economy

To Increase Wages, Mandate E-Verify, Shrink Labor Market

Democratic presidential candidates have unanimously embraced the $15 federal minimum wage. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi threw her support behind the wage hike that would more than double the current $7.25 rate. Pelosi claims that not only would the wage increase give Americans more money in their paycheck, but would also boost the gross domestic product. When people have more purchasing power, they’ll spend more, and, predicted Pelosi, the GDP will therefore rise.

But a far more credible economic source than Pelosi made the opposite calculation. The Congressional Budget Office calculated that overall the $15 hourly wage would “would reduce the nation’s output slightly.” The CBO found that as many as 27 million workers, assuming they remained employed, could benefit. On the other hand, up to 3.7 million workers might lose their jobs as employers respond to higher overhead. Goods and services costs to consumers would inevitably rise.

That’s the thing about the $15 minimum wage hype – only one side of the story is told. A wage increase won’t be effective if employers don’t hire or if they dramatically reduce their hourly payrolls to adjust for the steep bump.

Moreover, the $15 wage is an artificial solution to increasing Americans’ paychecks. The lasting correction is to tighten the labor pool. The federal government can tighten the employment market in two ways: first, reduce the 1 million-plus legal immigrants who, as employment-authorized lawful permanent residents, enter the labor force annually.

Further, the government could reduce the roughly 750,000 temporary guest workers that come to the U.S. to perform an assortment of jobs that, for the most part, Americans would do, assuming a fair wage. The second tightening variable, and more immediate way to drive up wages, is to use E-Verify, the online program that ensures only legally authorized workers hold U.S. jobs.

To analyze how large influxes of immigrant workers, in this case, construction workers, impact the market, the Los Angeles Times studied the Southern California building trade. The Times wrote that over a few decades, construction workers went from being majority union, and majority U.S.-born, to majority immigrant. In the article conclusion, journalist Natalie Kitroeff wrote, “Nonunion shops made aggressive inroads into home building with workers who had less experience. The result: Today slightly more than 1 in 10 construction workers are in a union, compared with 4 in 10 in the 1970s….an influx of immigrants who would work for less made it easier for builders to quickly shift to a nonunion labor force…” A footnote: in a relatively short time, immigration played a leading role in eliminating solid, blue-collar United Brotherhood of Carpenters jobs that paid middle-class wages, offered health care, paid vacations and pensions.

But since major immigration reductions are not in the immediate future, the government could help by passing mandatory E-Verify. If passed, the program that would prevent unscrupulous employers from hiring illegal aliens and slow the flow of unlawful job-seeking foreign nationals, once the word was out. A tighter labor market results in an increase in wages for U.S. workers.

E-Verify has the overwhelming support of Americans and of companies like Costco that have used it for years. Early this year, a Houston Chronicle editorial made the interesting point that E-Verify would not only help legally present workers keep jobs, but also would protect exploited illegal immigrant workers from low pay and harsh conditions that, because of deportation fears, they’re afraid to report. With E-Verify, the onus is on employers to hire only legal workers.

For all the ballyhoo about the $15 minimum wage, nothing is ever said about tightening the labor market through lower immigration or mandating E-Verify, two solutions that would help the U.S. pay rate, still stuck at 1970 levels, to increase through normal market functions.

After ICE Raids, US Citizens Flock To Jobs

Less than one week after ICE raided 7 food processing facilities in Mississippi apprehending nearly 700 illegal workers, American citizens are rushing to freshly-available jobs.

Koch Foods is headquartered in Chicago but maintains a chicken processing facility in Mississippi that employed 243 of the 680 undocumented Latino workers arrested in the raids last Thursday. Koch has since collaborated with the Mississippi Department of Employment Security (MDES), holding a job fair to recruit new, legal, workers, according to the Associated Press.

The fair raked in 200 applications before noon, according to local media. The company says it will require applicants to present two forms of identification before being hired, according to CNN. MDES will also vet all Mississippi workers for legality using the state’s E-Verify system, according to USA Today.

