ballot measure 88

Oregon 2014 Ballot Measure 88 will give driver cards to illegal aliens. Vote NO on Ballot Measure 88.

'No' to Driving Privileges for Illegal Aliens

WASHINGTON - The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) marked a victory after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a district court decision to dismiss a case that sought to force the State of Oregon to grant driving privileges to illegal aliens.

IRLI had filed a friend-of-the-court brief in 2016 on behalf of its client Oregonians for Immigration Reform (OFIR) in the case of M.S. v. Brown, in which plaintiffs looked to overturn as unconstitutional the outcome of the November 2014 general election in Oregon. Through the Oregon Constitution’s referendum veto process, Oregon voters overwhelmingly rejected, by 66%, a bill passed by the he legislature and signed by the governor that would have extended eligibility for driving privileges to unlawfully present persons. OFIR was the driving force behind the referendum veto that collected the requisite number of signatures to get the issue placed on the ballot.

The case, brought by five admitted illegal aliens and two illegal alien special interest groups, was dismissed in May 2016 when an Oregon district court ruled that the plaintiffs could not show that an order from the court could redress their complaint as the court had no power to overturn a referendum or force the state to pass legislation giving illegal aliens driving privileges. In its brief, IRLI agreed with the district court and argued further that the plaintiffs also failed to demonstrate an injury, a necessary element of standing to sue, as illegal aliens have no constitutional right to driving privileges, and, in fact, do not even possess the constitutional right to interstate travel (which citizens and legal aliens possess) as a result of their illegal presence in the U.S.

There are a number of reasons why granting driving privileges to illegal aliens is not in the interests of states or their citizens. Among them, states have a legitimate interest in limiting their finite resources to citizens and legal aliens and in not allowing their government machinery to be a facilitator for the concealment of illegal aliens. There is also a legitimate concern that persons subject to immediate or subsequent deportation will not be financially responsible for property damage or personal injury due to automobile accidents. Finally, granting driving privileges to illegal aliens harms national security because, unlike legal aliens, illegal aliens have not undergone background checks or face-to-face interviews to determine whether they pose a national security threat.

“This is a tremendous win for residents of Oregon and the American people at large,” said Dale L. Wilcox, IRLI’s executive director and general counsel. “Since the presence of illegal aliens in the United States is a violation of federal law, the notion that those aliens should be granted the privilege to drive and the right to travel freely throughout the country is absurd. The result of this decision will be safer communities that better serve the interests of their citizens and legal residents.” 

GREAT News - the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirms our stunning victory on Measure 88

Alert date: 
2018-09-05
Alert body: 

We just learned from our attorneys that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the lawsuit against our victory in 2014 to overturn driver cards for illegal aliens - Measure 88.
 

Five self-identified, alleged illegal aliens filed a federal lawsuit against the state of Oregon for allowing the will of Oregon voters to overturn the bill giving an official Oregon driver card to illegal aliens. The bill that Measure 88 overturned was Senate Bill 833 which had passed both chambers of the State Legislature and was signed by Governor Kitzhaber with great fanfare on the steps of the Capitol before a large crowd on May Day, May 1. 2013.
 
The vast majority of voters understood the implications of giving an official state-issued, photo ID, in the form of a driver card to individuals who could not prove they are legally in the country, and they DEFEATED Measure 88, expressing their disapproval of Senate Bill 833.
 
For the record, Measure 88 was defeated by 66 percent of Oregon voters. Close to one million Oregonians voted against driver cards. Thirty-five of Oregon’s 36 counties voted it down. Eighteen counties voted by over 80 percent against it. Measure 88 lost in all five of Oregon’s congressional districts. A majority of Oregon Democrats, Republicans and independents voted against issuing driver cards to illegal aliens.
 
Our opponents outspent us roughly ten to one. One Hollywood TV star, gave a $50,000 donation to the pro driver card measure, almost as much money as our campaign had in total.
 
Measure 88 was debated in public forums, in newspapers, on the radio, in the voter’s pamphlet, and on TV. Voters had a clear understanding of the issue.  It’s not often we praise the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals - but, this time they deserve iit!
 
Measure 88 was a Referendum calling for a no vote to rid citizens of a bad bill that had passed the Legislature but had not yet been put into effect. 

Measure 105 is an Initiative which must have a YES vote to REPEAL a bad law that’s been on the books for years.
 
