Letters and Op-Eds
Welcome to the OFIR Letters and Op-Eds section. Here you can read Letters to the Editor and Op-Eds that have been published in various newspapers and news sources.
Donald Trump was recently severely criticized for suggesting that the U.S. should limit or temporarily suspend the immigration of certain ethnic groups, nationalities and even people of certain religions.
The critics condemned such a suggestion as being, among other things, un-American, dumb, stupid, reckless, dangerous and racist. The president called such a prohibition on immigration unconstitutional.
But, surprise: It seems that the selective immigration ban is already law and has been applied on several occasions.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 allows for the “Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by the president. Whenever the president finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
The act was utilized by Jimmy Carter, no less, in 1979 to keep Iranians out of the United States. He made all Iranian students already here check in, and then deported seven thousand for violation of their visas. Some 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the U.S.
The Quran forbids Muslims to swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution; therefore, technically, all Muslims should be refused immigration.
I must comment on the June 19 letters to the editor. They were some of the best I’ve read in a long time.
I would go a step further on the immigration issue and close our doors to all immigration for a period of time. We do not want to become so over-populated ourselves that we become a third-world nation.
And, by all means, let’s have English as the language of our country.
The 2016 Oregon legislative session confirmed that voters got a “pig in a poke” when they approved even-year “short” sessions, just as some of us warned.
The 2016 session was also rife with back-room deals, pandering to special interests, deliberate efforts to keep the public in the dark, one-hour hearing notices and bogus “emergency” clauses.
Half the bills approved in the last two legislative sessions included emergency clauses. In very few cases were these justified. Instead, the emergency clause is now primarily a means to prevent voter oversight of legislative decisions. Under an emergency clause, a bill becomes law immediately upon the governor’s signature, leaving no opportunity for a referendum.
The use of the emergency clause increased markedly after voters overturned the legislature’s ill-conceived Senate Bill 833 (illegal immigrant driver cards) by a ratio of 2 to 1 in 2014. A legislative source reports that adding the clause is now the default protocol when bills are drafted by legislative counsel.
We can rein in this abuse. Oregon Initiative Petition 49, now in circulation, would require a two-thirds majority vote in both legislative chambers to approve any bill with an attached emergency clause. Certain exceptions for true emergencies (e.g., natural disasters) would be allowed.
Google “nofakeemergencies” to find a link to the petition. Signatures must be in by June 29. Let’s stop this phony nonsense: Please sign the petition and spread the word!
During the presidential primary season, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump attacked their parties’ nominating processes as rigged against rank-and-file citizens.
For sheer voter disenfranchisement, however, those processes have nothing on Oregon legislators’ abuse of the “emergency clause” — an abuse Oregonians soon may get a chance to end.
What is the emergency clause? It is wording in a bill that can make the bill effective immediately upon its approval by the House, Senate and governor. Without such a clause, a bill becomes law no earlier than 90 days from the end of the legislative session in which it was approved.
In Oregon’s system of direct democracy, those 90 days are crucial. If a group of citizens opposes a recently approved bill and wants to rally fellow Oregonians to scuttle it before it becomes law, that group must, within those 90 days, collect a constitutionally stipulated number of registered voters’ signatures (equal to 4 percent of votes cast for governor in the last election). If the group does so, the bill is put before voters for an up-or-down vote — what’s known as a referendum — in the next general election.
When, however, lawmakers approve a bill containing an emergency clause and it takes effect immediately, they foreclose citizens’ right to pursue a referendum.
Now, in a true emergency, the clause can serve a valid purpose — say, to swiftly allot money to mitigate a natural disaster. Sometimes, however, lawmakers employ the clause to a less noble end: to shield from challenge a bill they know is controversial or unpopular and that, if put to referendum, many Oregonians may vote against and possibly defeat.
Consider, for instance, the 2015 session’s Senate Bill 932, which granted illegal-immigrant college students the right to compete with U.S. citizens for taxpayer-funded Oregon Opportunity Grant scholarships. Last summer, the bill was passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor — and it contained an emergency clause.
Now, the bill’s sponsors certainly knew it would be opposed by many Oregonians. The reason: Barely half a year before, in a 2014 referendum, the state’s voters had defeated SB 833 — a bill approved in 2013 that had sought to grant driving privileges to illegal immigrants — by a near 2-1 margin. That vote had made clear Oregonians’ staunch disapproval of government-sponsored benefits for illegal immigrants. Is it not probable, then, that SB 932’s sponsors attached an emergency clause to the bill to deter what might have been a successful referendum against it?
This is hardly unfounded conjecture. No less an authority than Sen. Doug Whitsett, R-Klamath Falls, a longtime legislator who knows how politics is played, has stated bluntly that the primary purpose of many bills’ emergency clauses is to “block the constitutionally guaranteed right of the people to refer.” As the old saying goes: If something looks, walks and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.
