Obama Administration is being rescinded. …”
 
12.  The Media's DACA Numbers Are Misleading,  by Preston Huennekens, CIS Immigration Blog, September 6, 2017
Concludes that “The statistics cited by the Center for American Progress, the Washington Times, the Cato Institute, the New York Times, and CNN come from a flawed study that is neither peer-reviewed nor accurate. The methodology, sample collection, and conclusions are suspicious at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.”
 
13. Immigration Reformers: Three Big Reasons to Oppose DACA Re-Amnesty, by Neil Munro, Breitbart.com, September 7,  2017.
“A quick no-strings amnesty for younger illegal immigrants would invite more illegals, disadvantage Americans, cripple the GOP and wound President Donald Trump, say immigration reformers.”  Munro presents a strong case for ending the DACA program permanently now.
 
14. Fmr. USCIS Investigator: There’s a ‘Huge’ Amount of Fraud in DACA, by Margaret Menge.   On Lifezette.com/polizette, September 7, 2017.   
“As many as half of the approximately 800,000 people who now have work permits under DACA may have lied on their applications to get approved, said Matt O’Brien, an attorney and until last year a manager in the investigative unit of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS).”  In the article, Mr. O’Brien details many facts showing extensive fraud in the program.

Attrition Through Enforcement

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.

 

Cost of Illegal Immigration to Oregon Taxpayers

References on Fiscal Costs of Illegal Immigration to Oregon Taxpayers

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.

Driver Licenses

Opposition Testimony on SB 833; Senate Committee on Business and Transportation Hearing, April 11, 2013

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

 

 

 

 


 

Oregon Legislators Opposing SB 833 - Floor Actions

 
On April 23, 2013, when SB 833 came to the Senate floor for consideration and final vote, these Senators voted NO on SB 833: Sen. Betsy Close (R-8), Sen. Fred Girod (R-9), Sen. Tim Knopp (R-27), Sen. Jeff Kruse (R-1), Sen. Alan Olsen (R-20), Sen. Bruce Starr (R-15), Sen. Doug Whitsett (R-28).   There were no opposition speeches during the Senate’s consideration of SB 833.
 
On April 30, 2013, when SB 833 came before the House for consideration and final vote, these Representatives stood up on the House floor and spoke against the bill:  Rep. Dennis Richardson (R-4), Rep. Kim Thatcher (R-25), Rep. Mike McLane (R-55), Rep. Sal Esquivel (R-6), Rep. Tim Freeman (R-2), Rep. Jason Conger (R-54), and Rep. Jim Weidner (R-24).  Also, Rep. Bill Kennemer (R-39) questioned language in the bill, pointing out the need for clarification of identification requirements in SB 833 as related to the requirements in the I-9 form.
 
The discussion and debate on SB 833 lasted a little over one hour before the final vote was held.  These Representatives voted NO on SB 833:  Rep. Cliff Bentz (R-60), Rep. Vicki Berger (R-20), Rep. Kevin Cameron (R-19), Rep. Jason Conger (R-54), Rep. Sal Esquivel (R-6), Rep. Tim Freeman (R-2), Rep. Wally Hicks (R-3), Rep. John Huffman (R-59), Rep. Bill Kennemer (R-39), Rep. Wayne Krieger (R-1), Rep. Mike McLane (R-55), Rep. Andy Olson (R-15), Rep. Julie Parrish (R-37), Rep. Dennis Richardson (R-4), Rep. Sherrie Sprenger (R-17), Rep. Kim Thatcher (R-25), Rep. Jim Thompson (R-23), Rep. Jim Weidner (R-24), Rep. Gene Whisnant (R-53), Rep. Gail Whitsett (R-56).
 
Floor discussion and speeches are recorded and available in various forms.  CD’s (audio) can be purchased for $5 each through Legislative Committee Services at 503-986-1813.  You can specify a bill number of interest.   Video copies are available for purchase in DVD format through Legislative Media at 503-986-1195.  Video copies are $10 each and can be supplied by bill number also.
 
Audiotapes are available through the Oregon Legislative Information System (OLIS).  They can be downloaded for listening online at no cost.  See directions at http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/citizen_engagement/Pages/Legislative-Vi....  The audio files are in Real Media format, a free computer program that is needed to access the files.  It can be downloaded at: www.real.com.
 
The official legislative history of SB 833 can be viewed at: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Measures/Overview/SB833   Click on Measure History and note the + symbols which indicate additional information linked from there.
 
The Oregonian newspaper’s website at http://gov.oregonlive.com/  includes legislative histories which show the party affiliation of each legislator voting.  
 

Oregon Legislators Opposing SB 833 - Written Statements

 
 
Cameron, Sen. Kevin.   Results from last weeks newsletters survey question [Do you support Oregon state drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants (SB 833); No, 85%]     In his newsletter, April 11, 2013.    http://enews.kevincameronfororegon.com/common/mailings/index.cfm?id=140
 
_________________.  2013 post legislative survey; total of 389 responses.  In his newsletter, Sept. 5, 2013.
Includes this question: 5. Do you believe giving drivers’ licenses to undocumented aliens is good public policy?      21.3% Y; 78.7% N
 
Esquivel, Rep. Sal.    Another difficult task:  driver's license for illegals; one man's view.     In his News from Salem, March 21, 2013.     http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/esquivel/Documents/newsletter_032113.htm
 
_______________.  Another difficult task - continued; driver’s license for illegals.   In his News from Salem, April 4, 2013.
 