A Koch spokesman did not directly correlate the job fair with the raids. Instead he told the AP that holding job fairs is routine for the chicken processing plant, especially given America’s strong current economy. (RELATED: CNN’s Tapper: Is Trump Not Getting Enough Credit For The Economy?)

Job fairs “are part of normal efforts to employ,” Gilliand told AP. “In this environment of relative full employment, most businesses are looking for qualified applicants; Koch is no different.”

Dianne Bell of the Mississippi Department of Employment Security was involved in coordinating the job fair. She says that the immigration raid and Koch’s interest in recruitment of new legal workers went hand in hand.

“They reached out to us the very same day [as the raids],” Bell told USA Today, speaking on the collaborative recruitment effort between Koch and the MDES.

Those who are now seeking employment in the raided facilities cite high wages and frequent pay as reasons to take the exhausting job of a food processing worker, according to USA Today.

Last week’s ICE raids are “believed to be the largest single-state immigration enforcement operation in our nation’s history,” says to US Attorney for the Southern District Mike Hurst, according to CNN.

Many media outlets and commentators are attributing the raids to the Trump Administration or a racist agenda. However, acting ICE director Matt Albence maintained that immigration laws “are not new laws, nor is the enforcement of them new,” according to CNN.

Ann Coulter: How we became the world's suckers on immigration

Looking at our immigration policies compared to the rest of the world, you’d think America lost a bet.

The United States is one of only two developed countries in the world (the other is Canada, and even it has some restrictions we don’t have) with full “birthright citizenship,” meaning that any child born when his mother was physically present within the geographical borders of the U.S. automatically gets a U.S. birth certificate and a Social Security card.

That means legal immigrants, pregnant women sneaking in on tourist visas, travelers on a three-week vacation, cheap foreign workers on “temporary” visas and, in some cases, foreign diplomats.

There are laws on the books that say the kids born to diplomats don’t automatically become citizens simply by being born here but — like so many of our immigration laws — these are treated as mere suggestions.

And that’s not all.

We’re the only country but two that confers automatic citizenship on children born to illegal aliens, or “anchor babies.” This is not “birthright citizenship,” which refers to children born to legal immigrants. (There’s nothing vulgar, bigoted, racial or sexual about the term “anchor baby.” It’s a boating metaphor: A geographical U.S. birth “anchors” the child’s entire family in this country by virtue of the baby’s citizenship.)

The other two countries that grant citizenship to anchor babies are Canada and Tanzania. Canada doesn’t have Latin America on its border, of course — and Tanzania is reconsidering the policy.

Here’s a fun fact: Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman — the notorious Mexican drug lord, sentenced on July 17 to life plus 30 years for drug trafficking and multiple murder conspiracies — has two children who are American, born in sunny California to his wife, who’s an anchor baby herself.

Why would any country make the calculated decision to reward illegal immigration by granting the full privileges of citizenship to the children of illegals or foreign visitors who arrange to have the births take place on its soil?

As a matter of fact, “we” didn’t make such a decision.

The late Supreme Court Justice William Brennan invented the anchor-baby policy out of whole cloth and snuck it into a footnote of an opinion written in 1982. Yes, this ancient bedrock principle, this essence of “Who We Are,” dates all the way back to the Reagan administration.

The Brennan footnote was not part of the decision. It does not have the force of law. Yet, today, we act as if Brennan’s absurd dicta is the law of the land for no reason other than: a) sheer ignorance and b) a fear of being called “racist.”

No U.S. Congress or Supreme Court ever debated and then approved the idea that children born to mothers illegally present in the country should automatically become citizens. Consequently, any president or Congress could simply state that children born to illegal aliens are not citizens. If only we had a president or Congress that would do so.

Which reminds me: No other country fawns over illegal immigrants brought in as minors, day in and day out, calling them “Dreamers.”

The U.S. is one of the rare countries that makes citizens of people who can’t speak the language — along with the masochistic Swedes. (How did they terrorize the world 800 years ago?) The United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Australia, Norway and the Netherlands all have the crazy idea that citizens should be able to communicate with one another. We have a language requirement on the books but, it turns out, that too is merely a suggestion. 