The bottom line: When legislators use the emergency clause to thwart potential referenda, they steal a critical means of government oversight and control from the very citizens they were elected to represent. Oregonians need to restore that clause to its proper, limited role in lawmaking.
An initiative petition is being circulated to do just that. If it reaches the November ballot and is passed by voters, the “No More Fake Emergencies” Act will require most bills containing emergency clauses to receive the votes of two-thirds (rather than the current bare majority) of both the House and Senate to pass — a threshold that would rein in lawmakers’ use of the clause to deter referenda.
Registered voters should go to nofakeemergencies.com and print, sign and put a petition into the U.S. mail by June 29. By doing so, they can help restore the voice of the citizen, as manifested in the referendum, to its paramount place in Oregon’s representative democracy.
Richard F. LaMountain served as a chief petitioner of the 2014 referendum via which Oregon voters rejected Senate Bill 833, the 2013 bill that sought to grant “driver cards” to illegal immigrants. He lives in Cedar Mill.
While Oregonians are being asked to welcome large numbers of refugees, we must think of the repercussions on our towns and citizens.
President Obama plans to bring in at least 10,000 additional Syrian refugees to the U.S. this year. Simultaneously, we learn from testimony on June 16 by CIA Director John Brennan that grave danger comes through refugee flows.
His testimony can be seen and heard on a C-SPAN video posted on the internet.
He said that despite our progress against ISIL on the battlefield and in the financial realm, “our efforts have not reduced the group’s terrorism capability and global reach.” He pointed out that the resources needed for terrorism are modest, and that ISIL has a large cadre of western fighters who could attack in the West and is probably exploring ways to infiltrate more agents.
President Obama reduced the screening process to three months for Syrian refugees despite a warning from the FBI director that the U.S. cannot thoroughly screen them for terrorist ties even in the previously allotted 18-24 months.
We pray for peace, but there are too many hazards in bringing in current numbers. It is an unwise policy that should be resisted by Oregon’s governor.
Elizabeth Van Staaveren
Cynthia Kendoll’s June 9 guest opinion was extremely accurate and complete. She obviously has a clear understanding of the out-of-control illegal immigration problem in Oregon.
The blame must be put on the lack of enforcement by President Obama and Gov. Kate Brown and the law enforcement department. Too many Oregonians have been victimized by illegal immigrants and the blame rests entirely upon those who are supposed to be protecting us, which is their responsibility!
It is incredible that the authorities release incarcerated illegal immigrants back into our communities where they will be free, once again, to victimize our fellow law-abiding citizens. Illegal immigrants should be deported and, if they return, they should be re-incarcerated for a minimum of five years.
Is this a matter of incompetence, irresponsibility or just plain stupidity?
It is up to “we the people” to vote them out of office and replace them with responsible leaders. The November elections cannot come too soon to install leaders who will do their jobs.
It is amazing that a citizen like Cynthia Kendoll could intelligently and easily solve the problem that our current leaders either cannot or will not do.
"The population explosion" was an openly discussed issue some 40 or more years ago. But in recent decades the whole idea of overpopulation and even the word itself have come into ill repute and are studiously avoided in public conversation.
Unpleasant problems, however, cannot be neglected forever. Today, conditions are forcing policymakers and concerned citizens to think about population policy, the numbers of people in the U.S. and how those numbers relate to economic and social circumstances.
Cities and states are faced with many problems arising from huge increases in population in recent years. Schools everywhere are overcrowded and have insufficient funds to function satisfactorily for the numbers enrolled. Established neighborhoods resist enforced density. Expansion of buildings into natural areas is a constant source of conflict. Perhaps half of all political issues covered in news media today are related to increases in the size of the population.
We must think about the impact on the environment and quality of life as the U.S. population burgeons at the rate of one person added every 12 seconds, with no end in sight. Census figures show that in the U.S. we now have one birth every eight seconds, one death every 13 seconds and one international migrant every 28 seconds — making a net gain of one person every 12 seconds.
Population growth in Oregon and the United States at present is mainly triggered by international immigration, not births to native-born American citizens. The Center for Immigration Studies has recently issued an interactive map showing details of population growth for each state.
Overall, one-third of the nation's 50 states now have immigrant populations (immigrants with their minor children) which are over 15 percent of total, and six states have over 25 percent immigrant populations. Oregon's total population in 2015 was 4,050,000, and 16.9 percent of that was composed of immigrants and their minor children. There were 683,000 immigrants and their minor children here in 2015. In 1970, within the lifetime of millions of citizens, Oregon had only 2,091,000 people — of whom only 5 percent (105,000) were immigrants with their minor children.
Without reductions in immigration levels, we are headed for unsustainable population growth in the near future. Recent Census figures show that 3.1 million new immigrants (legal and illegal) settled in the country in 2014 and 2015, or more than 1.5 million annually. When immigration problems are discussed, usually illegal immigration is the main focus, but the enormous impact of immigration is largely the result of those brought in legally.