____________.    Don’t thwart the rule of law.   April 5, 2013.
 
______________.  Another difficult task – continued; driver’s license for illegals.    In his News from Salem, April 11, 2013.
 
____________.     Rep. Esquivel speaks out against drivers licenses for illegals.   Press release, April 30, 2013.    https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/esquivel/Documents/esquivel_043013.htm
Contains link to a YouTube video of his remarks on passage of SB 833.    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWTCJwbohRA&feature=youtu.be
Also in his News from Salem, April 30, 2013.   http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/esquivel/Documents/newsletter_043013.htm
 
____________.    Put illegal-immigrant 'driver cards' before voters.  Op-ed in Medford Mail-Tribune, July 21, 2013.       http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130721/OPINION/3...
 
Kruse, Sen. Jeff.    Oregon legislative update, April 21, 2013.       http://oregoncatalyst.com/23163-sen-jeff-kruse-oregon-legislative-update...
 
Olson, Sen. Alan.  Legislative update, May 2013. 
    Includes statement of results of his request for constituent opinion on SB 833:  
“…We received numerous responses, the vast majority being opposed to SB 833. Although Rep. Olson can see both sides to this issue, he voted against the bill. …” http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/olson/Documents/newsletter_050613.htm
 
Richardson, Rep. Dennis.   Rep. Richardson's Newsletter, April 26, 2013:  Drivers' Cards for Illegal Immigrants?  http://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/ORLEGRICH/bulletins/7872cc
Requests views of constituents.
 
___________________.    New law - driver card for illegal immigrants.    His newsletter, May 2, 2013.     http://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/ORLEGRICH/bulletins/7965d8
 
Thatcher, Rep. Kim.    Granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants sends the wrong message: Guest opinion  in The Oregonian, April 24, 2013.
Also available as a press release on her website:  http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/thatcher/Pages/news.aspx
 
_______________.    Driver licenses don’t fix bigger problem;  Guest opinion  in Statesman Journal,  May 12, 2013.    
Also available as a press release on her website:  http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/thatcher/Pages/news.aspx
 
______________.    New driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants: Documenting the undocumented.   Guest opinion in The Newberg Graphic, May 14, 2013.
Also available as a press release on her website.
 
______________.    Rep Thatcher introduces priority bill to track impacts of new driver cards for illegal immigrants.    Press release, May 21, 2013.
This is a pdf document accessible from the list of her press releases at:
 
Whisnant. Rep. Gene.    House passes "driver card" bill for undocumented residents; bill is described by advocates as a public safety measure.   Press release, April 30, 2013.
 
Whitsett, Rep. Gail.   Why I voted NO on driver’s licenses for illegals.    In Oregon Catalyst, May 1, 2013.     http://oregoncatalyst.com/23413-voted-driver-licenses-illegals.html
Also in her Legislative update,  April 30, 2013.    http://us6.campaign-archive1.com/?u=d16c82da32252bdc626adf0ff&id=07cf8f77d5
 

Tally of legislators who voted YES on SB 833

 
Following is an alphabetical list of the names of the Oregon legislators who voted for SB 833, the bill to give driver cards to illegal aliens.  Numbers after the names are the numbers of their legislative districts. The list includes notations on the current status of the legislator.  Most are running for reelection in Nov. 2014, but some are not.
 
IN THE SENATE
 
Those with an asterisk (*) beside the name are running for reelection in November 2014.  State Senators have 4-year terms; about half of the Senate seats will not be up for election/reelection until November 2016.
 
Democratic Party Senators who voted for SB 833:
 
Bates, Alan* (SD 3)
Beyer, Lee* (SD 6)
Burdick, Ginny (SD 18)
Courtney, Peter* (SD 11)
Devlin, Richard* (SD 19)
Dingfelder, Jackie (SD 23)
Edwards, Chris* (SD 7)
Hass, Mark (SD 14)
Monnes Anderson, Laurie (SD 25)
Monroe, Rod* (SD 24)
Prozanski, Floyd* (SD 4)
Roblan, Arnie (SD5), sponsor of SB 833
Rosenbaum, Diane (SD 21)
Steiner Hayward, Elizabeth* (SD 17)
Democratic Party Senators not voting:  
Johnson, Betsy (SD 18) – Excused
Shields, Chip (SD 22) – Excused.  He was a sponsor of SB 833, also served as legislative liaison to Oregon Commission on Hispanic Affairs.  
 
Republican Party Senators who voted for SB 833:
 
Baertschiger Jr., Herman (SD 2)
Boquist, Brain (SD 12)
Ferrioli, Ted (SD 30)
George, Larry (SD 13)
Hansell, Bill (SD 29), sponsor of SB 833
Thomsen, Chuck* (SD 26), sponsor of SB 833.
Republican Party Senator not voting:
Winters, Jackie* (SD 10) – Excused
 
IN THE HOUSE
 
Representatives serve 2-year terms.  All of the representatives listed below are running for reelection in November 2014 except as noted.
 
