ballot measure 88

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

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.

Federal judge dismisses lawsuit seeking drivers licenses for illegal immigrants in Oregon

A judge in U.S. District Court in Eugene has dismissed a lawsuit seeking to give illegal immigrants in Oregon access to short-term drivers’ licenses.

The suit, filed on behalf of five unnamed illegal immigrants from Mexico, sought to restore a 2013 law, passed by the Oregon ­Legislature as Senate Bill 833, creating those new licenses. That law was overturned after it was referred to Oregon voters as Measure 88 in November 2014 and soundly defeated.

Oregon’s refusal to issue driver cards is unconstitutional because immigration regulation is done at the federal level and “is not a legitimate state interest,” the illegal immigrants’ lawsuit had argued. The refusal to issue licenses is “arbitrary” and “capricious” and is “motivated, at least in part, by animus towards Mexicans and Central Americans,” it said. The lawsuit named Democratic Gov. Kate Brown and leaders of the state ­Department of Transportation as ­defendants.

But, in a ruling released Monday, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken wrote that she lacked the authority to compel the state to issue drivers’ licenses outright. Moreover, she found, SB 833 never went into effect as an Oregon law. That means that, even if Aiken invalidated the voters’ rejection of Measure 88 as unconstitutional, “no (existing) law authorizes the state to grant driver cards,” Aiken wrote.

“As such, the state defendants are not refusing to issue driver cards because a referendum motivated by discriminatory animus prevents them from doing so; they cannot issue driver cards because no valid, existing Oregon law authorizes them to do so,” Aiken wrote.

Aiken’s ruling supported the argument made by the state attorney general’s office in its motion to dismiss.

Sarah Weston, assistant attorney general, wrote that the state “agrees that enacting a driver card program would have benefited (the plaintiffs) and would have been good policy for the state.”

But “the relief the plaintiffs seek — the enactment and implementation of SB 833 — cannot be imposed on the state by the federal court in this action,” Weston wrote.

“Just as would be the case with any other bill that failed to become law via the legislative process, if plaintiffs seek to have SB 833 enacted, they must try again via that process,” she added.

Representatives of the Oregon Law Center, which filed the suit on behalf of the five immigrants and two Latino-focused nonprofit organizations, could not be reached for comment on Aiken’s ruling Monday.

Oregonians for Immigration Reform, the chief opponents of Measure 88, applauded the decision.

“Today, the court has dismissed the meritless and frivolous case,” the group said in a statement. “Nearly a million voters said ‘no’ — and now the Court is standing with us. No driver cards for those who can’t prove they are legally present in the country.”

For many years, Oregon allowed residents to get a driver’s license regardless of his or her legal status. But starting in 2008, because of the federal REAL ID Act, ­residents have had to prove legal status to get one.

Measure 88 would have created a new type of short-term driver’s license, available to anyone who had lived in Oregon for at least a year.

Twelve states now provide drivers’ licenses regardless of people’s legal status, including Washington state, California and Nevada.

Follow Saul on Twitter @SaulAHubbard . Email saul.hubbard@registerguard.com .
 

Court dismisses lawsuit against Oregon Measure 88!

Over 6 months ago, 5 alleged illegal aliens, identified only by their initials and two illegal alien special interest groups, filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in Eugene to overturn the defeat of Measure 88 and to restore SB 833 - providing state-issued photo ID in the form of driver cards to those who could not prove they are legally present in the U.S.
 
In the general election of 2014 nearly a million Oregon voters said NO, 35 of 36 counties voted NO, and all 5 congressional districts voted NO on giving state issued photo ID to illegal aliens. But, on the one year anniversary of the overwhelming defeat of driver cards, 5 alleged illegal aliens filed a lawsuit to overturn that resounding NO vote.
 
Today, the court has DISMISSED the meritless and frivolous case. The vote of Oregon citizens stands.
 
From the judges’ published opinion:
 
Under the Oregon Constitution, Oregon voters retain the right of referendum to approve or reject legislation enacted by the Oregon legislature. Or. Const. art. IV,§ 1(3)(a) ("The people reserve to themselves the referendum power, which is to approve or reject at an election any Act, or pati thereof, of the Legislative Assembly that does not become effective earlier than 90 days after the end of the session at which the Act is passed."). "When a referendum is invoked, the act of the legislature then becomes merely a measure to be voted on by the people, and, if the people vote in the affirmative, the measure becomes an act; if they vote in the negative, the measure fails."
 
