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.

David Olen Cross
Herald and News

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in 2015 released 19,723 criminal aliens into the country who had been convicted and served time in federal and state prisons for serious crimes like homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping, assault, drugs, driving under the influence, hit and run and a multitude of other crimes.

Here is a breakdown on the circumstances or stated reasons why ICE and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) have released these criminal aliens instead of deporting them to their country of origin:

First, federal immigration judges, who are employed by the DOJ, released on bond or custody redetermination 10,175 criminal aliens.

Second, ICE discretionally released 7,293 criminal aliens.

Third, 2,166 criminal aliens were released by ICE because a federal court decision forbid aliens being held in immigration detention centers for more than 180 days.

Fourth, ICE released 89 criminal aliens because the federal agency was unable to obtain travel documents from the aliens’ country of origin.

Countries not providing travel documents, some nations where terrorist groups are active, included: Afghanistan, Algeria, Burundi, Cape Verde, China, Cuba, Eritrea, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, India, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, and Zimbabwe.

To the detriment of public safety, the current presidential administration has been unwilling to limit visa issuance from the preceding countries, even though the administration is legally mandated to hold these counties accountable for their lack of cooperation in taking back their felonious citizens.

Regionally, data obtained from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) indicates the number of criminal aliens released by ICE into the Pacific Northwest states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho in 2015: Washington,: 665 criminal aliens; Oregon, 58 criminal aliens; and Idaho, 32 criminal aliens. A total of 755 criminal aliens were released into the three states last year.

Future impact on Pacific Northwest states: Although data are not currently available on Washington and Idaho’s Department of Corrections prison systems; data available from Oregon Department of Corrections (DOC) indicated there were 948 criminal aliens incarcerated in DOC prisons on April 1, 2016.

Some of these criminal aliens’ self-declared countries of origin may not provide them travel documents so they can be removed from the country by ICE after they complete their state prison sentences.

The Oregon DOC incarcerated 22 criminal aliens from the following countries whose citizens may be difficult to deport from the United States: Thirteen from Cuba, three from China, two from Liberia, two Somalia, one Eritrea and one from India.

Here are the types of crimes these 22 criminal aliens were convicted of in Oregon county circuit courts and sentenced to serve time in DOC prisons: Four for homicide, three for rape, three for assault, three theft, two kidnapping, two robbery, two burglary, one sex abuse, one drugs and one for another type of crime or a combination of the preceding crimes.

The most recent recidivism rate, the public safety threat to the state’s residents, from convicted felons released from the Oregon prison system is a 24.4 percent likelihood they will be convicted of a new felony after three years of their release from prison.

In the real world, in the daily lives of U.S. citizens and residents, our own federal government, by releasing 19,723 criminal aliens into the population of this country, is likely putting every man, woman and child at greater risk of being harmed or killed by felonious deportable aliens than by global terrorist organizations like ISIS or al-Qaeda.

Bio Box

David Olen Cross, Salem, writes on immigration issues and foreign national crime. He is a weekly guest on the Lars Larson Northwest Show. He can be reached at docfnc@yahoo.com or at http://docfnc.wordpress.com/. Jessica Vaughn, Director of Policy Studies for the Center of Immigrations Studies, contributed national and regional data to this report.



Why apologize for 'build a wall' banner?

By Letters to the editor The Oregonian
on May 20, 2016 at 4:25 PM

'Build a wall' banner: I want to apologize to the student at Forest Grove High School who had to write a letter of apology for being an American — while protesting students showed their allegiance to another county by waving its flag. Being from the silent generation, I'm glad I don't have children in today's public schools.

Larry G. Basler




Why apologize for 'build a wall' banner? (Letters to the Editor)

By Letters to the editor The Oregonian
on May 20, 2016 at 4:25 PM

'Build a wall' banner: I have a message for Forest Grove High School students: I do not care what color America is or becomes. I am an American citizen. I want my nation's borders respected. I want my nation's laws respected. I say "please leave" to anyone who is in my country illegally. According to my representative, Suzanne Bonamici, this is a racist and intolerant attitude. In response, I have decided to make a political change: In the past, I was simply content to support Donald Trump. I will now send him money.

Scott Holland



Detroit Free Press


Free Press readers 4:29 p.m. EDT May 20, 2016

Intention matters in immigration debate

We’re all here because somebody came from somewhere else. However, it’s unfair when illegal immigration is ignored so one political party can have a constituency and another cheap labor.