Democratic Representatives who voted for SB 833:
 
Bailey, Jules (HD 42).  Bailey is not running for reelection.
Barker, Jeff (HD 28)
Barnhart, Phil (HD 11)
Barton, Brent (HD 40)
Boone, Deborah (HD 32)
Buckley, Peter (HD 5)
Clem, Brian (HD 21)
Dembrow, Michael (HD 45).  Dembrow was appointed Senator and is now running unopposed for reelection to Senate District 23 in Nov. 2014
Doherty, Margaret (HD 35)
Fagan, Shemia (HD 51)
Fredrick, Lew (HD 43)
Gallegos, Joe (HD 30)
Garrett, Chris (HD 38)  Garrett is not running for reelection.
Gelser, Sara (HD 16).  Gelser is running for election as State Senator, SD 8, in Nov. 2014
Gomberg, David (HD 10)
Gorsek, Chris (HD 49)
Greenlick, Mitch (HD 33)
Harker, Chris (HD 34), sponsor of SB 833, legislative liaison to Oregon Commission on Hispanic Affairs.  Harker is not running for reelection in Nov. 2014.
Holvey, Paul (HD 8)
Hoyle, Val (HD 14)
KenyGuyer, Alissa (HD 46)
Komp, Betty (HD 22)
Kotek, Tina (HD 44)
Matthews, Greg (HD 50).  Matthews is not running for reelection in Nov. 2014.
McKeown, Caddy (HD 9)
Nathanson, Nancy (HD 13)
Read, Tobias (HD 27)
Reardon, Jeff (HD 48)
Tomei, Carolyn (HD 41).  Tomei is not running for reelection.
Unger, Ben (HD 29).  Unger is not running for reelection.
Vega Pederson, Jessica (HD 47), sponsor of SB 833
Williamson, Jennifer (HD 36)
Witt, Brad (HD 31)
Democratic Party Representative not voting:
John Lively (HD 12) – Excused
 
Republican Party Representatives who voted for SB 833:
 
Davis, John (HD 26)
Gilliam, Vic (HD 18), sponsor of SB 833
Johnson, Mark (HD 52), sponsor of SB 833
Jenson, Bob (HD 58).  Jenson is not running for reelection.
Smith, Greg (HD 57)
Republican Party Representative not voting:
Bruce Hanna (HD 7 ) - Excused.  Hanna is not running for reelection.
 

Drug Wars

Cocaine Incorporated

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:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/magazine/how-a-mexican-drug-cartel-makes-its-billions.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

 

E-Verify

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 accurate and employers like it

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.

Customer satisfaction survey – E-Verify

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.]

Do some illegal workers escape detection?

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.”

References

[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

E-verify employers in Oregon

Rep. Lamar Smith re-introduces mandatory E-Verify bill

 
Updated:  Mon, MAR 16th 2015 @ 2:00 pm EDT
 
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) has reintroduced his Legal Workforce Act, H.R. 1147, that would require all employers in the United States to use the E-Verify system within three years. The bill was first introduced during the 112th Session of Congress where it passed through the House Judiciary Committee. Rep. Smith was joined by 12 cosponsors of the legislation.
 
“The Legal Workforce Act is crucial legislation that puts legal workers first and enjoys broad support with the American public," Rep Smith said in a statement. "It is also free, quick, easy-to-use and effective."
 
“Almost 20 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed. Meanwhile, seven million people are working in the United States illegally. By expanding the E-Verify system, this bill will ensure that jobs only go to legal workers.”
 
NumbersUSA president Roy Beck said the bill would "fulfill the promise" to keep U.S. jobs in the hands of American citizens and those legally allowed to work here.
 
The Legal Workforce Act would at last substantially fulfill the promise of the 1986 amnesty to deny U.S. jobs to foreign citizens who overstay their visitor visas or cross the border illegally. In so doing, historic experience suggests, millions more jobs would both be available and be improved for the American workers and legal immigrants already here who would be recruited and trained to fill them. Most of the jobs opening up for under-employed Americans would be in construction, manufacturing, hospitality and other service occupations in which millions of Americans already are seeking full-time employment.
 
The Legal Workforce Act would:
 
Repeals I-9 System:  Repeals the current paper-based I-9 system and replaces it with a completely electronic work eligibility check, bringing the process into the 21st century. 
 
Gradual Phase-In:  Phases-in mandatory E-Verify participation for new hires in six month increments beginning on the date of enactment. Within six months of enactment, businesses having more than 10,000 employees are required to use E-Verify. Within 12 months of enactment, businesses having 500 to 9,999 employees are required to use E-Verify. Eighteen months after enactment, businesses having 20 to 499 employees must use E-Verify. And 24 months after enactment, businesses having 1 to 19 employees must use E-Verify.
 
Agriculture:  Requires that employees performing "agricultural labor or services" are only subject to an E-Verify check within 36 months of the date of enactment. 
 
States as Partners:  Preempts duplicative state laws mandating E-Verify use but retains the ability of states and localities to condition business licenses on the requirement that the employer use E-Verify in good faith under federal law. In addition, the bill allows states to enforce the federal E-Verify requirement and incentives them to do so by letting them keep the fines they recover from employers who violate the law. 
 
Protects Against Identity Theft:  The bill allows individuals to lock their Social Security number (SSN) so that it can't be used by another person to get a job. It also allows parents or legal guardians to lock the SSN of their minor child. And if a SSN shows unusual multiple use, DHS is required to lock the SSN and alert the owner that their personal information may have been compromised. 
 
