Letters page
Ministers and some of their parishioners often quote the Bible as justification for citizens of other countries to break U.S. immigration laws and preach that U.S. citizens should “welcome the stranger” — meaning illegal immigrants. Other Bible scholars disagree. One of them, The Rev. James Edwards, points out: “It displays questionable judgment to rigidly construct an immigration policy for 21st-century America based on a handful of Scripture passages taken out of context or from particular instances of migration spanning centuries, vastly different nations and kingdoms, wholly different circumstances, etc. found in Scripture. Rather, carefully discerning applicable principles better fits the situation.”
Many Bible passages teach that obeying civil laws is the normative imperative for Christians.
As one who grew up attending Methodist Sunday schools, I suggest that church figures, instead of urging U.S. citizens to welcome unlimited numbers of illegal aliens, go to the countries from which illegal immigrants flee and help the citizens and institutions there achieve acceptable living conditions. That would be true Christian ministry.
The United States, through its aid to developing countries, has spent billions over past decades and sent thousands of technical assistance personnel to improve the economies and governments of poor countries. We don’t need to feel guilty about enforcing our immigration laws.
Let’s keep our law requiring proof of citizenship to get a driver license and vote no on Measure 88, which would change the law to give official driver licenses and IDs to illegal immigrants.
The recent Ebola scare has talk radio hosts yammering, speculating the president's open borders policy will allow the virus to spread.
And though Ebola probably will not spread that way, a number of other diseases will, and indeed have.
The mysterious Enterovirus (EV-D68), has earned the moniker of "the open borders virus." With its polio like symptoms EV-D68 has left a number of children paralyzed or dead. The Centers for Disease Control recently announced an outbreak in Denver, a city many consider to be a de facto sanctuary city for illegal aliens.
In another report, the CDC warned that the United States is experiencing a resurgence in measles, concluding that 97 percent of these cases came to the U.S. from 18 different countries. In addition to EV-D68 and measles, there's been an uptick in cases of mumps, tuberculosis, head lice and you name it.
All this is particularly bad news in Oregon, where Gov. John Kitzhaber and Democrats in the Oregon Legislature are trying to make it easier for illegal aliens to spread diseases by issuing them driver's cards. But the average voter can deny those driver's cards — and help contain the spread of infectious diseases and strike a blow for a healthier Oregon — by voting no on Measure 88 in the upcoming election.
Oregon's voters at the Nov. 4 general election will have a chance to vote on Senate Bill 833, which appears before them as Ballot Measure 88.
The passage of Ballot Measure 88 would require the Oregon DMV to grant to persons "who cannot prove legal presence in the United States" a special state-issued identification called a driver's card.
In reaction to the state driver cards' legislation, sheriffs across the state have stepped forward to oppose the ballot measure.
The Sheriffs of Oregon political action committee, representing the political and public safety concerns of state's 36 county sheriffs, has come out in opposition to the legislation with the following statement: "The Sheriffs of Oregon support the citizens veto referendum #301 to overturn SB 833. We urge a NO vote."
Tom Bergin, Clatsop County sheriff and past president of the Oregon State Sheriffs' Association, made these statements on the driver cards' legislation: "It is wrong to provide special driver's licenses to people who cannot prove legal presence in the United States. For Oregon to do so, will only enhance the ability for criminal behavior, thus creating a larger risk to our citizens public safety. The Sheriffs of Oregon urge you to oppose this measure."
Tim Mueller, former Linn County sheriff, expressed these thoughts on driver cards: "Giving a person a driver's license who is in this country illegally is flat out irresponsible and does nothing to protect the citizens of this state."
Oregon voters should heed the wisdom of Oregon's sheriffs who have joined together with the citizens from Protect Oregon Driver Licenses to oppose driver cards for those "who cannot prove legal presence in the U.S." and vote "no" on Ballot Measure 88.
David Olen Cross tracks issues related to foreign national crime and immigration.
David Olen Cross of Salem writes on immigration issues and foreign national crime. He can be reached at docfnc@yahoo.com.
I agree with Donald Moberg of North Bend. My wife went through the same thing as he did when we arrived in Oregon. A copy of her birth certificate was rejected and she ended up requesting another from San Diego with the raised seal.
Don mentioned, “Should need more proof than a green card.” Most of us would agree on that very thing. If one has a “Green Card” they are in the U.S. legally and should be able to drive. Where it gets confusing is the word immigrant. Are they here legally or not. Don, truth be told, Measure 88 was written up for the illegals in our country. The legal immigrants (resident aliens) don’t need prop. 88.
No on Measure 88. I am 91 years old, born in the USA, and served in the U.S. Navy over five years, with honorable discharge.
I had copies of my birthday certificate and discharge papers as I went to renew my drivers license. Motor vehicles would not accept these and was required to mail to Iowa to get original birth certificate.
You would think my holding a drivers license for 70 years would be enough for renewal.
If I was required to do this as a true American that fought this whole World War II in the South Pacific, others, no matter where they are from, should need more proof than a green card.
A word of caution about the measures in our voters' pamphlet: I used to count the "in favor" and "in opposition" arguments, then vote for the ones with the most "in favor" or against the ones with the most "in opposition." Clever, and eliminated the need to read every one. Read one, you've read them all, I thought.