There is an optimum level of population related to the size and resources of a geographical area. Some scientists have made estimates and say at usual consumption rates, the optimum number for the U.S. is about 150 million people. We now have over 323 million people, with large numbers being added constantly. How can our life-giving natural environment survive this onslaught of people? Will all the forests and farmlands morph into housing developments?
The future looks grim for this country and for Oregon if immigration levels are not drastically reduced now. It's time for a lengthy moratorium on immigration on the basis of numbers alone. This would significantly ease current economic and social problems in Oregon and other states and gradually improve the quality of life.
Is it morally wrong to deny admittance to aspiring migrants? The U.S. provides financial aid and technical assistance to poor countries around the world. Citizens of other countries must look to their own governments and institutions to achieve acceptable living conditions at home, and they will do so if easy escape to the U.S. is closed for the millions now emigrating.
Elizabeth Van Staaveren, of McMinnville, is a longtime member of Oregonians for Immigration Reform.
Three weeks ago, two students hung a banner that proclaimed “Build a wall” — the “wall” being Donald Trump’s proposed barrier on the U.S.-Mexico border — in a hallway of heavily-Hispanic Forest Grove High School. The response: highly-publicized, anti-banner protests by students and their supporters at FGHS and throughout the metro region.
At a protest in downtown Portland, some leveled claims that Hispanic students, at FGHS and other schools, are routinely victimized by racial bias. State-legislative candidate Diego Hernandez, reported Pamplin Media Group’s Joseph Gallivan, decried an alleged “history of discrimination at Forest Grove High School.” He was joined by United We Stand’s Eddie Bolaños, who issued a statement “demanding a change of policy and protocols, and an action planto deal with systematic racism in the schools.”
This is interesting. “Systematic racism” — leveled against Hispanic students? Let’s look at one of the “policies and protocols” that, for years, already has been aimed at young Hispanics: affirmative action.
Princeton University professor Russell K. Nieli, summarizing a 2009 study of elite colleges’ admissions data by two of his Princeton colleagues, reported that “being Hispanic conferred an admissions boost over being white ... equivalent to 130 SAT points (out of 1600).” The University of Michigan’s Mark J. Perry capsulized data from the Association of American Medical Colleges to show that from 2007 to 2009, medical-school applicants with GPAs of 3.00 to 3.19 and MCAT scores of 24 to 26 were almost ten times likelier to be admitted if they were Hispanic, black or Native American than if they were white or Asian.
And, reported Capitol Media Services’ Howard Fischer, a 2008 study by the Center for Equal Opportunity found that at Arizona State University’s law school “a Hispanic is 85 times more likely to be admitted ... than a white with equal qualifications.”
Even young Hispanics here illegally (Hispanics, the Pew Research Center reports, have recently comprised four-fifths of illegal immigrants) are sometimes favored for college admissions over their American peers. In 2011, for instance, Maryland required its state universities to grant in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. Afterward, former University of Maryland assistant dean James Purtilo told Fox News, admissions personnel routinely favored illegal immigrants over Americans because they helped “fill out the diversity picture for the admissions office.”
And what, specifically, of Oregon?
In 2013 the state legislature passed and Gov. John Kitzhaber signed House Bill 2787, which grants certain illegal immigrants — those who entered the United States as minors and graduated from Oregon high schools — in-state tuition to the state’s public universities. In 2015 lawmakers went further, approving Senate Bill 932, which credentials illegal-immigrant college students to compete with U.S. citizens for taxpayer-funded Oregon Opportunity Grant scholarships.
And to ice the cake, that year they also passed House Bill 2407, which gives illegal immigrants race-based preferences for those scholarships over American students.
Hard to believe? Here’s how it works: HB 2407’s text authorizes the state Office of Student Access and Completion to “prioritize awarding Oregon Opportunity Grants to qualified students ... whose circumstances would enhance the promotion of equity guidelines published by the Higher Education Coordinating Commission.” Those guidelines, explains Sen. Doug Whitsett, R-Klamath Falls, are based upon an “equity lens” whose purpose is to maximize “funding for students from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups.”
And foremost among those “underrepresented” groups? Illegal-immigrant youths, who are overwhelmingly Hispanic — a fact which, thanks to HB 2407, gives them preference for Oregon Opportunity Grants over white and, in many cases, Asian-American applicants.
Does all this sound like “systematic racism” against Hispanic students?
Since before the current demonstrators were born and right up to the present day, Hispanic students in Forest Grove and across the nation — including many here illegally — have benefited mightily from the affirmative-action preferences that give them significant educational advantages over their white and Asian counterparts. Rather than level unsubstantiated charges of “systematic racism” in schools, they should express appreciation for those advantages.
And they should understand they receive them for the very reason they claim they are “discriminated” against: because they are Hispanic.
Richard F. LaMountain, a former assistant editor of Conservative Digest magazine, lives in Cedar Mill.
Oregonians have recently chosen major-party nominees for governor and the Legislature. Now those candidates should explain how they would take action to solve a serious state problem: crime by illegal immigrants.