Safe Harbor:  Grants employers safe harbor from prosecution if they use the E-Verify program in good faith, and through no fault of theirs, receive an incorrect eligibility confirmation. 
 
The cosponsors include: Reps. Michael Burgess (R-Texas), Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), John Carter (R-Texas), Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), Paul Cook (R-Calif.), Blake Farenthold (R-Texas), Randy Forbes (R-Va.), Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), Steve King (R-Iowa), Tom Marino (R-Pa.) and Chris Smith (R-N.J.).
 

The case for passing E-Verify in Oregon

 
1.  Unemployment in Oregon hovers close to 6 percent.  The state’s U-6 unemployment rate (involuntary part-time workers) averaged 14.2 percent for 2014.   In a study done by Oregon State Professor William Jaeger in June of 2008, he estimated that there were about 100,000 illegal aliens in the Oregon work force.   A 2010 report by the Pew Hispanic Research Center estimates the number at 130,000.   It is unconscionable that American citizens have to complete for jobs against illegal aliens at any time, let alone during the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930’s.
 
2.  All employers should be required to use the federal E-Verify program to verify that new hires are legally entitled to work in the U.S.
 
3.  E-Verify is not a retrospective look into an existing labor force rather it only verifies the work eligibility of new hires.
 
4.  Currently the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), states that over 500,000 companies nationwide have voluntarily signed up for the E-Verify program.  E-Verify is the only free, fast, online service of its kind that verifies employees' data against millions of government records, including Social Security records, and provides results within as little as three to five seconds. 
 
5.  As of April 1, 2015, over 3400 companies in Oregon have voluntarily signed up for E-Verify.   
 
6.  All contractors doing business with the federal government are now required to use the program.
 
7.  A 2013 User survey by an independent firm showed high satisfaction with E-Verify: 97% said E-Verify is user friendly; 92% said E-Verify is effective; 89% said E-Verify is highly accurate.
 
8.  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.
 
9.  DHS states that most employees are automatically confirmed as work authorized either instantly or within 24 hours.  
 
10.  Currently 19 states require use of E-Verify in certain circumstances:  Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.
 
 
AMERICANS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO COMPETE WITH ILLEGAL ALIENS FOR JOBS
 
Oregonians for Immigration Reform – http://www.oregonir.org
  April 2015

Claims that the E-Verify program does not have the capacity for widespread use are false

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. …"

 

In-state Tuition

Testimony on HB 2787, Feb. 13, 2013, by Cynthia Kendoll

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

 

Testimony on HB 2787, Feb. 13, 2013, by David Olen Cross

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 on HB 2787, Feb. 13, 2013, by E. Van Staaveren

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.

Testimony on HB 2787, Feb. 13, 2013, by L. Vandermolen

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 on HB 2787, Feb. 13, 2013, by R. LaMountain

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

 

Written Testimony on HB 2787, March 19, 2013, Senate Hearing, by opponents

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 


 

Matricula Consular

Some References on the Matricula Consular

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.

OFIR to offer scholarship to college bound seniors

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.

 

 


 

Polls

Recent Immigration Polls

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.

http://theworldlink.com/news/local/should-illegal-immigrants-be-allowed-to-pay-in-state-tuition/poll_6f15cb7e-7c53-11e2-929c-0019bb2963f4.html

 

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

Sanctuary Policies

Oregon's sanctuary law

 
January 8, 2017
 
The section of Oregon law that limits cooperation between local Oregon law enforcement and Federal immigration enforcement is cited briefly as ORS 181A.820, or more fully as Oregon Revised Statutes 181A.820.  It is informally referred to as Oregon’s sanctuary law.
 
It is now included in Chapter 181A — State Police; Crime Reporting and Records; Public Safety Standards and Training; Private Security Services.  The full Chapter is online at: www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors181A.html.
 
Here is the text of part 181A.820, which is headed PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL GENERALLY.
 
      181A.820 Enforcement of federal immigration laws. (1) No law enforcement agency of the State of Oregon or of any political subdivision of the state shall use agency moneys, equipment or personnel for the purpose of detecting or apprehending persons whose only violation of law is that they are persons of foreign citizenship present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.
      (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, a law enforcement agency may exchange information with the United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the United States Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection in order to:
      (a) Verify the immigration status of a person if the person is arrested for any criminal offense; or
      (b) Request criminal investigation information with reference to persons named in records of the United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the United States Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services or the United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection.
      (3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, a law enforcement agency may arrest any person who:
      (a) Is charged by the United States with a criminal violation of federal immigration laws under Title II of the Immigration and Nationality Act or 18 U.S.C. 1015, 1422 to 1429 or 1505; and
      (b) Is subject to arrest for the crime pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued by a federal magistrate.
      (4) For purposes of subsection (1) of this section, the Bureau of Labor and Industries is not a law enforcement agency.
      (5) As used in this section, “warrant of arrest” has the meaning given that term in ORS 131.005. [Formerly 181.850]

Legislative history of Oregon’s sanctuary law

The sanctuary law started out as HB 2314 in the 1987 session of the Oregon Legislature.  The bill was pre-session filed at the request of the Joint Interim Judiciary Committee for the Hispanic Political Action Committee. The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on February 6, and the bill passed the House on February 20, with 54 Ayes and 3 Nays, Reps. Verner Anderson, George Gilman, and George Trahern. Three House members were excused from voting.  The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on May 20, and the bill passed the Senate with amendments on June 9, with 29 Ayes and 1 Nay, Sen. Lenn Hannon.   On June 11, the House concurred in the Senate’s amendments and repassed the measure with 58 Ayes and 1 Nay, Rep. Trahern. One House member was excused from voting.  The Governor signed the bill on July 7, 1987.
 