Dave Crutchfield





LETTER: New citizens may regret voting against Trump

7:43 a.m. EDT May 20, 2016

It was sad to read the March 14 story, “Trump’s rise prods N.J. immigrants to naturalize” about the flood of immigrants signing up to be naturalized in order to vote against Trump.

The unfortunate result in electing a Democrat would go a long way to ensure that they would lose their jobs. Hillary Clinton will open our borders to millions of new immigrants who will be more than happy to take the jobs currently being held by our new citizens.

Additionally, since we have not figured out a god way of determining the good immigrants from the bad there is no way of being able to tell which ones might be capable of committing serious crimes or worse, terrorism. Trump, with his exaggerated comments about illegal immigrants, knows he can’t deport all those who have come here, raised families, worked hard and contributed to society.

He does know that a number of immigrants have committed serious crimes, been deported and returned to commit more serious crimes. He is only trying to raise awareness among a very complacent populous. I cringe to think what will happen to our country if the borders are opened wide, with people flooding in without us having any idea of who they are and where they came from. Our new citizens should think twice about what they may be wishing for.

Ed Herr



Tri-City Herald

Letters to the Editor

May 18, 2016 12:59 AM

Letter: Bob Parks, Trump and the wall

Marco Rubio lost out because he thought that the Democratic liberals like Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer and moderate Republicans like John McCain could be trusted on securing the border, while at the same time making a humane way and path to citizenship of dealing with the 12-15 million illegal immigrants in our country.

Anyone dealing in reality knows that they would never keep their agreement on securing the border. In my opinion, Bob Parks, along with many of us, are totally frustrated with Obama and like Democrats, and the moderate Republicans who reject securing the border to insure more liberal voters for the Democrats, and to create cheap labor for big business. These types of people care more about their own self-interest than our national interest. Because of this, many don’t trust any deal making until the border is secure.

Donald Trump has become popular by promising to do something about it by building a wall. Many don’t necessarily like him, but they trust him far more in solving the illegal immigration problem and securing the border to better our national security than those who are part of the establishment in power now.

Lee Walter, West Richland





Pocan protects illegal aliens first

May 17, 2016

During his May 5 “listening session” at the Reedsburg Public Library, United States Rep. Mark Pocan (D-2nd) again made it clear that protecting illegal aliens is far more important than putting Americans back to work.

What makes his betrayal of our citizen workers, which has become the trademark of both political parties in recent decades, especially repugnant is that he opposes “bad trade deals” like the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership because they usually result in the movement of U.S. jobs overseas.

How can Pocan oppose the loss of jobs overseas but not object to the federal government allowing seven million illegal aliens to keep their non-farming payroll jobs while 15 million Americans can’t find full-time work?

 “There has to be a better way,” he says, to help unemployed Americans rather than disrupting the lives of those here illegally. In Pocan’s “progressive” world, that means ignoring those laws that were created to protect Americans and their jobs.

Illegal alien advocates like Pocan argue that our immigration laws lack fairness, compassion, justice and humanity. That certainly is true for the millions of jobless Americans who go to bed at night wondering what’s become of their search for a better life.

Dave Gorak, La Valle


Post-Crescent Appleton | Fox Cities


Illegal immigrants burden the system

Dave Kendall, Community Columnist 7:04 a.m. CDT May 17, 2016

Our national debt is 19.3 trillion dollars and continues to climb by half a trillion dollars each year and, not surprisingly, we have heart-wrenching poverty in America.

A 2013 UNICEF report ranked the U.S. as having the second-highest relative child poverty rates in the developed world. Sadly, one out of every five children goes to bed hungry. There are currently 324 million Americans and, disgracefully, 48 million of them live in poverty.

Charity begin at home is a mantra I fully embrace, but that shouldn’t mean filling the home with unwanted guests and ignoring family.

Undocumented immigrants come to the United States in search of a better life, which most empathize, however emotions and charitable thoughts aside, we as Americans quite frankly cannot afford it. We can’t become a welfare haven for the world. How can we afford to continue to give amnesty to people entering this country illegally when we can’t take care of our own natural citizens? It’s easy to decry America is the richest nation on the earth and we can absorb the cost. But can we really?

Richest nation in terms of personal assets, perhaps, but as a nation we are far from declaring ourselves a big brother.

Currently 11.5 million illegal immigrants are living their dream today in America, of which 8.3 million are from South America and 3.2 million from other parts of the world. A 2014 Pew survey reported one-third of adult Mexicans would migrate to the U.S. if given the opportunity, which equates to 31 million more immigrants. A 2012 Gallup poll revealed that 150 million potential emigrants from all over the world listed America as the No. 1 place they wanted to call home.