No other country holds a “lottery” in which the prize is U.S. citizenship. Ireland has a lottery but, for whatever sick and twisted reason, the Irish give the winners money, not citizenship in their country.

We bring in 50,000 lucky lottery winners each year, literally for no reason at all. (Thanks, First President Bush!) To enter, you must be from a specified country, like the Congo, Nepal, Ethiopia or Uzbekistan. You submit your name to the State Department and, if your name is pulled out of a hat, WELCOME TO AMERICA!

This rigorous system for choosing our fellow citizens gave us, for example, Egyptian national Hesham Mohamed Ali Hedayet, who opened fire at the El Al Airlines ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport in 2002, murdering two people. His wife had won the lottery five years after he came here on a tourist visa.

It got us Sayfullo Saipov, the Uzbeki who plowed a rented truck into a crowd of bicyclists and pedestrians on Halloween 2017 in New York City, killing eight and injuring many more.

It bestowed upon us Akayed Ullah, the Bangladeshi national who got in as the nephew of a lottery winner. Ullah enriched us by detonating a bomb in New York City’s Port Authority in December 2017.

Speaking of nephews of Bangladeshi lottery winners trying to blow up the Port Authority, no other major country in the world issues a majority of its visas to people based on the fact that they have a relative already living here. 

We’re not talking about the spouses and minor children of immigrants we really want. These are adult siblings, nephews and nieces — who have their own adult children, elderly parents and mothers-in-law. Two-thirds of all legal immigrants to the U.S. come in on these “family reunification” visas. (We wouldn’t want our immigrants to be illiterate, poor and lonesome.)

Even the New York Times — despite its decidedly anti-MAGA bent — has described our “family reunification” system as wildly out of step with the rest of the world. 

We’re in a buyer’s market but, instead of taking the top draft picks, we aggressively recruit the desperately poor, the culturally deprived, the sick and the needy. All because American elites seem to believe that it’s unfair — even snooty — to try to bring in the best immigrants we can.

Ann Coulter is a lawyer, a syndicated columnist and conservative commentator, and the author of 13 New York Times bestsellers. The most recent, “Resistance Is Futile! How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind,” was published in 2018. Follow her on Twitter @AnnCoulter

http://www.oregonir.org/blog/ann-coulter-how-we-became-worlds-suckers-im...

Next OFIR meeting, Saturday, August 3 at 2:00pm

Alert date: 
2019-07-07
Alert body: 

The next OFIR membership meeting will be Saturday, August 3 from 2 - 4pm at the Best Western MIll Creek Inn - across from Costco in Salem.

Aftter a really rough Legislative session, OFIR will be anxious to hear members ideas, thoughts and concerns about how OFIR will move forward.

It's almost Oregon State Fair time (Friday, August 23 - Monday, Sept. 2) - and we need you! Please, check your calendar and plan to  volunteer for a shift or two in the OFIR booth at the fair.

Details will be provided as the date draw closer.

 

How "Illegal Immigrant" Amnesty Could Destroy American Liberty

by Trevor Loudon

There is no issue that will more decisively spell the end of American liberty than that of amnesty for this country's millions of illegal aliens.

Illegal immigration and the societal changes it will bring with it are more than an economic issue, a public health issue, a law enforcement issue, or even a national security problem—it is an existential threat to thee survival of the United States as a constitutional republic.
 
It comes down to simple math.
 
For years, the generally accepted estimate of illegal aliens living in the United States has been around 11 million.
A study released by MIT's Mohammad Fazel-Zarandi, a senior lecturer in the operations research and statistics group, and his colleagues, Edward Kaplan and Jonathan Feinstein, both from Yale School of Management, in September 2018 gave cause to re-visit that figure.
According to MIT's Sloan School: The research found that the number of undocumented immigrants living in the country is about 22.1 million, nearly twice the most prominent current estimate of 11.3 million. Even using extremely conservative parameters, the study estimates a population of 16.7 million undocumented immigrants, nearly 50 percent higher than the widely accepted population figure.
 