As passed then, the official description of the bill, from House Calendar, said:  “Prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from enforcing immigration laws.  Permits law enforcement agency to [contact] exchange information with United States Immigration and Naturalization Service in order to verify immigration status of person arrested for criminal offense or request criminal investigation information about persons named in service records.  Specifies that Bureau of Labor and Industries is not law enforcement agency for purposes of prohibition.
 
Since passage in 1987, the law has been amended somewhat and there have been various attempts to repeal it.  It was cited as ORS 181.850 for many years and changed to ORS 181A.820 recently.
 
Here is the wording of the law as originally passed and printed in Oregon Laws 1987:
 
CHAPTER 487. An Act, HB 2314, Relating to law enforcement.  
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
 
SECTION 1.   (1) No law enforcement agency of the State of Oregon or of any political subdivision of the state shall use agency moneys, equipment or personnel for the purpose of detecting or apprehending persons whose only violation of law is that they are persons of foreign citizenship residing in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, a law enforcement agency may exchange information with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service in order to:
(a) Verify the immigration status of a person if the person is arrested for any criminal offense; or
(b) Request criminal investigation information with reference to persons named in service records.
(c) For purposes of subsection (1) of this section, the Bureau of Labor and Industries is not a law enforcement agency.
Approved by the Governor July 7, 1987
Filed in the office of Secretary of State July 8, 1987

References on sanctuary policies for illegal aliens

2018

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.

2017

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.

2016

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.

Televised discussion, Sanctuary Cities, Jan. 22, 2017

 
See an 11-minute video of the discussion at: http://fullmeasure.news/news/full-episodes/full-measure-january-22-2017.
 
Full Measure is a weekly Sunday news program “focusing on investigative, original and accountability reporting.” 
 
Following are excerpts from the transcript of the Jan. 22, 2017 program, which featured opinions from several key speakers.  Speaking in favor of ending sanctuary city policies were Jan Ting, professor of law at Temple University, and parents of victims who died at the hands of criminal illegal aliens.
 
SANCTUARY CITIES
 
[Excerpts from TV program]
 
January 22, 2017 — In the 1940s, Jan Ting’s parents faced a difficult path to American citizenship following a U.S. immigration ban on Chinese workers that lasted 61 years.
 
Jan Ting: '43 just opened the door to Chinese 100 a year. One hundred per year could come in as immigrants.
 
Today, Ting is a law professor at Temple University—after serving as a top immigration official under George H.W. Bush.
 
Ting: I teach citizenship and immigration law, among other things.
 
Ting is also a strong opponent of sanctuary cities that shield illegal immigrants from deportation. That includes Philadelphia, where Temple University is located.
 
Ting: I think that it is wrong, I think it endangers public safety, I think it endangers our law enforcement officers, and it's just short-sighted.
Kevin Kamentez: it is our policy in general that Baltimore County [MD] police officers do not ask the immigration status of anyone that they encounter. That's not their job.
 
Baltimore County executive Kevin Kamenetz supports his county’s sanctuary status even as he disputes the term.
 
Kamenetz: And if you are otherwise here in this county and you haven't committed a crime, that is you're otherwise law-abiding, then we are not going to interfere with that relationship whatsoever.
 
Critics offer a compelling counterpoint: cases of illegal immigrants trampling on the rights of U.S. citizens like Kate Steinle. Less than four months before her murder in 2015, San Francisco authorities had refused a request from ICE to hold her accused killer for possible deportation. He had five previous deportations and seven felonies on record.
 
There are thousands of horrifying examples.
 
Don Rosenberg: Especially in San Francisco, they become a protected class. Whatever they do, they get away with.
 
Don Rosenberg's son, Drew was on his way home from law school in the sanctuary city of San Francisco when he was run over and killed by an illegal immigrant.
 
Laura Wilkerson’s son, Josh, was murdered a high school classmate and illegal immigrant with an arrest record.
 
Laura Wilkerson: He hit him so hard in the stomach that it made his spleen go into the spine and it sliced it in two. Then, he tortured him by strangling him then, he put him in a field and he set his body on fire.
 
And Sabine Durden's only child, Dominic, was a 911 dispatcher in the sanctuary state of California when he was hit and killed by an illegal immigrant with a long rap sheet.
 
Sabine Durden: He had a prior felony conviction, then he had a DUI. And he got put on probation with a DUI even though he had no license, no insurance, and no registration. So then he had another DUI while he was on probation for the first DUI.
 
In one recent two-year period, more than 66-thousand illegal immigrant criminals were set loose after being arrested in the U.S. Among them, they had 166-thousand convictions; 30,000 for drunk or drugged driving, 414 kidnappings, 11-thousand rapes or other types of assaults, and 395 homicides. Within a year, thousands of them had already been re-arrested and convicted of new crimes in the U.S., including felonies and gang offenses.
Kamenetz: To somehow suggest in, in a political fit here, to, to say okay, Baltimore County, we're going to take away the 110 million dollars you received of federal aid every year, well you know what that money actually goes to? It goes to senior citizens, it goes to people who have mental illness// I think it really is, somewhat spiteful to hurt people who have nothing to do with the immigration issue, in order to achieve their political goals.
 