Legal immigration is highly regulated and is limited under normal circumstances to a percentage of people per country per year, which varies. Legal immigrants have been screened by the same measures for over a century — self-sufficiency is a requirement. In other words, legal immigrants should not be a burden to taxpayers. Illegal immigrants drain our economy.

Since 1986, Congress has issued a type of blanket amnesty seven times to illegal immigrants. U.S. taxpayers, regardless of myths of illegal immigrants paying their own way, have paid billions of dollars to subsidize them through government benefits. According to an extensive study issued in May of 2013, “The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer,” by Robert Rector and Jason Richwine, America cannot afford this continual drain on our already depleted resources. Immigrants who enter illegally do not cover the cost of government benefits they receive with their modest paychecks and low taxes.

According to the study, the foundation of their analysis is based on four categories of benefits that U.S. citizens receive from local, state and federal agencies. They are: Population-based services such as police, highways and parks; public education; means-tested welfare; and direct benefits such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment and workers compensation. In 2010, the average U.S. household received $31,584 in government benefits and services in these four categories. As expected, highly educated households paid in over and above to cover these benefits. The less-educated households that include illegal immigrants paid in taxes that did not cover benefit costs.

Under current law, all unlawful immigrant households together have an aggregate annual deficit of around $54.5 billion. Money that could have been used to abate poverty and suffering for American citizens.

A 2015 Gallup poll asked Americans what they thought about immigration as we head into the presidential election. Only 7 percent stated it was the most important problem, and health care and the economy were the top worries at 54 percent and 53 percent respectively. Hey America — wake up! Health care costs and the economy are directly affected by illegal immigration benefit costs that drain the system and add additional debt.

If we continue to allow millions of immigrants to slip across our borders unabated, their quality of life is certainly improved but the cost to the rest of us is a lower quality of life, driven by higher national debt. President Barack Obama seems to enjoy apologizing for everything American; I think he owes the American people an apology for allowing this to continue.

Dave Kendall is an Appleton resident. He can be reached at dkendall@new.rr.com.





Letters to the Editor 4:46 p.m. EDT May 17, 2016

Questions about illegal immigrants coming

I saw on the news that Delaware is becoming the first safe haven state for illegal immigrants. Police will not be involved with enforcing immigration laws in Delaware, laws that help control the financial burden of immigration. The News Journal reported that DSU will welcome illegals with scholarships that legal residents need, but can’t get. It would appear that these attractive policies are going to cause an influx of new residents. Lax police enforcement will also attract criminals. The News Journal reports that there are no jobs, and young Delawareans, our future tax base, are leaving the state in droves, and that the largest sector of the population who pay taxes will be the seniors, who are retired.

Where are all of these projected illegals going to work? Will they all work and pay taxes, work under the table or go on the dole? Who is going to pay for the benefits our generous governor will doubtless provide, even though non-citizens should not be entitled to anything? How about the burden placed on schools?

It would appear that the burden will fall on those fixed-income senior citizens, the mainstay of the population, most of whom are also on the dole, at least 50 percent supported by the government in the form of Social Security and Medicare benefits. The source of all government money is the taxpayer. Shouldn’t we create jobs and generate income first, before we generously spend what is not there?

Stan Lakey




Letters to the Editor

Wrong message

[May 16, 2016] Posted: Yesterday 9:08 p.m.

Re: Your story May 13, "Green light":

Your story about Christians hiding illegal immigrants sends the wrong message to our youth and to all American citizens.

America always has proclaimed that crime doesn't pay, yet blatantly Christian ministers plotted with foreign criminals to break American immigration laws and biblical laws. Am I the only one who sees this crime?

Also, how can all these lawbreakers be honored on the front page of our local newspaper and advertise a fundraiser for criminals?

Please explain this situation to law-abiding citizens who respect the law, and the men and women who enforce the laws.

Ray Holm, Thousand Oaks


UB Union-Bulletin.com

Letters To Editor

When will ‘inclusiveness’ include Americans?

Jerry Votendahl [May 15, 2016] 7 hrs ago

Liberals like to include illegals with their conversation about legal immigrants: “All are just good people wanting to improve their lives,” they say.

They like things “inclusive” — as we have seen by Whitman College’s ridiculous and mind-boggling removal of “Missionaries” as its mascot for not being inclusive enough.

This inclusive approach was mentioned by Sharon Schiller (U-B letter on May 4).

What do she and others think this “inclusive” liberal policy pertaining to “illegals” has cost Americans, whom evidently you failed to include in those “wanting to improve their lives”?