Should citizens and lawmakers be concerned about the crimes committed by illegal immigrants? In April 2016, almost half of Oregon’s Department of Corrections foreign inmates awaiting transfer to U.S. authorities (some 47 percent) were incarcerated for rape and other sex crimes. More than 14 percent were serving time for murder and 11 percent for drug offenses. These crimes have real victims.
David Olen Cross, a Salem-based expert on foreign-national crime, has analyzed DOC data to elucidate the problem’s magnitude. His findings: In April, 948 foreign nationals awaiting transfer to federal immigration authorities (the great majority of them almost certainly illegal immigrants) were incarcerated in Oregon state prisons. (DOC does not disclose how many of its foreign inmates are here illegally. But a recent Syracuse University study found that nationally, more than 90 percent of foreign inmates held by state and local law-enforcement agencies for eventual surrender to U.S. immigration authorities were illegal immigrants.)
Obama administration policies have compounded illegal-immigrant crime. The federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, Investor’s Business Daily reported recently, “last year opted not to deport but to release 19,723 criminal illegal immigrants, including 208 convicted murderers, more than 900 convicted sex offenders and 12,307 convicted drunk drivers.” Many, the paper noted, will “go on to commit additional crimes.”
Rather than deport all of Oregon’s currently incarcerated illegal immigrants, then, after they complete their sentences, federal authorities may release some back into Oregon communities where they will be free, once again, to victimize our fellow citizens.
Strong action against illegal-immigrant crime should be an urgent priority of our next governor and Legislature. And the best way to fight crime is to prevent it: to dissuade illegal immigrants (who, after all, are violating federal law by their very presence in our country) from coming to Oregon in the first place.
To this end, lawmakers first should reject any new effort to give illegal immigrants the driving privileges that would attract even more of them to Oregon — the privileges, remember, voters rejected overwhelmingly in 2014.
Second, they should mandate that Oregon employers vet their new hires’ legal U.S. presence through the free, federal E-Verify system — a mandate that, enacted in Arizona in 2007, between 2008 and 2009 helped reduce that state’s illegal-immigrant population by 100,000.
Third, they should pass a law to deny illegal immigrants most non-emergency state services.
And last, they should repeal Oregon Revised Statute 181.850, a de facto “sanctuary” law that presumes to limit state and local law-enforcement agencies’ efforts to help apprehend illegal immigrants. After that repeal, they should offer federal immigration authorities (who may, under our next president, resume strong immigration-law enforcement) their robust cooperation.
Too many Oregonians have been victimized — some irreparably — by illegal immigrants. It is time for this to end. Illegal-immigrant crime is eminently preventable by keeping illegal immigrants from our state in the first place. Such a goal must be a foremost priority of our next governor and Legislature.
Cynthia Kendoll of Salem is president of Oregonians for Immigration Reform. She can be reached through oregonir.org.
THE NEWS TRIBUNE
June 7, 2016 4:03 PM
Immigration: Newcomers responsible for assimilating
Otto Matsch, Tacoma
Should immigration be restricted or should it be open to anyone who can get here? From 1492 until the 20th century, anyone who could get here was allowed entry and could become an American. The immigrants, primarily Europeans, brought their own cultures, languages and religions into the melting pot, but made no efforts to assimilate with the Native Americans. Ask the tribes how that turned out.
A few years after World War II, as a young child, I immigrated to the U.S. The screening process for my parents was thorough and lengthy. We became Americans. Those who seek political, religious and economic freedom should be welcomed, and those who seek to forcibly impose their cultures should be excluded.
BND BELLEVIEW NEWS-DEMOCRAT
June 7, 2016 7:00 PM
Immigrants should adapt to their new home
I still remember as a little boy walking with my mom on Saturdays to a local school for our weekly handouts of powdered milk and cheese. We were told it was a gift from America. At that time I didn’t know much about America but we were grateful because Americans’ generosity kept us from going hungry.
Back then the desire to move to the land of “milk and cheese” was born and when the opportunity presented itself I left everything behind, even my dying father, to achieve my dream. As I arrived the process of assimilation began. This was rather easy for me because I wanted to live American dream. I also had plenty of people who embraced me and reached out to help. I will never forget my naturalization ceremony and the gleaming pride and joy I felt that day.
This doesn’t seem to be the case with today’s immigrants. They seem to resist assimilation. They tend to create their own enclaves, little countries of their own and physically they are here but their hearts are not. They don’t seem to appreciate a second chance on life gifted to them. You get impression they don’t love this land and want to be here. I often argue with my countrymen about this, they criticize me for being too Americanized, I tell them thank you for the compliment. The choice for immigrants is simple, you either love and live the life of this country or move out.
Anton Babic, Belleville
The Herald News
Letter: Sheriff Tom Hodgson applauds Gov. Charlie Baker's immigration action
Baker's action will lead to increased communication, cooperation and intelligence-sharing between law enforcement agencies on all levels, from local police and sheriff's departments to state and federal authorities.