If given citizenship and voting rights (which Hillary Clinton promised to initiate within a hundred days of taking office), 11 to 22 million eventual new voters will have a huge impact on future U.S. elections.
This fact is not lost on the left-wing activists in the United States, who seek to use the illegal alien population to secure a "permanent progressive majority" for the Democratic Party and their allies.

More Voters

Communist Party USA (CPUSA) leader Emile Schepers wrote a paper on immigration amnesty for the party's 2014 national Convention in Chicago.
 
"For decades, the CPUSA has been involved in the struggle for the rights of immigrant workers and their families. … A central focus has been gaining legal rights for the 11 million undocumented," Schepers wrote.
"We call for progressive legislation which legalizes as many people as possible as quickly as possible. … We are for ease of access too U.S. citizenship."
 
Former Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez was, for more than 20 years—the main champion of illegal alien amnestty in the House of Representatives. He is a former leader of the Marxists' Leninist Puerto Rican Socialist Party (PRSP) and an ally of both the United States largest Marxist organization—the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)—and the pro-China League of Revolutionaary Struggle (LRS).
In July 2015, Rep. Gutierrez addressed the House of Representatives on the power of the Latino vote and the political left.
 
"If millions of people naturalize, become citizens, and if we add to that the million Latino citizens who this year will turn 18, plus all our allies in the African-American community, LGBT voters and younger voters, environmental voters, women voters, Asian voters, union voters … coonstitute a majority of Americans. Together, we are the New American Coalition that will dominate politics for decades to come."
 
Gutierrez's good friend, former SEIU International Executive Vice President Eliseo Medina, is the undisputed leader of the “amnesty” movement in this country. Medina is a long-time member of the DSA, a CPUSA ally, and was an informal adviser to former President Barack Obama on immigration and amnesty issues.
At the America's Future Now! conference in Washington, D.C. on June 2, 2009, Medina addressed "progressive" attendees on the need for urgent illegal alien amnesty.
Speaking of Latino voters, Medina said: "When they [Latinos] voted in November, they voted overwhelmingly for progressive candidates. Barack Obama got two out of every three voters that showed up. …
 
"If we are to expand this electorate to win, the progressive community needs to solidly be on the side of immigrants. That we'll solidify and expand the progressive coalition for the future. …
[If] we reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters. Can you imagine if we have, even the same ratio, two out of three?
"If we have 8 million new voters who care about …. and willl be voting. We will be creating a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle."
Medina exhibits no compassion for the plight of illegal aliens or sympathy for families being torn asunder. Medina does not speak of a "nation of immigrants"or the "American Dream."
 
This is all about hard numbers and raw power.  It's very clear that the left wants illegal immigrant amnesty for one reason only—votes.

One-Party State

The 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney lost his election by around 2.5 million votes. President Donald Trump actually lost the popular vote by around 3 million ballots. He won by about 200,000 votes through the Electoral College. Thank God for the wisdom of the Founding Fathers who gave America a system to temper the dangers of raw "majority rule" and political dominance by large population centers and ethnic or religious blocs.
 
Many states with high illegal alien populations, such as Arizona, Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina are only marginally inside the Republican camp. Illegal alien amnesty would almost certainly send those states permanently "blue."  Virginia—once "red"”would also be lost for the Republicans. Even Republican-stronghold Texas is very vulnerable. Losing only one or two of these states would doom the Republican Party to minority party status, and eventual oblivion.
 
How can the Republicans hope to counter 10 to 20 million new Democrat voters, possibly as soon as the 2022 election cycle?
Today's Democratic Party is no longer the party of Harry Truman or John F. Kennedy. It is now a party of the far-left. At least 30 percent of the current Democratic senators and congressmembers have ties to the CPUSA, DSA, Freedom Road Socialist Organization, Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, or other revolutionary organizations. Many congressmembers also have ties to China, Iran, Venezuela, and especially Cuba.
Illegal alien amnesty would give the Democrats permanent control of the United States. This means a "one-party state" soon to be dominated by the far left. Think California nationwide, with no hope of a turnaround.
 