It is not only jobs lost to illegals (estimated to be some 8.5 million to date) but American treasure and lives. Contrary to your assertion illegals’ “only crime has been to immigrate,” please look at the facts.

PJ Media obtained a copy of a Texas Department of Public Safety report on the numbers of crimes committed by illegal immigrants in Texas. From 2008 to 2014 illegals have committed 611,234 crimes, of which 2,993 were homicides and 7,695 rapes and other sexual assaults.

In those states with high “illegal” population, such as Texas, California, Arizona, New York and Florida, illegals account for over 38 percent of all murders, yet constitute only 5.6 percent of the population.

Don’t be so naive as to think we, as taxpayers, are not feeding, clothing, housing, educating and medically caring for illegals. We may have laws intended to prevent such costs for illegals, but you liberals, like Obama, aren’t too concerned with laws.

Finally, I believe a big reason why members of the “working class” aren’t able to provide for their own families is because they lost their jobs to illegals.

My prayer is some day liberals will include Americans in their “inclusiveness.”

Jerry Votendahl
Walla Walla




Letters to the Editor

May 14, 2016 7:00 PM

Assimilate and learn English

Years ago when I immigrated into this great country, I was given two invaluable pieces of advice: If I wanted to graduate and succeed, I had better learn English and assimilate into this society quickly. Both I took to heart. Learning English first.

Recently we visited the Sunshine State, and as we arrived at the airport, a shuttle car picked us up. Being social as I am, I tried to start a conversation with the driver, but he did not respond. Later I learned he didn’t speak English. At the rental car agency a guy brings us our rented car, and started explaining its features, of course not in English. I had no idea what he said, but after I nodded a few times, he gave me the keys and we left in a hurry. Later at the hotel, again very few people spoke English. Explaining to a cleaning lady, who doesn’t speak English, that you need a toilet plunger with your body language, is a tough one.

It seems if you plan to visit one of the well-populated ethnic areas, whether it’s Florida or a “Little Bosnia” in St. Louis, you better know the body language. There should be a law that would require all immigrants, regardless of their ethnic background before becoming citizens, to take and pass an English exam. Bilingual signs and “for English press one” should also be outlawed. And yes, immigrants must assimilate, but unfortunately today they don’t.

Anton Babic, Belleville




Refugee influx a humanitarian hoax

Letter to the Editor | Friday, May 13, 2016, 8:06 p.m.

Updated 4 hours ago

I lived in Guatemala for many years. Guatemala is, along with El Salvador and Honduras, one of the three Central American countries sending alleged “unaccompanied minors” to the U.S.

As your editorial points out, however, the aliens are neither unaccompanied nor minors, but rather mostly teenage males ( “Refugees ruse: An illegals pipeline” ).

In frequent conversations with my sisters, adult nieces and nephews — all still in Guatemala — they're unanimous in their conviction that what the United Nations and President Obama label as a humanitarian crisis is rather a cruel hoax on taxpayers, who must fund the ongoing invasion.

Advocates have coached the aliens to claim, once they arrival on U.S. soil, that they have a “credible fear of persecution” and are fleeing life-threatening violence. But my family has told me repeatedly that violence is no more common in Central America today that it ever has been.

Now the fraud has another shameless, costly dimension: Certain aliens will be flown from Central America to the U.S. to rejoin their parents, often also aliens, and thus compounding the nation's disastrous illegal immigration problem.

“Remaking America,” indeed!

Joe Guzzardi

Bradford Woods



Opinion > LETTERS

Put safety before sanctuary

Letter to the Editor | Friday, May 13, 2016, 8:06p.m.

Two U.S. senators of Connecticut who helped block a bill that would have stripped federal policing grants from sanctuary cities and states are now demanding answers after an illegal immigrant with a criminal record murdered a woman in their backyard.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security failed three times to deport this man. Connecticut has long protected illegal immigrants with sanctuary policies. Officials there work hard to restrict the federal government from deporting illegal immigrants, according to Judicial Watch.

Nevertheless, Homeland Security has a duty to remove dangerous foreigners who pose a threat regardless of local policies shielding them.

In this case, Haitian national Jean Jacques stabbed a woman in her apartment. Six months after being released from prison on that charge, he stabbed another woman to death.

Now Democrat Senators Chris Murphy and Richard Blumenthal are getting the runaround. DHS' Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has responded to their inquires in an unsatisfactory manner and the lawmakers have blasted the agency for failing to remove Jacques, considering his criminal record.

Perhaps the lesson is this: The road is to hell is paved with good intentions.