Posted Jun. 7, 2016 at 5:12 PM
Is the opioid epidemic solely the responsibility of the Drug Enforcement Administration?
Is illegal drug trafficking, from large scale to neighborhood dealers, also the DEA’s responsibility?
The suggestion that immigration enforcement is only a federal responsibility and we should prohibit local and state law enforcement from supporting and working with federal authorities is just like tasking the DEA, and the DEA alone, to solve those drug problems.
That’s why I fully support and applaud Gov. Charlie Baker’s action last week to reverse a Gov. Deval Patrick-era policy and allow state police to detain undocumented immigrants at federal authorities’ request.
Baker’s action will lead to increased communication, cooperation and intelligence-sharing between law enforcement agencies on all levels, from local police and sheriff’s departments to state and federal authorities.
Since when should the security of our citizens and legal residents be compromised by elected officials who encourage less cooperation between state, local and federal authorities by way of sharing resources and coordinating our enforcement and detention of law breakers to keep us safe?
Why would anyone, especially an elected representative of our citizens and legal residents, want law enforcement to have less tools to keep us safe?
Thankfully for Baker’s actions, more communication and cooperation are on the horizon in the ongoing battle against the illegal immigration problem in our country. Let’s hope the many other elected officials that are pro-illegal-aliens follow suit.
How do those officials reconcile the differences between the 5 million people waiting behind their borders, respecting the laws of the United States and lawfully completing the citizenship application process, and those who refuse to obey our laws and either pay to be smuggled or sneak across our border?
Those who immigrate legally pay a good deal of money to obtain their citizenship and, yet, we have elected officials who believe those who violated our laws and enter the country illegally should be given housing, welfare, free air/land transportation to their U.S. destination, medical benefits and education — all paid for by U.S. citizens, legal residents and those who earned their citizenship by adhering to our laws and the procedures required to become a U.S. citizen.
It’s simply moronic and grossly unfair.
Thomas M. Hodgson
Bristol County Sheriff
WEST HARTFORD NEWS - Serving the West Hartford community since 1931
Don Pesci: Death in a closet
June 07, 2016
When Casey Chadwick’s friend opened the door to a closet on June 15 a little less than a year ago, he found her body stuffed in a dark corner drenched in blood. At the trial of Jean Jacques, an illegal Haiti alien, a medical examiner would later tell a jury how she died. Jacques had slashed and stabbed Ms. Chadwick 15 times. A severed jugular vein and carotid artery caused her to lose 40 percent of her blood within seconds of the attack.
Jean Jacques was convicted of murder on April 11 and will be sentenced June 6 by Judge Barbara Jongbloed. The convicted murderer faces between 25 years and 60 years in prison. Connecticut’s Democrat dominated General Assembly a few years ago abolished the state’s death penalty for all capital murder crimes, however heinous.
This was the second time around the block for Mr. Jacques. Having earlier been convicted of attempted murder, he was sentenced to 17 years in prison. Upon release, Mr. Jacques should have been remanded to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and deported back to Haiti. Even now it is unclear whether ICE had physical or administrative custody of Mr. Jacques three times and failed to deport him each time.
Wendy Hartling, Chadwick’s mother, wants to know who slipped on her daughter’s blood. She had been given to understand that Connecticut prison authorities should have delivered their prisoner to ICE officials. Connecticut official have pointed an accusing finger at ICE. When ICE did not pick up their package, Connecticut authorities washed their hands of the matter. Following the murder, ICE claimed it previously had tried and failed to deport Mr. Jacques to Haiti, which would not accept him without proper citizenship papers. At the completion of his 17 year sentence, Mr. Jacques was jailed once more on a parole violation and then released in January.
One bloody hand washes the other: An illegal alien who had been convicted of attempted murder spends 17 (SEVENTEEN) years in the custody of Connecticut’s prison officials, the guest of Michel Lawlor, Governor Dannel Malloy’s Under Secretary for Criminal Justice Policy and Planning; having served his time, Mr. Jacques escapes the prehensile grasp of both ICE and Connecticut prison authorities and then murders Ms. Chadwick, not the sort of turn of events that would make any citizen of the state sleep soundly in their beds.
Judicial Watch, the organization responsible for prying loose through a FOI suit many of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s unvetted and incriminating-mails, has taken an interest in the case. “The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General,” according to Judicial Watch, “has reluctantly agreed to ‘investigate’ how the agency could possibly fail to deport an illegal immigrant with a serious criminal record at least three times, allowing him to murder a young woman in Connecticut. Pressure from the state’s congressional delegation landed the probe on the busy watchdog’s lengthy list of ‘ongoing projects,’ so interested parties shouldn’t hold their breath for answers.”
Among the interested parties are Connecticut’s two U.S. Senators, Dick Blumenthal, for twenty years Connecticut’s Attorney General, and Chris Murphy. Mr. Blumenthal has spent nearly all the years of his public service muscling businesses on behalf of consumers, a politically rewarding activity he has continued in the Senate. He may be just the man to light a fire under ICE. There are, of course, countervailing political eddies pushing such cases to and fro.