Nearly a million voters said NO - and now the Court is standing with us. NO driver cards for those who can't prove they are legally present in the country.
 

 

Related news release
 
Victory in Oregon!
 
 
Immigration Reform Law Institute
25 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 335
Washington, DC 2001
 
 
Protecting the right of Americans to govern themselves 
 
May 16, 2016
 
(Washington, D.C.) – Today, a federal judge in Oregon dismissed a lawsuit (opinion attached here) brought by five admitted illegal aliens and two illegal alien special interest groups that requested the court force the State of Oregon to grant driving privileges to illegal aliens. In January, the Immigration Reform Law Institute (“IRLI”), along with Jill Gibson of the Gibson Law Firm, LLC, filed a motion to intervene in the suit and a motion to dismiss the case as lacking merit on behalf of their client Oregonians for Immigration Reform (“OFIR”).
 
Specifically, the lawsuit sought to overturn as unconstitutional the outcome of the November 2014 general election in Oregon, when, through the Oregon Constitution’s referendum veto process, Oregon voters overwhelmingly rejected (by more than 66% of voters) a bill passed by the 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.
 
Today, the Oregon U.S. District Court ruled that it could “not order the State to comply with legislation that could not and would not become effective, and no ruling would redress plaintiffs’ alleged injury.” Moreover, the court stated that it had “no authority to substitute the voter approval required by the Oregon Constitution” and “principles of federalism underlying the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments forbid th[e] Court from directing the State to enact or enforce state laws.”
 
Dale L. Wilcox, IRLI’s Executive Director commented, “We are happy with the outcome of this case. This case had no merit whatsoever and was a waste of the court’s time and precious resources.” Wilcox continued, “As I stated previously, this case was about sour grapes as the overwhelming majority of Oregonians had spoken and rejected at the ballot box taxpayer-funded giveaways to those who have no legal right to be here.”
 
Read the full Court opinion.
 

 

Learn more
 

 

Did you miss Saturday's OFIR meeting?

OFIR hosted their quarterly meeting Saturday afternoon, May 7th.  If you were unable to attend, you missed a packed house and a great meeting!

Dr. Bud Pierce, GOP candidate for Governor was the featured speaker.  Several other candidates also dropped in to introduce themselves to our members and guests.

Oregon's new representative for the Remembrance Project gave a presentation about the national organization.

Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project was there to explain the questionnaire they send to all candidates.

David Olen Cross explained how important your words are - in print!  He encouraged members to write letters to the editor and guest opinions for publication in newspapers across the state.

There was ample time for questions and candidates stayed well after the meeting to distribute campaign materials and meet with OFIR members.

 

 

ILLEGAL ALIENS SUING FOR RIGHT TO OBTAIN DRIVER LICENSES

A group of illegal aliens and two non-profits are suing the State of Oregon saying their constitutional rights were violated when voters struck down a ballot-initiative that would have given them driving privileges. Those opposing their efforts also argue that federal taxpayer funds are being illegally used to pay lawyers for the plaintiffs.

Familias En Accion and Los Ninos Cuentan and five illegal aliens are suing the Oregon Governor Kate Brown, numerous members of the Oregon Department of Transportation Commission, and the Administrator of the Driver and Motor Vehicles Division for the Oregon Department of Transportation. The complaint was filed in early November.

A federal district judge in Oregon will soon be deciding whether the group of illegal immigrants had their constitutional rights violated after voters struck down via voter referendum, S.B. 833, that would have given driving privileges to illegal aliens in Oregon.

When passed and signed into law by the governor, S.B. 833 directed the Department of Transportation to issue a driver card to an applicant who does not provide proof of legal presence in the U.S. The only requirement for them is to comply with the requirements for driving privileges, and to have lived in Oregon for more than one year. Opponents say the law was hurriedly passed by the legislature and governor.

According to the group’s class action complaint, the 2014 citizen referendum that nullified the measure (by 66 percent of the vote), “arbitrarily and irrationally” excludes them from driving privileges and is motivated by racial animus against Mexicans and Central Americans.

Lawyers for those fighting the lawsuit say that the illegal immigrants and the non-profits that represent them, also claim that the referendum was motivated by a “desire to punish” them. They say the plaintiffs urge that “it is not a crime for a person to seek or engage in unauthorized work in the United States.”