Ed Liberatore
Turtle Creek



The Grand Island

 Letters to the Editor

State should deport illegal immigrants, not give them licenses

Posted: Friday, May 13, 2016 12:00 am

By Jess Valdez
2318 N. Grand Island Ave

Kathryn Steinle was murdered by illegal alien Juan Frandisco Lopez-Sanchez of Mexico last summer at the San Francisco pier. He had been deported five times and had seven U.S. felony convictions.

The issue of “sanctuary cities” is years old. The term is used and added to a list of other deceptive terms where immigration is concerned.

The people who are being protected in sanctuary cities and states are illegal aliens whose presence in the USA is a violation of USA immigration laws. Sanctuary cities and states provide shelter for the predatory hunters, shielding them from detection and arrest by federal authorities. There should be no federal funds for the above.

Obama’s order granting amnesty to 5 million illegal aliens is unconstitutional if this order is allowed to stand. Obama will be encouraged to issue more illegal orders imposing a Marxist agenda on the American people.

Article 2, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution mandates that the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” This provision is a law for the president to execute. Obama is purposefully granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens rather than executing the law. Should this unconstitutional power stand, we will have moved far in the direction of rule by a dictator. The absence of congressional law granting amnesty is not evidence of political failure that must be corrected by unilateral executive action.

The lesson of the last 20 years or more of immigration is — lawlessness breeds more lawlessness.

The state Legislature voted (LB947) to grant professional and commercial licenses to illegal aliens brought to the USA by their illegal parents. They are illegal aliens and are to be deported. The voting to override the governor’s veto was 31 Yes: Baker, Bolz, Campbell, Chambers, Coash, Cook, Crawford, Ebke, Garrett, Gloor, K. Haar, Hadley, Hansen, B. Harr, Hilkeman, Howard, Kolowski, Krist, Lindstrom, McCollister, Mello, Morfeld, Pansing Brooks, Scheer, Schilz, Shumacher, Seiler, Smith, Stinner, Sullivan and Williams. The above need to read and understand the U.S. Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 18. Five more traitors didn’t vote: Friesen, Hughes, Johnson, Kolterman, Larson.



The Santa Clarita Valley Signal

Terri Lovell: If we only had more criminals

Terri Lovell
Right Here, Right Now
Posted: May 12, 2016 5:20 p.m. Updated: May 13, 2016 2:00 a.m.

Although illegal immigration has been an ongoing problem since the Reagan presidency, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has always been allowed to do its job when it comes to deporting criminal illegal immigrants.

One of the fundamental changes Barack Obama has wrought upon this country is seen in his lack of enforcement of deportation laws that apply to criminal illegal aliens.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, ICE released 19,723 criminal illegal immigrants with a total of 64,197 convictions among them back into American society in 2015.

With an average of 3.25 convictions per person, 208 were convicted of homicide, over 900 were convicted of sex crimes, and 12,307 were convicted of drunk driving.

Burglary convictions among criminal aliens amounted to 1,963, and there were 804 robbery convictions. The largest number of convictions, 12,661, associated with released criminal aliens, was for Driving Under the Influence (DUI).

As shocking as these numbers sound, there were actually 36,007 criminal aliens released in 2013, and 30,558 released in 2014. These numbers make the 2015 numbers look impressive.

ICE director, Sarah Saldana credits this drop in total releases to new policies implemented in 2015, which include, “enhanced oversight,” and “additional monitoring of criminal aliens released.”

But are the reduced number of criminal aliens being released into society due to improved oversight and monitoring, or should we look past the spin and delve into the numbers a little further?

The truth is, fewer criminal aliens were released in 2015 because fewer criminal aliens were arrested to begin with. In 2015, ICE made only 119,772 arrests, compared to 2013, in which 232,287 arrests were made.

Under the strict enforcement rules implemented as part of President Obama’s executive actions announced in 2014, ICE officers are forced to ignore a large share of the criminal aliens, even though local police and sheriffs have urged ICE to take control of criminals in their jails and deport them.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, approximately 71 percent of violent offenders, and 77 percent of drug offenders will be arrested for another crime within five years of release from jail or prison.

For the first time, ICE has provided information on the reasons for the criminal alien releases. In 2015, more than half the releases occurred due to a decision by an immigration judge. In more than 2,166 cases, the criminal aliens were released because their home countries refused to take them back.

The Center for Immigration Studies reports that so far, 124 criminal aliens released by ICE have subsequently been charged with homicide. One victim, Grant Ronnebeck’s killer was an illegal alien who was released by ICE in 2013 after being convicted of burglary and kidnapping involving a drug deal.

