Letters page
CEO Thomas Donohue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says we need more immigrants “to meet the growing demand for high-skilled workers” (“How will U.S. tap ‘best, brightest’?” June 24).
Twenty-five million Americans are out of work. More than 50 percent of Americans younger than 25 with a bachelor’s degree are unemployed or underemployed. Hewlett-Packard is laying off more than 20,000 employees. There are between 11 million and 20 million illegal immigrants in our country. Family-wage jobs are vanishing.
And America needs more immigrants? What a smoke screen.
The reason businesses want more immigrants is because they can be paid lower wages, pure and simple.
President Obama’s directive giving amnesty to illegal aliens “brought to this country as children” is a disaster for unemployed Americans.
The “children” can be up to 30 years old and will be able to get work permits. While first reports said the number qualifying would be about 800,000, the true number could be two to three million, even if there is no fraud in the process. The 800,000 figure came from estimates for the DREAM Act of 2010, which required college graduation. The present directive does not require college graduation.
Adding this number of job seekers at a time of high unemployment among young citizens of the same age group is unjust and harmful.
Immigration laws are there for a reason, and one of the main reasons is to protect the most vulnerable groups in our society: young workers, the less educated, minorities, legal immigrants.
There are billions of people around the world who would like to live in the U.S.
From 1986 through 2000, there were seven amnesties for illegal aliens, while illegal immigration constantly increased. Contrary to claims by open-borders advocates, our borders today are still not secure, illegal immigration continues at high levels, and unknown numbers of immigrants are overstaying their visas without any serious consequences. The future of our country is grim if population isn’t stabilized and immigration laws enforced.
Only Congress is authorized under the Constitution to enact immigration laws. Congress has rejected DREAM-type legislation repeatedly because citizens do not want it. President Obama’s directive disregards the needs and rights of U.S. citizens, and is wrong legally and morally.
Gov. John Kitzhaber's proclamation dated May 1 revealed his office would work for the issuance of Oregon driver's licenses to undocumented foreign nationals in conjunction with his directive requiring the Oregon State Police to accept Mexican matricula consular cards as identification at traffic stops. Those actions pose an unacceptable public safety risk to Oregonians.
During the past six years, far too many Oregon residents within a 70-mile radius of Salem have lost their lives to illegal aliens driving under the influence.
Judyth Anne Cox, 66, of Newberg, a wife and mother of two adult children, was killed Dec. 3, 2007 by Ignacio Merendon-Zerega, a Mexican national illegally in the country. He lived in Woodburn. He had six drunken driving convictions and his driver's license had been suspended numerous times. He was convicted of manslaughter, assault and felony driving under the influence and sentenced to 15 years in prison.
Carma Colleen Smith, 52, of Dayton, a wife and mother of seven children was killed May 11, 2008 (Mother's Day) by Leonel Zurita-Loeza, a Mexican national illegally in the country. He lived in Portland.
Possessing a valid driver's license at the time of his arrest, he was on a diversion program related to drunken driving in Washington County. He was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 16 years in prison.
Oregon's counties do not have visible borders: neither do they have physical fences of separation when it comes to crimes being committed against Oregonians by illegal alien drunken drivers across the state. Each victim has her or his own story of how life ended violently and prematurely:
- Kimberly McDaniel, 23, was killed by Mexican national Rosendo Rosales-Corona in Multnomah County on July 15, 2006.
- Justin Daniel Dougherty, age 23, was killed by Mexican national Eduardo Gutierrez in Lane County on March 4, 2008.- Kay Blaser, 26, was killed by Mexican national Fernando Deanda Moreno in Clackamas County on Oct. 12, 2008.
- Albert Lloyd Rowland, 53, was killed by Mexican national Alvaro Lugos-Ponce in Multnomah County on May 13, 2010.
- John Zupan, 66, founder of Zupan's Markets, was killed by Mexican national Edy Porfirio Reynoso-Ramirez in Multnomah County on Aug. 30, 2011.