No political party should ever be given permanent unchallenged power.
As British history statesman Lord Acton famously said: "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." "Amnesty" would give the far left in the United States the absolute power they have so long craved.
Illegal alien amnesty is the left's road to the American "one-party state." For the sake of our children and grand-children, for the sake of the remaining free world, this cannot be allowed to happen. It must be fought with every fiber of our being by those who love liberty.
 
America, you must say no to amnesty.
 
Trevor Loudon is an author, filmmaker and public speaker from New Zealand. For more than 30 years, he has researched radical left, Marxist and terrorist movements and their covert influence on mainstream politics.

Read the original article.

This Saturday, Feb. 16 - OFIR membership meeting

Alert date: 
2018-02-14
Alert body: 

The election is over and, unfortuantely, Measure 105 was soundly defeated. We'll review those election results.

Now, it's time to re-set the OFIR sails, strengthen our resolve and move on.

The immigration issue is front and center - so much is happening here in Oregon and all across the country!

The Oregon Legislature is now in session and things are changing daily on the national scene, as well.

You are invited to share your ideas about what OFIR might focus on, moving forward.

Bring your ideas to the meeting and let's talk. There's lots of work to do!

Are you an OFIR member that would like to be considered for a position on our OFIR Board? New ideas, new perspectives and new energy are always welcome.

Plan to join us -

THIS Saturday, Feb. 16th from 2 – 4pm at the Best Western Mill Creek Inn across the from Costco, in Salem.

If you have any questions, please call 503.435.0141

See you there!

Oregon paying 'undocumented individuals' for childcare, investigator claims

A state fraud investigator is alleging that the state of Oregon may have violated federal law by paying 79 "undocumented individuals" to provide day care for low-income families.

Ryan Cram, who has worked as a criminal fraud investigator for five years, sent an email to every Oregon lawmaker last week saying he came forward as a whistleblower after the Department of Human Services swept his concerns under the rug. He called for a full investigation.

In response, the Department of Human Services said it had carefully examined the issue and did not find problems, according to an email sent to lawmakers and obtained by The Oregonian/OregonLive.

Leah Horner, the agency's legislative director, wrote that the agency's policy team conducted "a full review of the 79 providers" and their identification information. Of those, three required re-evaluation but were cleared. Horner said attorneys with the Department of Justice "had no concerns that fraud was committed and would not be pursuing the issue."

Cram's allegations come amid growing tensions over immigration in the era of President Donald J. Trump, whose administration has increased prosecution of immigration violations. A measure on the Oregon ballot this year would repeal the state's sanctuary law that bars state and local law enforcement from being used to enforce federal immigration standards.

"I tried going through the right steps and got blown off," Cram said in an interview Monday. "I wanted to put it all out there, and now they can answer these questions to elected officials."

At issue is the state's payments to a small fraction of childcare providers who participate in the Employment Related Day Care program. The state taps federal funds to subsidize day care for about 8,300 low-income families each month. The Department of Human Services directly pays approved providers to cover a portion of childcare costs, offering a monthly maximum of $1,255 per child.

Six months ago, while investigating a childcare-subsidy fraud case, Cram discovered an approved day care provider had supplied the Department of Human Services with a taxpayer identification number instead of a Social Security number. Cram also found the same day care provider was a recipient of food stamps.

Cram wrote that the woman was listed in internal state records as an "illegal alien" who "came over to the United States in 2007 undocumented," according to an April email he wrote to the Department of Human Services' policy office. Cram later shared the contents with lawmakers.

Cram kept digging. He found 79 daycare providers in all who, according Department of Human Services records, acknowledged being "undocumented and unauthorized to work in the United States," he said in his letter to lawmakers.

Under federal law, it is unlawful "to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment" anyone known to have not been lawfully admitted into the United States. It's also unlawful to use "a contract, subcontract, or exchange" to "obtain the labor" of someone known to be illegally in the United States.

A Department of Human Services employee initially dismissed Cram's concern, according to an email Cram provided lawmakers. The state labeled any payment to a day care as a "client benefit" for the low-income family, not the worker. The state also said it "is not an employer of providers," according to an email Cram provided lawmakers.