The blood of these and many other murdered Americans is on the hands of President Barack Obama. In his quest to fundamentally transform America by permanently changing the demographic of the voting public, he seeks to ensure Democrat victories into perpetuity.

Terri Lovell is a lifetime resident of Santa Clarita, a former home-school mom, a current College of the Canyons student and a member of a local Republican club.





Sen. Sessions: Election offers a simple choice

Jeff Sessions May 12, 2016

In Donald Trump, we have a forceful advocate for America.

For the first time in a long time, this November will give Americans a clear choice on perhaps the most important issue facing our country and our civilization: whether we remain a nation-state that serves its own people, or whether we slide irrevocably toward a soulless globalism that treats humans as interchangeable widgets in the world market.

In Donald Trump, we have a forceful advocate for America. Trump has said that our trade, immigration and foreign policies must be changed to protect the interests of American workers and our nation.

In Hillary Clinton, we have a committed globalist. Clinton was an ardent supporter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership — which surrenders American sovereignty to an international union of 12 countries — and has clearly left the door wide open to enacting the pact if elected.

There is only one sure way to defeat the TPP, and that is to defeat Hillary Clinton.

Meanwhile, Clinton’s immigration platform is the most radical in our history. Freezing deportations. Ending detentions. Halting enforcement. She’d expand President Obama’s illegal amnesty decree, effectively creating open borders.

Clinton’s extremist proposal economically targets our poor African-American and Hispanic communities whose wages and job prospects are being steadily eroded by the huge influx of new foreign workers.

Yet some Republicans persist in saying that they don’t know whether Mr. Trump is a “real conservative.” This charge misleads in two ways. First: Mr. Trump’s cautious approach to mass migration, transnational trade commissions and nation-building are, by definition, conservative.

Second, the divide between Trump and Clinton on the role of government could not be more stark. Consider just a few of the things President Trump would do after taking the oath: repeal Obamacare; nominate constitutionalist justices; replace Obama’s radical Cabinet appointments; reduce taxes and regulations; produce more American energy; rein in the out-of-control EPA; and cancel Obama’s illegal amnesties.

The choice is a simple one: Do we want a country that serves our people, or not?

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., was the first senator to endorse Donald Trump


Lake Oswego
O Review


Readers' Letters

Thursday, 12 May 2016

Anybody but De Klotz

In a May 5 opinion piece written by Patrick De Klotz, who is running for a state representative position as a Republican (“Oregonians should reject Trump divisiveness, vote for alternative”), De Klotz derided Donald Trump’s stand on immigration, terrorism, etc.

De Klotz found nothing positive about any of Trump’s positions. De Klotz offered his feelings against Trump, rather than state his own solutions to our many national problems. De Klotz concluded he would not vote for Trump for President under any circumstance.

As an example of De Klotz being out of touch, I am a first-generation legal immigrant. It is a personal affront that my family had to wait our turn to legally immigrate to this country while others are now being given a free pass to this privilege. De Klotz and others do not understand how their immigration “open border” and “amnesty” concepts offend. What about my feelings that are being hurt?

I am not an ardent Trump supporter, but I find Trump’s “America First” positions refreshing. The U.S. has spent and wasted plenty of resources and lives on the rest of the world. It is about time we in the U.S. worry about ourselves first.

Gratefully, De Klotz’s opinion piece exposed him as a Republican In Name Only and not worthy of my vote. So I state: “Anybody but De Klotz for Representative.”

Janusz Bogdan
Lake Oswego



Tri-City Herald

MAY 11, 2016 2:48 AM

Letter: Economics, math not strong suits among Seattle protesters

It's ironic anti-capitalist immigrant protesters rioted in Seattle against the very capitalist society they fled to, from their former anti-capitalist countries. Evidently, economics and math are not strong suits among these marchers.

Consider their stance on the minimum wage. You think a skilled worker currently making $20 an hour working in a processing plant isn’t going to demand the same percentage wage increase as those demanding a $15 wage flipping burgers? I don’t see anyone lining up to demand higher prices on goods and services.

Supporters point out that Washington and California cities have set that wage for government workers but fail to disclose these folks are paid via tax revenue, not market revenue like that created by capitalism. It’s easy to pay higher wages when all you do is confiscate it from your neighbor. In addition, if the minimum wage goes to $15 an hour, you think businesses are going to hire the same caliber of folks they hire for today’s minimum wage?

Before you succumb to the union’s attempt to increase their revenues, you might remember why you left one country to live in this capitalist society in the first place.