Judicial Watch notes: “Well known for supporting illegal immigrant rights, the Connecticut lawmakers are only demanding answers because Chadwick’s murder occurred in their backyard. In fact, both senators helped block a bill last year that would have stripped federal policing grants from sanctuary cities and states like Connecticut. Now they’re getting the runaround from ICE which has responded to their ‘repeated inquiries’ in an ‘incomplete and unsatisfactory’ manner, according to a joint announcement. The lawmakers also blast ICE, stating that it is ‘unacceptable’ that the agency failed to remove the Haitian illegal alien considering his criminal record.”
Everyone involved in this mishap – if a brutal murder of one of Mr. Blumenthal’s innocent constituents may be called such – is very busy. Casey Chadwick’s mother is less busy. She sits at home wondering how long her daughter’s body will remain in the closet, whether the mishap has been corrected, whether someone else’s daughter will, be brutally murdered by yet another illegal alien who has turned to drug running to make a living, confident that in Connecticut’s new reality no one is manning the state’s penology ship.
Don Pesci is a writer who lives in Vernon. E-mail: email@example.com
The News- Gazette
Immigration now a woe worldwide
Immigration is becoming (and has become) a problem almost the world over.
The most serious evidence is found in Europe and neighboring countries, where many of the immigrants are Muslim.
Where are all the immigrants coming from — and why? Is the oppression so widely spread in the world that people running from their homes is the only solution? Or is there another motivation?
One has to ask what our "beloved" United Nations is doing (if anything) to curb this "migration."
The United Kingdom is seriously considering dropping out of the European Union — mainly due to immigration policies in member countries (although Britain itself apparently has open doors also).
Germany, when Chancellor Angela Merkel opened its doors to immigrants, has finally had its "fill" of immigrants (thousands upon thousands), as have other countries.
The United States has also seemingly opened its doors (mostly illegals, supposedly also in the thousands).
The long view for countries who accept them is be careful.
Apparently vetting is almost impossible (even if they have the means to do it) with the number of people involved.
Be careful, America.
The Mercury News
Don't blame Trump for S.J. rally violence
Mayor Sam Liccardo of San Jose and others have said that it was in part Donald Trump's fault that there was violence in San Jose. This is twisted logic. Trump is not responsible for there being many illegal immigrants in the country. He is not responsible for our government failing to send them home. And he is not responsible for violence outside his rally. Public officials should speak out against violence. And they should work to see that our immigration laws are enforced.
PART OF THE USA TODAY NETWORK
Pensacola 9:35 a.m.
Enter U.S. legally
In response to the letter of May 15, regarding deportation, I would like to offer an opinion. The lady who wrote in lamented that deporting a young girl’s parents was somehow “sickening.” What is sickening to me is that this child’s parents did not care enough about her to take the necessary steps to be in the country legally.
We have something called the Constitution and these things called laws. If you break the law you pay the consequences. If I was knowingly doing something that would have a bad effect on my child, I would try desperately to rectify the situation. Any good parent would do the same.
One is either on the side of the law or against it. A criminal is a criminal; it’s that simple. A child left behind is the result of averting the law.
— Delta Hixon, Pace
READERS WRITE: Time for Illegals to get out of the country
Jun 4, 2016
To the editor:
After seeing the anarchy in San Diego at Trump's rally, it seems he's right about the kinds of people coming across our borders.
It would be interesting to know how many of these cowards are illegal alien felons that Obama had released from prisons by the thousands.
You expect this stuff to happen under this administration led by a president who constantly breaks the laws of the Constitution. It's a shame these two-bit punks with their faces covered didn't end up with a few broken bones and some sense knocked in to their heads.
If they're illegal, they should be deported and take their Mexican flags with them. This is what we get when we pander and don't punish illegal aliens and so called refugees that wander in to this country.
Just think, we actually have people here that think we're enriched by allowing illegals and people that don't and won't assimilate, and they are also the ones pushing the Dream Act and don't want us to separate families.
Sorry, that's not my problem. The Illegals should have thought of that before they crossed our borders.
It's time our country becomes our country and not a sanctuary for degenerates and anarchists.
THE DAILY JOURNAL
The Peninsula’s homepage
Letter: Ending illegal immigration
Jun 3, 2016
Trump wants to end illegal immigration — is that wrong or just “politically incorrect” for Democrats? By definition, breaking U.S. immigration laws is “illegal” behavior so how is it controversial to end something that is illegal? Democrats want to encourage illegal immigration, however, because their Hispanic voting block votes 96 percent in favor of Democrats. But that it traitorous conduct toward low-income and middle-class U.S. citizens who lose jobs, have their wages suppressed and who, ironically, pay their U.S. tax dollars to support immigrants receiving free health care/education/welfare/driver’s licenses/etc. Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for supporting Mexican flag-waving immigrants who burn U.S. flags at Trump rallies, and who attack police vehicles, assault Americans and hurl insults at U.S. veterans. A sovereign country has a right to end illegal immigration, without any apologies to lawbreakers, and the United States should do that here and now. Democrats can find new voters somewhere else.