In 2013, the Oregon state government attempted to join a growing number of states that have passed laws granting driving privileges to illegal aliens. Before the bill was implemented, a pro-immigration control advocate, Oregonians for Immigration Reform (OFIR), sparked a ballot initiative gathering over 58,000 signatures to let voters decide whether they wanted the law.

The initiative received resounding support from voters concerned that such privileges would lead to more illegal aliens moving into their state, resulting in more crime and welfare abuse and further disruption to Oregon’s communities and labor market. Although the illegal aliens are suing the state of Oregon in order to get the citizen-ballot results found void and unenforceable, OFIR has filed a motion to intervene in the case.

According to OFIR’s attorneys, the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), a D.C. nonprofit law firm, the Oregon attorney general’s office appears to volunteer an argument on behalf of the illegal immigrant plaintiffs in its brief, specifically that the Fourteenth Amendment protects politically unpopular minority groups from being targeted by state action and that this group could encompass illegal immigrants.

Julie Axelrod, IRLI counsel for the case told Breitbart Texas that such a constitutional protection does not exist. If it did, says Axelrod, “this would be fatal to U.S. immigration law as a whole, which necessarily ‘targets’ illegal aliens and specifically states that aliens ‘shall be removed’ from the country should they enter without inspection.”

The Oregon AG’s office also claims that OFIR made derogatory and racist statements about Hispanics in their get-out-the-vote-efforts, which is absolutely not true, according to OFIR and their attorneys. Nor does OFIR have a “general interest in denying rights to immigrants” as the plaintiffs have claimed, says Axelrod. “OFIR has never sought to deny rights to lawful immigrants. OFIR simply believes, in common with 66 percent of Oregon voters, that granting driving privileges to those present in this country in violation of the law is poor public policy,” said Axelrod.

Earlier this month, attorneys for the illegal aliens, the Oregon Law Center (OLC), filed a brief opposing OFIR’s motion to intervene in the case. Even though OFIR arranged the very ballot-measure that’s involved in the case, the illegal aliens’ attorneys are relying on the 2013 decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, where the Supreme Court ruled that proponents of traditional marriage in California could not make their government enforce the successful ballot initiative due to the group not having a sufficient “personal stake in defending its enforcement.” That decision, OFIR attorneys argue, applies only to a party’s right to bring a case in court, not to intervene on behalf of a party to the case.

On top of claiming rights normally given only to citizens and legal residents, the illegal aliens appear to be using a federal taxpayer-grant program to pay for their legal representation in violation of congressional appropriations law.

According to OLC’s website, the group receives numerous grants from the federal government, including from the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), a taxpayer-funded grant-making entity created by Congress in 1974. IRLI says that since the mid-1980’s, when LSC was caught providing federal grants to organizations representing illegal aliens, Congress prohibited the agency from spending appropriated funds for “litigation and related activities” for “representation of illegal aliens.”

The prohibition from spending tax dollar-funded federal funds is still on the books today; however, lawyers for the illegal immigrants appear to be receiving taxpayer money anyway, says the attorneys for OFIR. That the LSC feels safe in violating Congress’s prohibition shouldn’t be surprising, says Axelrod. Since 2014, the Obama administration has distributed millions of dollars in grants to lawyers representing illegal immigrant minors from Central America.

There have been several articles and treatises written about why the Legal Services Corporation must be abolished, including this one by the Heritage Foundation.

Oregon is fighting the trend, set by a wave of states, to issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. According to a Pew Charitable Trusts study, “[a]s of the summer of 2015, 10 states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Vermont, and Washington) and the District of Columbia issue driver’s licenses, or similar documents referred to by different names, to this population, and nearly 37 percent of unauthorized immigrants live in a jurisdiction where they may obtain a license.”

Breitbart News reported in February of this year that California has issued driver licenses to more than a half million illegal immigrants (605,000) in 2015. This was the first year that the illegal immigrants were eligible for driving certification in California. California Assembly Bill 60 (AB 60) was implemented on January 2, 2o15.

The results of an April 2015 survey by YouGov/Huffington Post of 1000 adult Americans found that 47% “strongly oppose,” and 17% “somewhat oppose,” allowing Illegal aliens to obtain driver licenses in their state. Moreover, 42 percent of those surveyed felt that allowing illegal aliens to obtain drivers licenses “makes the U.S. less safe.”

Lana Shadwick is a writer and legal analyst for Breitbart Texas. She has served as an associate judge and prosecutor. Follow her on Twitter @LanaShadwick2

Rep. Vic Gilliam gets it wrong - again!