Eventually all of the preceding, if they haven't been already, will be released from the state prison system. Many will be deported. It is highly likely that some will re-enter the U.S. illegally and return to Oregon because of their familial connections to the state and will attempt to drive again with or without a driver's license.
Oregon's governor should realize the Mexican government's issuance of matricula consular cards to its citizens illegally in Oregon doesn't come with strings attached that they not have a prior criminal history; moreover, that they have automobile insurance to drive in the state.
Unfortunately for the safety of law-abiding Oregon drivers, the governor's directive requiring State Police to accept Mexican matricula consular cards as identification undermines current Oregon law, which dictates that only those persons legally present in the U.S. may obtain a driver's license and drive here.
Kitzhaber should not support or work for the issuance of Oregon driver's licenses to illegal aliens. Furthermore, he should withdraw his directive that will allow illegal alien drivers to use Mexican matricula consular cards as identification at traffic stops; identification that amounts to a get-out-of-jail or deportation card in some parts of the state.
David Olen Cross of Salem writes on illegal immigration and foreign national crime. He can be reached at docfnc@yahoo.com.
David Olen Cross tracks issues related to foreign national crime and immigration / Special to the Statesman Journal
To remain a strong country, can we continue letting the illegal aliens sneak into our country and then subsidize their every need?
Should we really be punishing those states that try to enforce our immigration laws?
And how many languages can we manage to maintain and remain a strong country?
Are our immigration laws a thing of the past?
It just might be time to consider some old-fashioned common sense again.
Please vote but please think before doing so. There are far too many politicians supporting the illegal aliens who are taking our jobs.
When Oregon Attorney General John Kroger filed an amicus brief in support of the federal government’s lawsuit against the state of Arizona (over the Arizona immigration law), most Oregonians with any common sense would naturally ask: What do the internal affairs of Arizona have to do with Oregon?
Answering the question, Kroger believes Arizona SB 1070 is a civil rights issue.
What should be particularly troubling to Oregonians about the misguided actions of the attorney general against SB 1070 is his inability to differentiate between what is an actual civil rights issue and what is a public safety issue.
An actual reading of the law would inform the attorney general SB 1070 only allows the state of Arizona law enforcement officials to enforce federal immigration law, not create Arizona immigration law.
To protect civil rights SB 1070 has provisos that prohibit any form of profiling of individuals based on their race, ethnicity, religion or country of origin.
Arizona, a border state, passed SB 1070 in 2010 simply to mitigate the collateral damage, the criminal activity, of hundreds of thousands undocumented foreign nationals (illegal aliens) present or entering the state primarily from Mexico.
The Oregon Department of Corrections prison system in February 2012 had 1,176 foreign nationals (criminal aliens); 992 prisoners were from Mexico, or 84 percent.
At the same time, the Arizona Department of Corrections prison system had 5,291 who were criminal aliens; 4,820 prisoners were from Mexico, 91 percent.
Attorney General Kroger should withdraw from any participation in legal action in the nation’s highest court against the state of Arizona over SB 1070 because Arizona’s ability to fully implement SB 1070 will empower the state’s law enforcement officials to more effectively protect the residents of both Arizona and Oregon from the invasion of criminal aliens primarily from Mexico.
Wednesday’s argument before the Supreme Court failed to produce even one good reason why Arizona’s law on illegal immigration is illegal or unconstitutional.
The main aspect of the law is that it requires police to check on the immigration status of people they stop for other reasons. And if someone turns out to be undocumented or “illegal,” the feds are notified.
Whether this is feasible depends on how it’s done. If Arizona handles things like Oregon, where you have to prove your residency status when getting or renewing a driver’s license, it should be no problem. Showing the license answers the question, and that’s all there is to it. No racial profiling is involved.
The court made clear that it wanted to consider the federal government’s challenge to the Arizona law only in relation to state versus federal power: Does the state interfere with the national government in some way?