GOP candidates condemn court ruling on illegal aliens
TAYLOR ROSE and 12 CO-SIGNERS [June 2, 2016] 12 hrs ago
In 2012, the people of Montana spoke loud and clear on the issue of illegal immigration when 80 percent of Montana voters passed Legislative Referendum 121, a law to prohibit state taxpayer-funded services from being utilized by illegal aliens.
Since the passage of LR-121, two Montana courts have ruled directly against the law and the will of the people. The most recent blow came from the Montana Supreme Court.
We believe these courts made a bad decision when they ruled against LR-121. It is the job of the courts to determine whether a law is being followed or not. It is not within the court’s authority to make laws. That power rests solely with the people, or the elected legislature.
Jeffrey Sherlock, a liberal District Court Judge in Helena, struck down most of LR-121 in 2014. On May 12, the Montana Supreme Court struck down the remaining provision that would have required state workers to report to federal immigration officials the names of job or benefit applicants who are in Montana illegally.
The adversarial court rulings seriously interfere with Montana’s ability to protect not only our state finances, but also our state sovereignty against a lawless federal government that is unwilling to enforce immigration law.
The plaintiff’s attorney in last month's decision, Shahid Haque-Hausrath, said the people of Montana have no business creating enforcement schemes, and that the law is “discriminatory” against “immigrants.”
We, the Republican legislative candidates, soundly reject this misrepresentation of LR-121 and declare that it is wrong to place the interests of people who enter our country and state illegally over the rights and interests of lawful taxpayers, citizens, voters and working families.
According to the Federation For American Immigration Reform, Montana spent nearly $33 million on illegal aliens in 2009, and since then the number of illegal aliens has risen. This is money that is being diverted from communities and law-abiding Montanans in need.
We need to fix roads and bridges, ensure public safety, care for seniors and veterans, fight crime and provide essential services at the state and local level. However, since the court says we cannot even verify the citizenship of applicants for public services, we are open to a flood of financial demands that will continue to take funds away from our citizens and provide incentives for illegal immigration.
These courts have acted in manner adversarial to the law enacted by the people of Montana. We condemn this recent ruling and affirm our support of the law that prohibits illegal aliens from receiving taxpayer funds. We believe it is our duty to put Montana first and stand against judicial activism and federal overreach.
This opinion is signed by Flathead Republican state legislative candidates Taylor Rose, candidate for House District 3; Matt Regier, candidate for House District 4; Chet Billi, candidate for House District 5; Rep. Carl Glimm, candidate for House District 6; Rep. Steve Lavin, candidate for House District 8; Rep. Randy Brodehl, candidate for House District 9; Rep. Mark Noland, candidate for House District 10; Derek Skees, candidate for House District 11; Rep. Bob Brown, candidate for House District 13; Sen. Dee Brown, candidate for Senate District 2; Rep. Keith Regier, candidate for Senate District 3; Rep. Al Olszewski, candidate for Senate District 6; and Sen. Jennifer Fielder, candidate for Senate District 7.
Published by the NEWS & RECORD
There’s a clear choice for the next president
Posted: Thursday, June 2, 2016 12:00 am
There are very strict federal laws already on the books addressing immigration to the U.S. and the standards that must be met for citizenship. Being able to climb over a flimsy fence under the cover of darkness in the deserts of Arizona, Texas or Southern California does not satisfy the federal laws or meet the standards for citizenship.
Of late, no U.S. president has bothered to enforce these laws due to either pandering for votes by Democrats or pandering to business interests by Republicans.
We are down to two candidates who are vying for the job of chief law enforcement officer of the country.
One of them advocates following the federal laws already on the books while the other advocates allowing those able to crawl over/under a flimsy fence to continue to flood the country with cheap, illegal labor, and if that fails, granting them “government assistance” in the form of welfare cash payments, food stamps and “free” education along with “free” health care.
One candidate is a child of government who married her politician meal ticket while the other was wildly successful in the rough and tumble private-sector business world.
The choice is stark.
Your community. Your Newspaper
June 2, 2016
To the Editor,
In last week’s issue of the Record Gazette, a contributor wrote, “Illegal immigration is a complex issue which both extreme sides reduce to a single problem – single solution agendas, neither which is a good solution.”
How so? Illegal has a meaning and there are those who attempt to confuse and obfuscate the true answer! Look up the definition of illegal and you have the answer. Two sides – nope!
It is illegal to drive on the wrong side of the street! Two sides – hardly!
It is illegal to stop in at your local bank and make a withdrawal at the point of a gun! Two sides – not in this world!