Laurent Estey

West Richland


Jim Elvin
SJ Statesman Journal

The survival of our country depends on us being involved and selecting good people who are willing to do the right thing for our country.

While we see ISIS as a serious problem that needs our attention, we are failing to address the serious problem we have with the drug cartels and their use of the illegal aliens who help them to smuggle in the illegal drugs that are destroying millions of our citizens and raising havoc with our economy. We all know of someone whose life has been shattered or destroyed by illegal drugs.

We need to pay attention to the causes of our national debt of $20 trillion. For instance, an illegal alien family with several children will cost taxpayers a lot with their schooling, medical and numerous other benefits.

With all the benefits and support the illegal aliens have acquired, they appear to have more influence with our politicians and especially with Obama than the U.S. citizens do.

For those of you who voted to re-elect Obama in the last election, please consider not ever voting again. We can’t afford this kind of thinking.

Jim Elvin

Clay Atchison
SJ Statesman Journal

The Statesman Journal’s May 2 front page article about 300 people protesting anti-immigrant measures leaves me a little confused. I think that when you sneak across our southern border, you are an illegal alien.

Causa director Andrea Miller says anti-immigrant ballot measures go against Oregon values. I support the measures that require employers to report illegal immigrants. Learn to speak English.

Willamette University student Isa Pena says she is tired of fighting anti-immigrant sentiment. What part of illegal does she not understand?

We need the fence at the southern border now.

Vote for Trump.

Clay Atchison

John Shank
The World

I find the hypocrisy interesting that the media, the federal government and so many others are “outraged” at the recent events in Eastern Oregon involving the “Bundy Bunch” occupation of a wildlife refuge, while there is such limited “outrage” over President Obama’s absolute failure to enforce our immigration laws with equal vigor.

Let’s look at the facts. Did the Bundy Bunch break the letter of the law with their occupation? Yes. Did it result in costs to the public? Yes. Were any public innocents killed? No. What was the size of terror? Limited.

Let’s look at the Obama administration’s neglect to enforce our immigration laws in comparison. Was the letter of the law broken when Obama directed his agencies to not enforce existing immigration law? Yes. Did it result in costs to the public? Billions of dollars when you total up private as well as direct public costs. Were any public innocents killed? Thousands, when all the murders and vehicle accident casualties are counted, caused by the influx of illegal immigrants. This doesn’t even take into account the rapes and other criminal activity, nor does it include the casualties or costs caused by diseases brought into this country wholesale by the uncontrolled mass influx of illegals in recent years. Was terror created? Absolutely.

While I don’t approve of anarchy in any form, whether by citizens revolting against the law, or the government itself failing to enforce the law, I hope whoever sits on the jury trials for the Bundy Bunch will take a page from our pre-Revolutionary history and refuse to find the Bundy Bunch guilty, just as our forefathers refused to convict people charged with crimes against King George’s laws.

When government picks and chooses which laws to enforce, and against whom, we are no longer a free government of the people, but closer to the tyranny of King George.

In my opinion, our Congress and federal attorney general are derelict to their oath of office for not finding our president guilty of not performing his duties as chief law enforcement officer under the Constitution regarding protecting our country’s borders, causing death, facilitating the spread of disease, and costing individual citizens and the public generally billions of dollars.

Brent Gallup

I am writing this in regards to Dana Milbank's article on the bigoted Trump supporters (Opinion, April 5).

Dana, you sound like you are a fairly well-educated individual. When you make comments about his supporters as being uneducated older white people and mainly male and prefer the Confederate flag, you are delusional.

First of all, I am a white male with a degree and 68 years old. I thought I was a liberal in my younger years, with long hair and tilted views against my father who fought in World War II. As I gained real wisdom and knowledge, I now understand the real dangers we are facing again, as we faced back then.

This world, my friend, has true evil that will hurt us if we don't see them through the smoke. Yes, all Muslims are not terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim! And as for deporting illegal immigrants, illegal means, my friend, they are not here legally.

Please, wake up people, before it's too late.

Greg Schifsky

Immigration policy: 

After studying the immigration of illegal and legal migrants to the U.S., it is clear to me that some people south of the border pay up to $5,000 to a "coyote" for smuggling them into this country for economic and social reasons. I've been told by migrants that they leave because of corruption and filth. There continues to be a lack of respect in those societies because of corruption, drugs and other dangers. Paying up to $5,000 to migrate means that monies were earned somehow, some way. What those countries need is a living wage, such as that proposed in Oregon (about $15). A soft revolution is the only way that could happen. Also, a 10-year moratorium is needed for the U.S. to craft a sensible immigration policy; those who caused this need are the 11 million illegals who jumped ahead of the line.