States enforce other federal rules or laws. States enforce provisions of the Clean Water Act, for example, or the regulations of HIPAA. Also, the federal Justice Department wants states to enforce the federal prohibition against marijuana. In fact, it looks askance at states like California and Oregon that try to go their own way in regard to pot.
So what is so wrong with a state helping the government enforce its immigration laws?
Before the court Wednesday, the government maintained that the Arizona law could sour U.S. relations with Mexico. But enforcement of U.S. laws can’t be made contingent on approval by another country, can it?
The news reports on this case suggest that the outcome, expected in June, may have an influence on the national political campaigns. But Latinos, the group likely to be most affected by enforcement, have no reason to fear the outcome if the Arizona law is upheld.
If former immigrants have gone through the steps the law lays out, they have no reason to champion the cause of those who have not.
Brian Tapia’s mother was deported by immigration authorities after having lived in the U.S. for 21 years (“Latino Voices,” The Bulletin, March 27). Tapia said, “... it can happen to anyone.” Well, Brian, as Sportin’ Life sang in “Porgy and Bess,” “It ain’t necessarily so.”
You see, President Barack Obama has an aunt who came to the U.S. from Kenya in the year 2000, according to the Boston Herald. When her visa expired, she stayed and became an illegal immigrant. Pretty soon, like thousands of people in South Boston, she needed housing. Rather than get on a subsidized housing waiting list, she was somehow able to go to the front of the line. How she did, nobody knows, or is unwilling to explain. She admits that she has never paid into the system.
She receives $700 a month in disability checks. The rest of her living expenses, she says, come from “heaven.”
In 2004, an immigration judge issued a deportation notice. She ignored it. Immigration and Customs Enforcement also ignored it. She continued to live at the taxpayer’s expense and complains that it is not enough.
In January 2009, she attended her nephew’s presidential inauguration, even though she was a blatant illegal immigrant. In May 2009, the same judge that issued the deportation order issued an amnesty order. Nobody knows what strings were pulled or who pulled them for the latest order. The judge isn’t talking.
So you see, when you say deportation can happen to anyone, remember, “It ain’t necessarily so.”
I’m confused. Most people obediently show their IDs and willingly submit to a virtual strip-search to board an airplane. But many of those same people claim we can’t require ID for those who want to vote because it discriminates against immigrants who are less likely to have the necessary documents.
That’s illogical and inconsistent. If requiring ID of voters is discriminatory, then requiring ID of airline travelers is, too. Why is there no outcry equivalent to the voter ID outcry? Why aren’t there people defending immigrants who need to fly but don’t have suitable ID?
Don’t tell me travel ID is a matter of public good but voter ID is not. The legitimacy of our elections is just as important as the illusion of security given by travel IDs. We should either require IDs for both or for neither.
When Oregon Attorney General John Kroger filed an amicus brief in support of the United States federal government’s lawsuit against the State of Arizona over an Arizona law SB 1070, a case that will be heard on April 25, 2012 before the U.S. Supreme Court, most Oregonians with any common sense would naturally ask the following question: What do the internal affairs of Arizona have to do with Oregon?
Answering the question, the Attorney General Kroger believes Arizona SB 1070 is civil rights issue.
What should be particularly troubling to Oregonians about the misguided actions of the Attorney General against SB 1070 is his inability to differentiate, call it a cognitive dissonance, between what is an actual civil rights issue and what is a public safety issue.
An actual reading of the law would inform the Attorney General SB 1070 only allows the State of Arizona law enforcement officials to enforce federal immigration law not create Arizona immigration law. To protect civil rights SB 1070 has provisos that prohibit any form of profiling of individuals based on their race, ethnicity, religion, or country of origin.
Some background history, the State of Arizona, a border state, passed SB 1070 in 2010 simply to mitigate the collateral damage, the criminal activity, of hundreds of thousands undocumented foreign nationals (illegal aliens) present or entering the state primarily from Mexico.