Why are there then two sides on the question of illegal immigration? There are two sides only because there are those simple souls in this country who put the needs of these illegals over the needs of our own people. This isn’t a question of racism whatsoever; that is a fallback argument of those who choose to neglect our own people over the needs of those from other countries which countries, by the way, have no interest at all in stopping the outgoing flood. It’s much easier to dump these people on the Americans and let those poor fools bear the cost.
When my grandparents came to this country in the late 1800s, they entered through Ellis Island; those who failed to meet the requirements were sent back to their country without delay. My grandparents went on the learn the language and went to work.
Why is there a problem now? It exists because of special interests; these people care little about the fact that illegal immigration is weakening our country or that these illegals are driving up the cost of everything from education to health and welfare as well as the cost of living. A complex issue? Only if it suits your personal agenda
R.S. Bibbo, Banning
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Trump would offer 'something different' as president
Gary Kump June 1, 2016]
Like it or not, it appears that we have two presidential candidates to choose from. Some say our choice is the lesser of two evils, either “Crooked” Hillary or “Loose Canon” Trump. I have a little bit of a different take. I see this presidential contest as a choice between “Same Old” vs. “Something Different.”
“Same Old” means the continuation of a failed administration along with a do-nothing Congress (Democrats and Republicans). “Same Old” means continuing to increase our national debt, continuing to decimate our military, continuing to allow illegal aliens to pour across our Southern border, a continuation of American businesses building factories abroad, and a continuation of forcing political correctness down our throat. Rather than trying to solve the problems that affect our well-being as a nation, our leaders appear to be more concerned with what bathroom a transgender person should use. They allow protesters to burn the American flag while waving the flag of Mexico. They treat illegal aliens better that they do our military veterans.
The age-old definition of insanity is dong the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result. By this definition, we Americans are insane! We keep voting for politicians who continue to do nothing and have no accountability.
Theoretically, Congress works for us, yet they set their own salaries, set up their own generous healthcare system, ensure that they have lucrative retirement benefits etc.! Is it time to try “Something Different”? Is Trump the answer? We don’t know, nor can we guarantee that he can make things better. But he knows how to create a budget, how to create jobs, how to negotiate, and how to make people accountable. He tells it like it is rather than parsing his words to be politically correct.
Think hard before you cast your ballot for president. Decide whether you are choosing between the lesser of two evils or are choosing between “Same Old” or “Something Different." “Same Old” is destined for failure while choosing “Something Different” at least gives us a chance at improving the future of our great country.
-- Gary Kump, Butte
Letter: More attention needed on immigration issues
June 1, 2016
By Mike Bogle, Windom
Gayle Huehn’s letter, “Enough with the lies about immigration,” in the May 25 Daily Globe was confusing because she failed to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration. While legal immigrants can take jobs legally, illegal immigrants can’t. They create a shadow economy and because they can’t integrate fully, they are more prone to crime to meet their needs. The greater problem is that a country that cannot secure its borders cannot preserve its identity and keep its citizens safe (remember Kate Steinle).
While both Republicans and Democrats claim to support the rule of law, Democrats tend to turn a blind eye to “sanctuary cities” and catch-and-release policies in order to court the Latino vote. This is putting their jobs above the safety and security of the citizens.
Democrats want to discourage domestic energy production by over-regulation. Donald Trump wants to turn our economy loose, make trade fair and incentivize industry to stay and even return to America. Don’t let a few “red meat” remarks distract from the main menu.
We shouldn’t forget how we got fooled by a politically correct sweet-talker last time who did nothing about immigration reform in the two years his party controlled the House and Senate. By all means, vote as if your life and livelihood depended on it. Tis time it probably does.
Davidson County’s News Source
Letter to the editor
Legislator gets criticism for bill
June 1, 2016
Editor: I am writing concerning the candidacy of Harry Warren for U.S. Congress. Many in our county have probably never heard of Mr. Warren of Rowan County, but they should be forewarned of his stance on immigration. Last year Mr. Warren was the primary sponsor of a bill (HB 328) that would have granted North Carolina driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants (Editor's note: The bill uses the term "undocumented aliens" and would have allowed them to obtain restricted drivers permits and restricted identification cards).
Mr. Warren has changed his tune since being the primary drafter, sponsor and advocate for a bill that would have granted driving privileges and state-issued documentation to illegal immigrants, but, he cannot change the facts. He supported amnesty and now wants to be our congressman.
A vote for Harry Warren is a vote to legitimize illegal immigration.
The Modesto Bee
May 31, 2016
Dean Russell: Immigrants should embrace English, our flag and all Americans
Theodore Roosevelt made a statement back in the year 1907, 109 years ago. We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith to become an American, and assimilates, he or she shall be treated equally with everyone else. It is an outrage to discriminate against anyone because of creed, birthplace or origin.
But this is predicated upon the person becoming in every facet an American and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Anyone who says he or she is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for only one flag – the American flag. We have room for only one language – English. We have room for but one sole loyalty – to the American people.
In case some of you don’t know American history. Theodore Roosevelt was the 26th president of the United States.
Dean Russell, Modesto