Let’s make it two victories in a row.  Let’s overturn Oregon’s sanctuary law - Vote YES on Measure 105.  Talk to your friends, neighbors, relatives and fellow citizens - ask them to Vote YES on Measure 105, too!
 
YES on Measure 105 Lawn and field signs will be available this weekend - go to
and order YOUR signs today!

A lesson not learned - try again

The majority party in the Oregon Legislature is failing to heed the clear will of the people in regards to Measure 88. 

Will the party in charge fail to listen yet again?  The results of the upcoming primary election are critical if Oregon is to remain the beautiful, livable state it once was.  What can be done to stop Oregon's decline?

Go to www.StopOregonSanctuaries.org and sign the petition.  Share the website with your friends, family and on social media.
 

Fight Over Oregon's 'Sanctuary Law' Brings Immigration Policy Battle To The NW

At a booth at the recent state fair in Salem, people waited in line at a booth for Oregonians for Immigration Reform to sign the group’s proposed ballot measure to repeal Oregon’s so-called “sanctuary law.”

Cynthia Kendoll, the group’s president, said this new measure is attracting more intense interest than its previous attempts to discourage illegal immigration.

“This is something that people are truly really concerned about,” said Kendoll, “and I have just been amazed here at the state fair that people walk up and say, ‘Just let me sign this. I am so sick of this.’”

Oregon may not seem like it is on the front lines of the battle over immigration policy. But the state appears headed toward a bitter election fight on the issue that could reverberate nationally. 

During his presidential campaign last year, Donald Trump put a harsh spotlight on jurisdictions that didn’t fully cooperate with federal immigration officials. In recent weeks, he’s wavered on some immigration issues — such as moving to cut a deal with Democrats on protecting immigrants who were brought into the country illegally as children. But his administration continues to attack so-called sanctuary laws.

Andrea Williams, one of the chief opponents of the measure, said the looming ballot fight sets up a choice for voters between going with the Trump administration or sticking with law she says reflects “Oregon values” and has long worked well.

“To me, the issue is very simple,” added Williams, executive director of Causa, a Salem-based immigrant rights group.  “Do we want to spend Oregon resources to do the federal government’s job?”

Oregon 30 years ago adopted a law limiting local and state police involvement with federal enforcement. It was the first statewide law of its kind, but it attracted little attention or controversy. Supporters said the law was needed because some local police officers were detaining Latinos simply based on their appearance.

The term sanctuary came into vogue much later as many cities began resisting large-scale deportations. Critics charged that sanctuary cities were shielding criminals and Trump highlighted the issue in his campaign. 

“We will end the sanctuary cities that have resulted in so many needless deaths,” Trump vowed. At the Republican convention last year, the relatives of people who had been killed by immigrants illegally in the country were prominently featured on stage.

Just a few weeks later, Oregonians for Immigration Reform began laying the groundwork for an initiative to abolish the state law.

Trump’s focus “gave us the backup that this is truly something that people are concerned about,” said Kendoll.

Opponents are gearing up to fight the measure and their feelings are also intense.

“Their ultimate goal is to get rid of immigrants because they want white nationalism in this state,” said state Rep. Diego Hernandez, D-Portland.  He argued that Oregon’s sanctuary law helps encourage cooperation with local police.

Causa is helping assemble a broad coalition to oppose the measure. Williams, the group’s executive director, has signed up a sort of who’s who of the major political backers of the Democratic political leadership of the state: the public employee unions, environmental groups as well as gay and abortion rights advocates.

She says her group got a wake-up call three years ago when Oregon voters rejected a new law providing driver’s licenses for people in the country illegally.

The idea was to give people a form of identification that would allow them to drive legally to work and get auto insurance. But Oregonians for Immigration Reform, charging that it only enabled illegal immigration, put the issue on the ballot and won in a landslide.

“We do have to get better at talking to Oregonians about the circumstances — why people here are undocumented and why they have limited solutions to adjust their status,” Williams said. If the sanctuary issue gets on the ballot, she said, her coalition will have to do a lot more to reach out to Oregonians to talk about the lives of immigrants and the economic benefits she said they bring to the state.

Surveys taken in Oregon and in the country as a whole generally show strong support for immigration reform that would provide some sort of path to legal status for people in the country without citizenship. But the sanctuary issue is different.

That became clear in staunchly Democratic California this year. After Trump was elected, the state Senate’s leader, Los Angeles Democrat Kevin de Léon, introduced a statewide sanctuary bill. But instead of winning swift passage and serving as a rebuke to Trump, it languished for months.