Cram challenged that interpretation. He wrote that the state's relationship with the day care provider appeared to be a "form of employment/contract employment."

A child care policy analyst later told Cram by email that the department had reversed course and "would no longer pay a provider once we learned they were undocumented."

But on Sept. 24, Cram was called into a meeting and told no changes would be made, according to a memo Cram wrote and shared with lawmakers.

Sen. Sara Gelser, D-Corvallis, who chairs the Interim Committee on Human Services, said she read all of the dozens of documents Cram provided. But Gelser said she had not yet had time to compare his allegations to the response offered by the Department of Human Services.

Kate Kondayen, a spokeswoman for Gov. Kate Brown, said in an email Monday that the Department of Human Services "has conducted an extensive internal review, and apprised the Governor's office of their findings."

Kondayen declined to say if Brown would ask for any further investigation.

Trump to Cap Refugees Allowed Into U.S. at 30,000, a Record Low

WASHINGTON — President Trump plans to cap the number of refugees that can be resettled in the United States next year at 30,000, his administration announced on Monday...

Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state, announced the limit at the State Department, saying it reflected the “daunting operational reality” of addressing what he called a “humanitarian crisis” involving people claiming asylum in the United States.

The number represents the lowest ceiling a president has placed on the refugee program since its creation in 1980...

The move is the latest in a series of efforts the president has made to clamp down on immigration to the United States.

It is also the culmination of a quiet but successful effort by Stephen Miller, the president’s senior policy adviser, to severely restrict the number of refugees offered protection inside the country....

Others inside the administration, including in the Department of Defense and, initially, the State Department, had supported maintaining the 45,000-refugee ceiling.

Mr. Pompeo had privately advocated last month for keeping the number where it was. He was pivotal to the decision, and kept his final recommendation under wraps until Monday afternoon, when he announced it from the Treaty Room of the State Department.

In doing so, he adopted an argument made privately by Mr. Miller: that the United States needed to prioritize hundreds of thousands of people who have arrived at the United States border, claiming a credible fear of returning home, rather than refugees overseas who are by definition already in need of protection and resettlement in another country.

“Some will characterize the refugee ceiling as the full barometer of America’s commitment to vulnerable people around the world,” Mr. Pompeo said. “This would be wrong.”

“This year’s refugee ceiling reflects the substantial increase in the number of individuals seeking asylum in our country, leading to a massive backlog of outstanding asylum cases and greater public expense,” he added.

Mr. Pompeo said refugees had to be weighed against a backlog of 800,000 asylum seekers — people in the United States who claim a “credible fear” of returning home — who are awaiting a decision by immigration authorities about whether they will be granted status to remain...

About 730,000 additional immigrants were waiting for their cases to be resolved by American courts, according to the Justice Department, including people who had asked for asylum after being apprehended. But that number also included people in deportation or other immigration proceedings.

Immigrant and advocates condemned the cuts to the refugee program, calling it a callous decision that would also undermine American national security and foreign policy priorities.

The cap does not require the Trump administration to resettle 30,000 refugees; in years past, governments have accepted far fewer than what is legally permitted.

During the administration of President George W. Bush, for example, the program’s ceiling accepted up to 70,000 refugees annually; it was raised to 80,000 during his final year in office. But the government only resettled about 27,000 refugees in 2002, immediately after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and accepted 28,000 the following year.

Mr. Trump, who campaigned promising a “Muslim ban,” and argued for a halt to the admission of Syrian refugees because he argued that they could be a danger to the country, has targeted the refugee resettlement program for cuts since his first days in office.

His travel ban, imposed a week after he was sworn in, temporarily halted the program and limited the number of refugees that could be resettled in the United States to 50,000. That slashed the program from the 110,000 cap that President Barack Obama had put in place before he left office.

Last year, Mr. Miller led an effort, with the support of John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, to cut the program even more, to as low as 15,000.

But pushback from Defense and State Department officials, as well as the Joint Chiefs of Staff and members of the United States mission to the United Nations, who advocated for maintaining the 50,000 level, resulted in a ceiling of 45,000...