I discovered I could learn a lot by identifying who posted the argument. Measure 88 has 29 arguments in support; 16 were paid for by Caroline Fitchett of "Yes For Safe Roads." At $1,200 per submission, Fitchett forked over $19,200 to champion Measure 88.
Call me cynical. Does Fitchett believe that strongly in Measure 88? Could someone else be bankrolling her submissions and paying her to use her name? If so, why the deception?
I formally endorse Patti Milne in her campaign for election to the Oregon State Senate, District 11.
As a professional airline pilot I thank you for your radio ads criticizing Peter Courtney and Governor John Kitzhaber for endorsing and creating ballot measure 88. They are spot on.
This measure as you have said is an irresponsible feckless political pandering to illegal aliens nationwide that jeopardizes a critical level of aviation security to all Oregonians and everyone using our national air transportation system. This measure should be rejected. Thank you for pointing this out.
No on Measure 88: Measure 88 aims to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants...
It is interesting that the people supporting this bill — wine makers, fruit growers, etc. — are people who employ low-wage, low-skill employees. Could these employees possibly be illegal immigrants?...
The real reason for this bill should be obvious.
No on Measure 88: Why don't those who favor such nonsense as Measure 88 come out and say what they really believe: that the rule of law means everyone born into this world has an equal right, not of opportunity... we're all the same and no law should distinguish the masses. Only one law exists in their utopian fantasy: mandated tolerance — which is really no law at all.
Measure 88 has nothing to do with race....At its core, this issue is a reminder that civilized nations of diverse citizenry live better under a just and ordered law. Those who break it, no matter how long they've gotten away with it, should pay the penalty, not be accommodated with lesser law.
Measure 88 is an injustice to those who respect the legal and social traditions of this country. I will vote no.
Although Gov. John Kitzhaber claims that Measure 88 will promote insured driving among people who can’t prove they’re legally in the country, the lax requirements and glaring omissions of the bill seem tailored to accommodate illegal immigration in the guise of safety. It neither guarantees insured driving nor prevents the driver card from being used as identification.
For instance, Kitzhaber says Measure 88 “requires” applicants to get insurance, but David House, of DMV Public Affairs, contends bluntly: Liability insurance is not a requirement for driving privileges … including the proposed driver card that is under SB 833.
The devil is in the details. Applicants may get a card without buying insurance by testing in someone else’s insured car, (as do most 16-year-olds). The state can’t know if the applicant will drive an insured car afterward or cancel a policy if he has one.
State Rep. Kim Thatcher recalls that enthusiasts of driver permits for illegal immigrants warned against ending their driving privilege because they assumed it would increase uninsured driving. However, they accidentally proved their opposition’s point by initiating periodic ODOT reviews. The rate of uninsured accidents stayed the same between 2007, (the last year of driving privileges) and 2013.
This suggests the number of uninsured drivers stayed the same too. New Mexico noticed that its non-compliance rate rose slightly to 24 percent after it began issuing licenses to illegal aliens in 2003. It rose to 26 percent, the second highest in the nation, between 2004 and 2009. Tennessee also tried and canceled such permits.
If the state meant to ensure mandatory collision policies why did they allow such a flaw in SB 833? Even the official Yes on 88 flier doesn’t mention an insurance requirement. That hasn’t stopped various Measure 88 proponents from claiming new permitees must comply, but applicants already know that obeying the law is optional.
Another flaw in the driver card is its potential as identification. The bill lists several acceptable cases for ID but prohibits almost nothing, a loophole that could endanger the public now that Transportation Safety Administration’s spokesperson, Nico Melendez, said the TSA will accept the card as ID for air travel.
The federal REAL ID Act also requires a driver’s license “equivalent” to look different from the original and warn that it cannot be used for federal ID. Instead, the new card is nearly identical to our driver’s license except for the word “card” on a purple stripe instead of the word “license” on a blue stripe. It carries no warning, because the Legislature voted to ignore the federal Real ID Act in 2009.
The ID problem started even before the original bill passed the Legislature, when an ACLU affiliated lawyer named David Chaimov submitted his interpretation to the Secretary of State’s office about the allegedly narrow uses of the card without highlighting its potential use as identification. Ellen Rosenblum added the ACLU report to her formal summary.
The driver card is exploitable as designed and defined, and not only against unwitting bureaucrats and cashiers. Given that Mohammed Atta entered the U.S. legally and used his valid driver’s license to commit a 911 hijacking, would we assure the misuse of a nearly identical version of our ID granted for illegal presence? Will the duplicity, vague restrictions, and its acceptance by the TSA create more dangerous results than a bureaucratic mess?
Given its flaws, the card seems to be an attempt to protect the status quo instead of to guard the integrity of our driver’s license/ID. The state seems to be responding to pressure from unionized state bureaus that depend on a growing client base, coupled with demands from employers and ethnic organizers. The welfare of relatively quiet citizens, by contrast, must seem easier to ignore.
In November voters must decide if the illusion of safer law-breaking contrived by various special interests is an acceptable excuse for the Oregon driver card. Voting no on Measure 88 draws a line in the sand.
— Lyneil Vandermolen is a board member of Oregonians for Immigration Reform. She lives in Powell Butte.