It faced strong opposition from many California law enforcement officials and one independent poll in March showed voters strongly divided on the issue. A watered-down version didn’t pass until the final hours of the legislative session on Saturday, Sept. 16, 2017.

It’s still a long time until Oregon’s anti-sanctuary initiative could go before voters in November 2018. But there’s been plenty of early maneuvering around the issue.

Kendoll’s group was the first to take advantage of a new petitioning rule from Secretary of State Dennis Richardson that allows them to collect signatures while waiting for the ballot title to be finalized. Several groups are challenging Richardson’s rule. If they’re successful, it could put a major crimp in the petition drive.

Perhaps more crucially, critics of the measure are accusing Oregonians for Immigration Reform of having ties to white nationalism. They say the group has accepted aid from groups and individuals concerned about the changing racial composition of the country.

Kendoll denied that her group is motivated by racial animus.

We’re going after people who are here illegally,” she said. “Their race, their ethnicity, their religion — anything — has nothing to do with it. It’s, ‘are you in our country legally?’”

That leads Kendoll to some hard-line views. She said the estimated 11 million people who entered the country illegally should leave, and she supports ending the program allowing those brought here as children to gain legal status. In addition, she backs legislation that would cut legal immigration by half over the next decade.

“When you allow such a large number of people to immigrate legally,” she said, “assimilation is more difficult because they tend to clump together and not assimilate.”

The sanctuary issue provides a hot-button path toward that goal.

At the Oregonians for Immigration Reform booth, volunteers displayed the mugshot of Sergio Martinez and called him their “poster boy.”

He’s the man accused of sexually assaulting a 65-year-old woman after being released from the Multnomah County Jail despite being frequently deported. Focusing on this one extreme example infuriates opponents.

“They play off peoples’ fears. That’s how they win,” said Causa’s Williams. She said this line of attack unfairly stereotypes people who enter the country illegally, especially since research shows they are actually less likely to commit crimes. 

If Oregon’s 30-year-old sanctuary law is repealed, the result would likely be a patchwork of local policies. Counties and cities would be able to decide on their own how or if they wanted to limit their involvement with federal immigration enforcement.

The initiative needs 88,184 signatures by next July to qualify for the ballot. Kendoll isn’t saying how many signatures they’ve collected so far.

Ritter answers Rep. Barnhart’s smear attack on OFIR and IP 22

OFIR member Jerry Ritter has written a great exposé of the vicious attack on our organization and our efforts to advance Initiative Petition #22.  We clearly have the deep-state opposition to immigration controls worried. 

Friends, let’s keep on collecting signatures!  As with Measure 88 - the driver card bill, we know we can do this.  Request some 10 line signature sheets, ask your friends and neighbors to sign the petition, when mail them in!  It's as simple as that!

We need your help!  To Request signature sheets call 503.435.0141 or go to the campaign website and click on the link to request signature sheets.

Mail filled sheets to:

Stop Oregon Sanctuaries

PO Box 7354

Salem, OR 97303

 

 

Delivering on immigration

As he planned his improbable ascent, a peculiar election result from a small Western state might have caught Donald Trump’s eye. In 2014, Oregonians voted nearly 2-1 against a ballot measure that would have allowed the state to issue driver’s cards to people who could not prove legal residency in the United States. The proposal was a modest public-safety measure, but most voters saw it as an accommodation of illegal aliens and said no — hell no. Trump saddled that same emotional response and rode it into the White House. Now he must deliver.

The president made a start last week. He took executive action to start construction on a wall along the border between the United States and Mexico, a step toward fulfillment of one of his most frequently made, and most loudly echoed, campaign promises. And he moved to cut federal grants to “sanctuary cities,” striking a blow against the same political impulse that Oregon voters rejected in 2014: the impulse that crafts humane and pragmatic policies that are perceived as creating more space in American society for undocumented immigrants.

How these initial steps will be completed is far from clear. The cost and configuration of the wall — in some places, it’s likely to be more like a fence — are not known. Trump insists that Mexico will pay for the wall, an idea firmly rejected by Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto. Various ideas for financing the wall have been advanced, including a 20 percent tax on goods imported to the United States from Mexico. Such a tax would be paid by American consumers, not Mexicans.