But Ting hopes the Trump administration acts quickly and forcefully.
 
Ting: I think they need to announce clearly that they are going to use executive authority to cut off as much federal funding as possible, to all sanctuary cities, and if, if those communities want to litigate the issue, bring it on.
 

Efforts to repeal Oregon's sanctuary law

January 14, 2017; updated March 27, 2018
 
EFFORTS TO REPEAL OREGON’S SANCTUARY LAW
 
by Elizabeth Van Staaveren
 
The sanctuary law passed in 1987 by the Oregon Legislature is a hindrance in controlling illegal immigration, and over a period of several years, there have been many efforts to repeal it.
 
Soon after Oregonians for Immigration Reform was organized, repeal of the law, cited then as ORS 181.850 (now ORS 181A.820), became one of the group’s objectives.  In 2002 OFIR sent questionnaires to candidates for State Legislature.  Question 4 of 10 questions was: “Will you support repeal of the law which prohibits police officers from arresting or assisting in the prosecution and arrest of illegal aliens? Will you support legislation clearly requiring that assistance?”
 
2003
 
In January 2003 Rep. Cliff Zauner (R- Woodburn) requested a resolution asking that ORS 181.850 be repealed, and  Rep. Alan Brown (R-Newport) asked the Legislative Council to write the resolution as a bill. Accordingly, HB 2051 was pre-session filed, and introduced in the State Legislature in February, supported by OFIR.
 
OFIR prepared a sample letter for its members to send to legislators, urging that hearings be held on the bill and explaining why repeal of ORS 181.850 was necessary.   It said, in part, “ORS 181.850 is the state statute that Portland, Corvallis and Hillsboro cited as their excuse not to cooperate with Attorney General John Ashcroft in the questioning of possible terrorists in Oregon following the attack on 9/11 {2001}.  As events have transpired, three Portland residents have been arrested for terrorism conspiracy.  In addition, the INS arrested 124 persons who were working at the Portland Airport, several who had security badges to allow them into sensitive areas.”
 
In an editorial in opposition to the state law, the Albany Democrat Herald stated, “… {ORS 181.840} sends the wrong signal.  The signal is that as far as the state of Oregon is concerned, it’s all right to violate federal law on immigration – nothing to worry about.”
 
HB 2051 was sent to the House Judiciary Committee which did hold a public hearing on April 11, but no further action was taken.  In this 2003 session of the Legislature, OFIR had to spend large amounts of time in a major but successful fight against SB 10, a bill granting instate tuition to illegal aliens.
 
2004-2005
 
Again in March 2004, in preparation for the spring primary, OFIR sent questionnaires to state candidates, and the number one question to legislators was:  “…We need to establish regular cooperation between federal BICE agents and local law enforcement, yet ORS 181.850 prohibits our police from detecting or apprehending illegal immigrants except under strictly limited circumstances.  Would you be willing to introduce or support a bill to repeal ORS 181.850?”
 
On August 30, 2005, OFIR President Jim Ludwick wrote to then-Governor Kulongoski urging him to declare a state of emergency in Oregon due to the fact that the federal government was not enforcing immigrations laws.  Mr. Ludwick listed a number of actions the Governor could take to ameliorate the situation, including “Order state police to work with ICE in the apprehension of illegal aliens.”  Ludwick asked for an opportunity to speak with the Governor on these subjects.  Although the requested meeting did not occur, the Governor did take steps to end, as Ludwick requested, the practice of state agencies accompanying the Mexican Consul General on his visits around the state passing out Matricular Consular cards to Mexican nationals.  The state agencies had been handing out information on how Mexican nationals could obtain state benefits.
 
2006-2007
 
In January 2006, Gov. Kulongoski replied to the OFIR President by letter from his Policy Advisor, Daniel P. Santos.  The letter relayed the Governor’s position that immigration is a federal responsibility and disclaimed any obligation or interest in assisting in the control of illegal immigration.  Santos defended illegal immigrants as only coming here to work, and claimed that without them, communities would suffer.  Pres. Ludwick wrote a firm rebuttal, asserting that the state can and should play a major role in immigration control.
 
Preparing for the Spring primary of 2006, OFIR again sent questionnaires to candidates, and question number one again dealt with repeal of ORS 181.850, asking “Would you be willing to introduce or support a bill to repeal ORS 181.850?”  The great majority of candidates who replied to the questionnaire said Yes.
 
In the 2007 session of the Legislature, Reps. Linda Flores (R-Clackamas) and Kim Thatcher (R-Keizer) introduced HB 2682, “Relating to enforcement of immigration laws,” which would permit “law enforcement agencies to apprehend person based upon probable cause that person is in violation of immigration law.” The 18 co-sponsors were Reps. Bruun, Cameron, Dallum, Esquivel, G. Smith, Garrard, Gilliam, Girod, Hanna, Krieger, Krummel, Maurer, Minnis, Olson, Richardson, Scott, Whisnant, and Senator Boquist.  The bill had a First reading on February 13 and was referred to the Judiciary Committee which did not grant it a hearing, thus it expired.
 