Representative Vic Gilliam, who spear-headed the failed attempt to put driver licenses in the hands of people in our country illegally, is at it again.

Flagrant remarks about the intentions of a well respected grassroots organization, of which I am President, is a thinly veiled attempt to discredit the work we have done and the intentions of our group going forward. 

In fact, he goes so far as to imply that OFIR is racist for wanting our immigration laws enforced and to have the needs of American citizens come first.

Rep. Gilliam, an elected official sworn to uphold the laws of this country, seems to think it's better to embrace the needs of those that willingly disregard our laws by coming here illegally, working here illegally and often using a stolen identity or social security number to do so, whose children overwhelm our schools, who often steal jobs away from low skill, entry level, legal workers (especially minorites), whose cars overwhelm our roads and whose increasing numbers threaten our natural environment. 

Rep. Gilliam stated, "Largely as a result of a failed federal immigration policy, we have undocumented workers in our state who are proven hard-working citizens and trusted friends."  Undocumented workers are now citizens according to Gilliam?   Gilliam is a State Representative?  At one time we used to be a nation that respected the “rule of law.”

I've got news for you Vic, our immigration policy is not failed - it's simply not enforced!  Elected officials like you have compounded the problems.  I don't blame those that take advantage of our lack of enforcement - I blame our elected officials that pick and choose which laws to enforce and which laws are not as convenient for them and their deep pocketed donors.

Once again, I think you're on the wrong side of the issue.  Clearly, you ignored your constituents thoughts on the issue  regarding driver licenses for illegal aliens when 18,282 of your constituents voted NO and only 5,571 voted YES.

You are elected to protect and serve your constituents, not foreign nationals illegally present in our country.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Immigration reform, not discrimination, is needed

By:
Vic Gilliam
Woodburn Independent
2016-01-27

 

A simplistic view of immigration can be tempting given decades of federal mismanagement of our borders as well as grave concerns for our safety in light of growing international terrorism.

Some essentially declare in frustration: “Let’s seal our borders, force everyone to speak English and round up the ‘illegals’ and ship ‘em home!”

Racism is an evil human tendency, which I must resist. It can be as blatant as slavery. It can also creep up on a society or into one’s heart under the cover of fear.

Fellow lawmakers, some of whom I know well and respect, have announced their intention to promote so called “immigration reform” policies. I disagree with their approach and will vigorously oppose their efforts.

Taking the failures of this White House (and several previous ones) out on our neighbors and friends in Oregon is hardly the way to fix a global problem. I agree, we have an American culture and traditions that are memorable and worthy of respect. Hallmarks range from the Statue of Liberty in New York harbor, to Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. From Mark Hatfield’s success in restoring every Oregon Native-American tribe’s rights, to Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream,” we cherish landmarks in this great American melting pot.

Vigorous debate is fundamental to our republic. I repeat that many of legislators supporting these measures are honorable leaders and friends of mine. Yet, there are numerous reasons for opposing their proposal. And there is a fundamental flaw in their strategy.

The individuals and organization that have again masterminded and promoted these objectionable proposals, sadly have a reputation of racism. There are consistent and vigorous claims of non-discrimination but when considering the literature, rhetoric and track record of Oregonians For Immigration Reform, I’m reminded of Shakespeare’s phrase: “Methinks thou doth protest too much.”

Their spokesman was quoted this way: “They’re dividing the fabric of the community by not learning to speak English. … We’re not discriminating against any particular group. We just feel learning English would be important if you want to become a citizen.”

A common language for communication is an admirable goal. But why not promote English, bilingual education and additional language skills in our schools? Additionally, why not encourage adult education venues to address language and cultural differences and promote understanding and unity?

Largely as a result of a failed federal immigration policy, we have undocumented workers in our state who are proven hard-working citizens and trusted friends. If you choose to ignore the reality of generations of immigrants who are valued members of our community and economy, then who is really dividing the fabric of Oregon with frustrated misdirected policies at the state level?

I support a new focus on future federal standards of border safety. I will oppose clandestine discrimination cloaked in “immigration reform” that will make life more difficult for Oregon families with rich histories here and abroad. Let’s unite and raise the local bar of tolerance and understanding that results in a safer and stronger Oregon.

Vic Gilliam is state representative for House District 18, which spans from Aurora to Silverton.

http://portlandtribune.com/wbi/153-opinion/290522-167943-immigration-ref...

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - ballot measure 88