The Register Guard

Our economy is anemic. We’re told there’s 5 percent unemployment, but government statistics don’t count those out of work for [more] than a year. Actual unemployment is 15 to 20 percent — ask any college graduate who can’t find work.

We need to build a wall to restore our sovereignty along our southern border. We’re told there are 10 million to 15 million illegal immigrants in our country but it’s really closer to 30 million.

Those are two main issues on which Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz agree. If Trump were to drop out of the race for the GOP presidential nomination today, the anarchists, progressive socialist-herd-instinct college kids and illegal immigrants would switch to protesting at Cruz rallies, and call him a hatemonger and racist.

We’re a nation of citizens (not immigrants) who follow the rule of law established by the Constitution of a representative republic. Our country won’t bow to mob rule, something illegals immigrants don’t understand.

I want my country back, and I want illegal immigrants to leave.

Somehow the progressive socialists/Democratic Party believe controlling our southern border is mean-spirited, that it’s wrong to round up illegal immigrants who are bleeding us dry, living in Section 8 housing and receiving food stamps, welfare, emergency room health care and a once-great education.

Are those immigrants and their diversity more noble and important to the elite politicians than the sovereignty of America and its citizens? Why do we have to become a Third World hellhole just to make things fair?

Elizabeth Van Staaveren
SJ Statesman Journal

It seems that the editor of the Statesman Journal is waging Jihad against Donald Trump (March 20 op-ed and earlier columns).

He is not alone in his efforts. A kind of fatwa against Trump prevails throughout big media today. Generals of the Jihad Army — New York Times, Washington Post, etc., are assisted by their hired help – Gail Collins, George Will, Kathleen Parker, etc., foot soldiers who slog away shooting their blogs out.

Regiments in Oregon include also The Oregonian, Eugene’s Register-Guard and others. True to the saying that “politics makes strange bedfellows,” the entire liberal media have joined establishment Republicans who continuously deride their own leading presidential candidate.

What has Donald Trump done to stir this holy war? He advocates enforcement of the immigration laws! He advocates putting the physical safety of U.S. citizens first in government’s obligations! He is sincerely proud of the United States, its history and its heritage and wants it to continue to be a stable, prosperous, peaceful nation — nation, not just a geographical area. For this, he is condemned and vilified.

I and millions of others say thank you, Donald Trump!

Here’s hoping you’ll be our next president.

David Olen Cross
Statesman Journal

Republican presidential candidate Florida Sen. Marco Rubio was a leading member of the “Gang of Eight” which worked and voted for the passage of Senate Bill 744 (S.744) in 2013, a bill they termed “comprehensive immigration reform,” but which was actually a wide-sweeping amnesty to illegal immigrants that contained only weak promises for future law enforcement of the country’s immigration laws. The bill all but ignored the past and present illicit activities and criminal conduct of illegal immigrants currently in the country.

Just three years ago, Sen. Rubio showed he was willing to overlook the criminal activities of 11.3 million illegal immigrants who may have committed crimes and misdemeanors like identity theft, social security fraud, over staying visas and illegal employment.

Fortunately for national security and the public safety of all Americans the Gang of Eight’s amnesty attempt went no further than the U.S. Senate because citizens across the country pressured the U.S. House of Representatives not to consider the bill.

This year, on Jan. 17, presidential candidate Rubio reminded Americans of his support for amnesty for criminal immigrants while being interviewed by Chuck Todd on NBC’s Meet the Press.

A politician to the core, Sen. Rubio said in the interview with Todd that illegal immigrants who were felons would not be granted amnesty while those immigrants who had committed only “immigration crimes” would not be excluded from receiving amnesty.

What might be said of Rubio’s Meet the Press interview is that he purposely didn’t reveal there are some “immigration crimes” like repeat illegal entry into the country and document fraud that do constitute felony crimes.

Recent U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate statistics’ indicate there are 17,354 federal prisoners incarcerated for immigration offenses, 9.4 percent of the federal prison population.

The federal prison system incarcerates at least 34,806 foreign national inmates; they are at a minimum 17.7 percent of the federal government's prison inmates.

As 2016 presidential primary elections occur across our nation, American voters who rejected Sen. Marco Rubio’s 2013 amnesty bill for illegal immigrants should reject his bid to become the Republican candidate for President of the United States.

David Olen Cross of Salem writes on immigration issues and foreign national crime. He is a weekly guest on the “Lars Larson Northwest Show.” He can be reached atdocfnc@yahoo.com or at http://docfnc.wordpress.com/.