Also, House Republican leader Wayne Scott (Oregon City and Canby) introduced two bills, HB 3426 and HB 3428 both titled “Relating to criminal aliens.”  HB 3426 allowed “state employee to report to federal immigration enforcement authorities information about individual who cannot produce valid, independently verifiable documents to prove that individual is legally present in United States.”  The bill had 18 co-sponsors in the House:  Bruun, Butler, Cameron, Dallum, Flores, G. Smith, Gilliam, Gilman, Hanna, Jenson, Krieger, Maurer, Minnis, Nelson, Olson, Richardson, Thatcher, and Whisnant, and one Senator, Brian Boquist.  Scott’s other bill, HB  3428, required “district attorney to investigate residency status of convicted person.”  Neither of Scott’s bills was granted a hearing; both were buried by the Judiciary Committee and not heard of again.
 
 
Initiative Petition 112
 
Stymied by the Democratic Party’s refusal to support any controls over illegal immigration, OFIR began work toward an initiative which subsequently was filed as IP (Initiative Petition) 112.  It combined and replaced 3 separate initiatives OFIR had originally prepared, then decided that one initiative would be more manageable than three. The certified ballot title for IP 112 was challenged by the opposition but upheld by the Supreme Court.  It said:
 
 “Allows state cooperation with immigration enforcement; Requires certain documentation for voter registration and driving privileges.”
 
OFIR held a press conference at the State Capitol on Nov. 13, 2007 to announce the launching of the initiative.  Only 3 days later, Gov. Kulongoski issued Executive Order no. 07-22, “Standards for Issuance of Oregon Driver Licenses and Identification Cards,” including a requirement for applicants to provide DMV with a valid Social Security number and ordering that the DMV shall verify with the Social Security Administration the accuracy of Social Security numbers provided.
 
Gov. Kulongoski had previously announced the calling of a special session of the Legislature to begin in February 2008.  He wanted to have Oregon issue driver licenses issued only to those who could prove they are citizens and legally present, but he also wanted Oregon residents without such proof to be able to obtain “driver privilege permits.”  OFIR was pleased to hear of his support for proof of citizenship but very displeased about the proposal for illegal aliens to have special driver permits.
 
2008
 
In addition to work on the initiative to repeal ORS 181.850, OFIR again for the Spring primary of 2008 sent questionnaires to candidates including the question on candidates’ support for the repeal.
 
After OFIR had started its initiative in 2007, the Secretary of State announced new procedures to take effect January 3, 2008 for the gathering of signatures on initiatives.  This adversely affected OFIR’s work with the initiative to repeal ORS 181.850.  The change forced OFIR to wait until January 3 to distribute petition sheets for signatures, and we faced a deadline of July 3, 2008 for completing the collection of signatures.  This was not enough time for an all-volunteer group inexperienced in the process to gather the necessary 90,000 valid signatures.  Thus the initiative did not appear on the November 2008 ballot.  However, meantime, SB 1080 had been passed in the State Legislature’s special session of 2008.  This met OFIR’s goal for proof of citizenship for driver licenses, so a very important one third of IP 112 was accomplished.
 
As OFIR President Ludwick reported in the OFIR newsletter of December 2008:
 
“ … OFIR was unsuccessful in getting our initiative “The Respect for Law Act” on the 2008 ballot.  It wasn’t because of lack of effort. Trying to collect 120,000 initiative signatures as a grass roots organization is a daunting task. The new initiative rules are stacked against regular citizens petitioning their own state government.”
 
In support of the initiative, Richard F. LaMountain wrote an excellent “In My Opinion” article that was published in The Sunday Oregonian on May 25, 2008.  The article was entitled, “Enable state’s officers to aid federal enforcement efforts.”  His arguments and the information in the article are still pertinent.  Mr. LaMountain currently serves as OFIR’s Vice President.
 
2009
 
Conscientious legislators introduced several bills in the 2009 Oregon Legislature attempting to promote state and local authorities’ cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.  Only one was allowed a hearing by the Democratic Party controlled Legislature, and the other bills died without even a hearing.
 
Senate, 2009 -- SB 815, sponsored by Sen. Doug Whitsett (R-Klamath Falls) and co-sponsored by Senators Brian Boquist (R-Dallas) and Senator Frank Morse (R-Albany), was introduced as “Relating to enforcement of immigration laws:  Permits law enforcement agencies to apprehend person for violation of federal immigration law based upon probable cause.”  On March 16 it was referred to the Judiciary Committee, where it remained with no hearing and no further action.
 
House, 2009 --  HB 3364 was titled, “Relating to criminal aliens:  Authorizes State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision or county sheriff to release inmate to custody of United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement under certain circumstances.”  The bill was sponsored by Rep. Jeff Barker (D-Aloha) and co-sponsored by Reps. David Edwards (D-Hillsboro), Tim Freeman (R-Roseburg), Wayne Krieger (R-Gold Beach), Greg Mathews (D-Gresham), Andy Olson (R-Albany), Dennis Richardson (R-Central Point), Mike Schaufler (D-Happy Valley), Kim Thatcher (R-Salem), and Jim Thompson (R-Dallas).  On March 16 it was referred to the Judiciary Committee, and on April 14 a public hearing was held, but as of June 29 the bill remained in committee upon adjournment, without further action.
 