With so many crimes being committed on a regular basis locally and nationwide by illegal aliens, remember “Operation Icebreaker Two”, the Attorney General’s office is prosecuting the case, four out of the fifteen individuals being held in local jails have Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) holds, Attorney General Kroger seems to be engaging in feigned ignorance as to the source of the crime, the country of origin of the majority of the illegal aliens.
The Oregon Department of Corrections (DOC) prison system in February of 2012 had 1,176 foreign nationals (criminal aliens); 992 prisoners were from Mexico — 84.35 percent.
At the same time, the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) prison system in February of 2012 had 5,291 who were criminal aliens; 4,820 prisoners were from Mexico — 91.10 percent.
Oregon Attorney General John Kroger should withdraw from any legal action in the nation’s highest court against the State of Arizona over SB 1070 because Arizona’s ability to fully implement SB 1070 will empower the state’s law enforcement officials to more effectively protect the residents of both Arizona and Oregon from the invasion of criminal aliens primarily from Mexico.
David Olen Cross of Salem (docfnc@yahoo.com) writes on the subjects of immigration and foreign national crime.
Slow news days like weekends or holidays are the best time for the federal government to sneak in an announcement that would otherwise outrage the public. With immigration occupying the front and center stage, a pro-illegal alien policy decision that would rile up enforcement-minded citizens is best done in the cloak of darkness.
In its non-stop effort to eviscerate immigration laws, the Department of Homeland Security operating with President Obama’s blessing posted an item in the little read Federal Register stating that certain aliens would soon be granted “unlawful presence waivers.” Simply put, illegal aliens who can prove they have a U.S. citizen relative will get a waiver that allows them to remain in the country until their legal residency application is processed.
Previously, such individuals had to leave and then apply from their native country. The explanation offered for the radical policy departure is an age-old favorite: breaking up families is a hardship. Advocates often toss around references to “families” and “children” to defend blatant immigration violations.
DHS bureaucrats quickly but unpersuasively noted that the waivers don’t automatically mean that adjudication will be successful. The administration also argues, without offering evidence, that relaxing the existing rules “creates efficiencies for both the U.S. government and most applicants.”
However, insisting that legal residency applications be submitted from abroad helps reduce fraud and illegal employment. Best of all, if the application is denied, the party is already outside of the U.S. and no extra taxpayer money has to be spent to remove him.
The family waiver is the latest politically motivated maneuver to circumvent immigration laws. More than a year ago, DHS introduced prosecutorial discretion, also referred to as backdoor amnesty, wherein any alien in deportation proceedings that isn’t a convicted felon and who can offer a half-baked excuse to stay is allowed to. In DHS’s eyes, good reasons include being too young, too old or too sick. Most non-criminal healthy aliens have been allowed stay too. Coincidentally, DHS also announced this week that immigration courts in Detroit, Seattle, New Orleans and Orlando with heavy prosecutorial discretion backlogs have temporarily shut down to enable federal prosecutors to decide behind the scenes which pending cases to arbitrarily decide in the aliens’ favor.
If you’re keeping score on how successful the anti-enforcement Obama administration has been, here’s a partial list of its dubious actions. Government efforts to protect or assist aliens include toll free Department of Labor 800 numbers for illegal immigrants to report what they perceive as unfair wage practices, a White House appointed “official alien advocate” as well as the aforementioned prosecutorial discretion and unlawful presence waivers.
At the same time, the White House has effectively scotched the 287 (g) and Secure Communities programs that would expedite deporting—or at least identifying—dangerous aliens.
To his credit, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith continues to flail at windmills with little help from either side of the aisle. Smith’s Legal Workforce Act that would mandate E-Verify, an online program that identifies legally authorized workers, remains stalled on Capitol Hill.
The Federal Register offers a 60-day window for citizens to register their concerns about “unlawful presence waivers.” Assuming that’s an attempt to placate angry Americans about another immigration outrage, it comes up short.
Joe Guzzardi is a Californians for Population Stabilization Senior Writing Fellow. Contact Joe at joeguzzardi@capsweb.org.