Pena Nieto had planned to meet with Trump this week, but the event was canceled after Trump reiterated his demand that Mexico pay for the wall. Trump will need to guard against creating problems that would prove far more costly than a border wall. A tax on exports to the United States would affect 80 percent of Mexico’s trade, damaging the country’s economy. Humiliating Pena Nieto, who is already politically unpopular, could open the door to a disruptive successor. Economic instability, political turmoil or both in Mexico would damage U.S. economic interests, create security concerns and trigger higher rates of illegal immigration.

The crackdown on sanctuary cities is similarly vague. The Trump administration has not defined what a sanctuary city is, but they come in several varieties. There are even sanctuary states, including Oregon. Many state and local governments, or the heads of their police agencies, have said that police will not inquire about the immigration status of people they contact. The aim is to keep the police from taking on the responsibilities of federal immigration officers, and to maintain trust among immigrant populations. Such policies involve setting priorities for public safety, not defiance of federal law.

In other cases, sanctuary cities decline to detain people suspected of being illegal immigrants until federal immigration agents can take custody of them. This is often due to a shortage of jail space or a lack of federal reimbursement for incarceration costs, not a refusal to cooperate in the enforcement of immigration laws.

Few jurisdictions that have labeled themselves sanctuaries are actively working to frustrate the enforcement of immigration laws — they’re just not cooperating to varying degrees. The Trump administration will have to draw the line between defiance and non-cooperation, and some grants can’t be withheld without congressional approval. Too far-reaching a cutoff would face legal action by cities or states on grounds that the U.S. government can’t compel them to spend their money to enforce federal laws.

Trump understood the emotional power of the immigration issue better than his rivals. But delivering on his promises will require coherent, constructive policies. Devising them will prove harder than tapping a vein of anger and resentment.


 

OFIR VP lays out Trump's path to victory in Oregon

OFIR Vice President Richard LaMountain has clearly laid out a reasonable path to an Oregon win for Donald Trump's bid for the Presidency.

Oregon has a blue reputation, but, in this particular case, it may be tenuous at best.  

Read LaMountain's VDare article and then consider helping the first presidential candidate, in decades, that has openly and meaningfully addressed the problems surrounding illegal immigration.
 

Oregon's Emergency Clause initiative captures attention outside the state

Once again, Oregon attracts attention from outside the state, this time for the Legislature's misuse and abuse of the Emergency Clause on new legislation passed in the Oregon Legislature.

Efforts are underway to stop the shenanigans via an initiative petition circulating throughout the state.

Read the full article by Montana resident Paul Nachman and then be certain you, your friends, neighbors and co-workers have all signed the petition and mailed it in before June  26, so the paperwork can be processed before the deadline.

 

 

 

July 5th deadline approaching - sign the petition to stop the abuse of the emergency clause

Alert date: 
2016-06-21
Alert body: 

The super-majority party in the Oregon Legislature has used the Emergency Clause as a weapon to pass controversial legislation and shut out citizens' constitutional right to challenge that legislation by slapping an Emergency Clause on 70% of the bills passed this last session.  That is ridiculous!

If you have not yet signed initiative petition #49 to STOP abuse of the Emergency Clause, OFIR urges you to do so ASAP.  Ask your friends, neighbors and relatives to do so, as well.

Ballot Measure 88 was a fluke in that, for some unknown reason, the majority party did not place an Emergency Clause on Senate Bill 833 - issuing driver cards to illegal aliens - in 2013.

Because there was no Emergency Clause, citizen's were allowed to exercise their constitutional right to a veto referendum to challenge the bad legislation to the 2014 General election ballot.

The bad bill was defeated with a 66% NO vote!  The citizen's prevailed.

Go now and sign the initiative petition - ask your friends, your neighbors and your co-workers to do so, as well.  Print out the single signer petition, SIGN and DATE and mail it today! 

We must do everything we can to maintain our constitutional right to a voice in the Oregon Legislature.

Update: GOOD NEWS! Lawsuit to overturn Measure 88 dismissed

Alert date: 
2016-06-17
Alert body: 

Over six months ago, in an effort to overturn the resounding defeat of Measure 88 in the 2014 general election, a merit less and frivolous lawsuit was filed by five alleged illegal aliens, identified only by their initials and two small illegal alien special interest groups.

The US District Court in Eugene, where the lawsuit was filed, announced yesterday the case was dismissed.

UPDATE:  The five unnamed alleged illegal aliens that filed the lawsuit, that was ultimately dismissed, to overturn the defeat of Measure 88, have now filed an appeal.  OFIR will keep you posted.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - ballot measure 88