Gardiner Harris contributed reporting.

 

Sanctuary City Battle in Indiana Heats Up

WASHINGTON - Today the State of Indiana joined the fight against lawless sanctuary cities by intervening in a lawsuit brought by the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) and The Bopp Law Firm. The suit seeks to overturn an ordinance that the City of Gary, Indiana, enacted to protect illegal aliens.

IRLI and The Bopp Law Firm challenged Gary’s ordinance last December, arguing that the ordinance violates an Indiana statute prohibiting governmental bodies in the state from refusing to cooperate with federal immigration law enforcement. This statute requires local jurisdictions to cooperate with such enforcement to the full extent contemplated in federal law.

Residents of Gary and other sanctuary cities are victimized by such unlawful non-cooperation policies. According to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement estimates, roughly 2.1 million alien criminals are living in the U.S., over 1.9 million of whom are removable. Because of policies prohibiting state and local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration officials, alien criminals get to stay in communities and commit more crimes.

“IRLI applauds the decision by Attorney General Curtis T. Hill, Jr., to protect Hoosiers from the dangers of sanctuary cities by intervening in this case,” said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI. “Sheltering illegal aliens from immigration authorities not only flagrantly violates duly-enacted Indiana law, but represents a serious public safety and national security risk. With cities like Gary insisting on putting the interests of illegal aliens above their own citizenry, we appreciate the State stepping up to the plate to protect the interests of all Hoosiers.”

For additional information, contact: Brian Lonergan  202-232-5590  blonergan@irli.org

 

 

 

 
 


 

Opposition to immigrant sanctuary spreading in California

SANTA ANA, Calif. (AP) — More local governments in California are resisting the state's efforts to resist the Trump administration's immigration crackdown, and political experts see politics at play as Republicans try to fire up voters in a state where the GOP has grown weak.

Since the Jeff Sessions-led Department of Justice sued California last month over its so-called "sanctuary state" law limiting police collaboration with immigration agents, at least a dozen local governments have voted to either join or support the lawsuit or for resolutions opposing the state's position. Those include the Board of Supervisors in Orange County, which has more than 3 million people.

More action is coming this week, with leaders in the Orange County city of Los Alamitos scheduled to vote Monday on a proposal for a local law to exempt the community of 12,000 from the state law. On Tuesday, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors is meeting to consider joining the Trump administration lawsuit.

Immigration has been a hot topic across the country since President Donald Trump campaigned in 2016 on promises of tougher enforcement and a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. It has been a lightning rod issue in California far longer....

"When the attorney general of the United States decides to take a firm position against it, I think that gave a signal to a lot of us that, 'Hey, California is on the wrong side of this thing,'" said Fred Whitaker, chairman of the Republican Party in Orange County...

"Politics is very much about emotions, especially in midterms," he said. "I think it was only a matter of time when people went back to the issue that actually hits the nerve in the Republican base these days more than any other."

Under Democratic leadership, California has enacted a series of laws in recent years aimed at helping immigrants, including issuing driver's licenses regardless of legal status and assisting with tuition at state universities. After Trump was elected, lawmakers passed the measure to limit police collaboration with federal immigration agents....

Most of the local governments siding with the Trump administration are in Orange County, an area once considered a GOP stronghold but that voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. But it's starting to spread.

Escondido in neighboring San Diego County has voted to support the federal lawsuit and last week the small city of Ripon in the state's Central Valley did the same.

In many cases, meetings on the issue have drawn boisterous crowds. Anti-illegal immigration activists have traveled from city to city to attend...

In response to the controversy, some local governments have taken the opposite approach. Leaders in Santa Ana, an Orange County city home to about 330,000 residents, voted to support California in the lawsuit.

Some of the supervisors pushing the issue in Orange and San Diego counties are Republicans running for Congress and they may see this as a way to generate needed enthusiasm, said Louis DeSipio, a political science professor at the University of California, Irvine.

"The mobilization that could come from introducing immigration debates into county political races may be a critical element in a year like 2018 when Democrats will likely be more mobilized than Republicans," he said.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - economy