HB 3439, introduced by Rep. Kim Thatcher (R-Salem) and co-sponsored by Rep. Sal Esquivel (R-Medford), was titled, like SB 815:  “Relating to criminal aliens: Authorizes State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision or county sheriff to release inmate to custody of United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement under certain circumstances.”  On March 16 it was referred to the Judiciary Committee, where it remained with no hearing and no further action.
 
HB 3440 was titled:  “Relating to immigration:  Requires county to verify immigration status of person incarcerated in county correctional facility.”  It was introduced by Rep. Kim Thatcher (R-Salem) at the request of Craig Cox in memory of Judy Cox.  
 
In 1980, Newberg residents Craig and Judy Cox and others were in a car hit by a drunken driver in the country illegally. Craig's bookkeeper was killed; Judy was hospitalized and left with seizures for life.   Twenty-seven (27) years later, another illegal immigrant drunk driver slammed into the Coxes' car, leaving 66-year-old Judy dead at the scene and 72-year-old Craig a bereaved widower. The perpetrator had six previous DUII convictions and multiple license suspensions.
 
HB 3440 was co-sponsored by Reps. Vicki Berger (R-Salem), Kevin Cameron (R-Salem), Sal Esquivel (R-Medford), Tim Freeman (R-Roseburg), Greg Smith (R-Heppner), Bill Garrard (R-Klamath Falls), Bob Jenson (R-Pendleton), Ron Maurer (R-Grants Pass), Andy Olson (R-Albany) Dennis Richardson (R-Central Point), Jim Thompson (R-Dallas), Jim Weidner (R-McMinnville), Matt Wingard (R-Wilsonville).
 
The bill was referred on March 16 to the Judiciary Committee where it remained with no hearing and no further action.
 
2010
 
For the Spring Primary election, OFIR again included in its questionnaires to candidates, a question on ORS 181.850:
 
The Pew Research Center estimates that there are 175,000 illegal aliens in Oregon.  Currently, illegal aliens who successfully enter the U.S, or foreign nationals who overstay their visas, face little likelihood of deportation, because we have so few ICE agents working on interior enforcement.  We need to establish regular cooperation between Federal ICE agents and local law enforcement, yet an Oregon State Statute, (ORS 181.850), prohibits our police form detecting or apprehending illegal aliens except under strictly limited circumstances.
 
Would you be willing to introduce or support a bill to repeal ORS 181.850?
 
Most respondents to the questionnaire said yes.
 
2011
 
Rep. Thatcher introduced 2 bills promoting state cooperation with federal immigration authorities: HB 2802 and 2803, and Rep. Tim Freeman with several co-sponsors, introduced HB 3341 for similar purpose. All three bills were shelved by the House Judiciary Committee and died upon adjournment.
 
HB 2802, “Relating to aliens, declaring an emergency: Prohibits restrictions on public body’s ability to enforce immigration law to extent permitted by federal law,” was referred to Judiciary Committee on January 21 where it remained until adjournment, with no hearing or further action.
 
HB 2803, “Requires county to verify immigration status of person incarcerated in county correctional facility. Authorizes law enforcement agency to enforce federal immigration law pursuant to agreement with federal government.”
 
HB 3341, “Authorizes law enforcement agency to enforce federal immigration law pursuant to agreement with federal government.”
 
2012-2016
 
During this period, the Democratic Party increasingly advocated benefits for illegal aliens and supported illegal immigration both nationally and in Oregon.  OFIR led the successful state-wide campaign to overturn SB 833, a bill passed by the Oregon Legislature giving driver licenses to illegal aliens and fought the granting of instate tuition to illegal aliens.  As the Democratic Party grew more entrenched in power in the Oregon state legislature it became impossible to make any progress on state-federal cooperation in immigration law enforcement.
 
On August 26, 2016 Reps. Sal Esquivel (R-Medford) and Michael Nearman (R-Dallas) filed Initiative Petition 6 aimed for the 2018 election.  Its subject: “An initiative to repeal Oregon’s sanctuary law.”  The required number of signatures to begin the process were collected and submitted to the Secretary of State, who referred the initiative to the Attorney General for writing the ballot title.  However, the Attorney General declined to prepare a ballot title, and thus stopping that initiative.

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.  

 

Terminology

Ad hominem attack

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.

Alien

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.

Anchor baby

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.

Anti-immigrant

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

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.

Carrying capacity

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.

Conservationist

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.

Cornucopianist

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

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.

Diversity monger

One who promotes cultural and racial diversity at the expense of an indigenous culture and society, without regard for ecological and social consequences.

Ecological Footprint

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

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.

Hispanic

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.

Illegal alien

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.

Immigrant

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).

See:
Merriam-Websiter dictionary - immigrant.

Immigration reform

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.

Immigration reductionist

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.

Immigrant rights

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.

Intergenerational justice

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.

Multiculturalism
Emphasis on proximal but distinct cultures within a given region or country.
The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of continuing to be a nation at all would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities."
Nativism

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.

Open borders proponent

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

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

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

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

Reverse racism is the predisposition and bias against native-born Americans, and those of historical European descent and traditional American culture.

Sustainability

Preserving natural ecosystems and keeping resources intact for future generations - of humans and all species.

Undocumented immigrant versus illegal alien

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

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

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.