enforcement

Fatal Traffic Crash - Highway 22W south of Highway 18

Clifford Fagaly, 69, of Silverton, was pronounced dead at the scene on Highway 22 south of Highway 18. His wife Kerttu Fagaly , 85, of Silverton, was critically injured and taken to Salem Hospital.

Lt. Gregg Hastings, a spokesman for the Oregon State Police, said the crash happened about 6:30 p.m. Saturday in heavy fog and icy conditions, when a westbound 2003 Ford van crossed the center line and collided with a 2000 Toyota four-door being driven by Clifford Fagaly, which was traveling east. The Toyota came to rest in a ditch and the van stopped in the westbound lane, where it was hit by a westbound 2012 Dodge pickup and skidded off the highway into a ditch.

The driver of the van, Marcos Antonio Luz, 41, of Woodburn, was taken to Salem hospital with serious injuries. Authorities say alcohol may have been a contributing factor for Luz.

The driver of the pickup, Lonny Bryant, 51, and passenger Ruthann Bryant, 49, both of Willamina, were taken to Willamette Valley Medical Center in McMinnville for minor injuries.

Seatbelt use information was not available. The highway was closed in both directions for several hours as a result of the crash.

The OSP is investigating the crash.

 MARCOS ANTONIO LUZ - ICE HOLD

Polls should be considered by Legislators

While not scientific, anyone can respond to the frequent polls offered in newspapers across the country.  But, when the results are the same time and time again, shouldn't Oregon Legislators factor these results into their decision making? 

It would be a welcome change if many of the people elected to represent us, actually did!

The World

Should illegal immigrants be allowed to pay in-state tuition to Oregon universities, if they graduated from Oregon high schools?

February 25, 2013

POLL RESULTS

- Yes. Educating these kids is in Oregon's economic interest [Votes 157 or 23%].

- No. We should not subsidize people who are in this country illegally [Votes 484 or 70%].

- Not yet. But if federal law grants them some kind of amnesty, then yes [Votes 47 or 7%].

http://theworldlink.com/news/local/should-illegal-immigrants-be-allowed-to-pay-in-state-tuition/poll_6f15cb7e-7c53-11e2-929c-0019bb2963f4.html

 


 

Just who is the Oregon Legislature working for?

The Oregon Legislature has failed to pass a bill giving instate tuition benefits to illegal alien students for the past 10 years. Now, with the Democrats running the show, and some very misguided Republicans in their pocket, they are once again attempting to ram this bill down our throats. While this poll is not scientific, it is certainly open to anyone to express their opinion. If it's such a great idea, why does it fare so poorly in the Statesman Journal poll? Ask your Representative if they voted in favor of the HB 2787, passing it out of the House and sending it over to the Senate.

The House passed a bill allowing in-state tuition rates for undocumented immigrant students. If it becomes law, do you believe it will be beneficial for Oregon?

Yes 13%

No 84%

Don’t Know 1%

Total Votes: 349

Real Border Control Has to Come First in Any Immigration Deal

A bipartisan group of eight U.S. senators has proposed an immigration reform plan that appears to broadly reflect what voters would like to see. But there's a catch.

Most Americans (56 percent) want our nation to have a welcoming policy of legal immigration. With such an approach, the only people who would be excluded are national security threats, criminals and those who would seek to live off our generous system of welfare and other benefits. Sixty-one percent of Republicans favor such a policy, along with 55 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of unaffiliated voters.

But while favoring such a welcoming policy of legal immigration, voters want to stop illegal immigration. Eight out of 10 think this is an important policy goal, including 58 percent who say it's very important. Once the borders are secure, people are quite willing to support almost any proposal to legalize the status of illegal immigrants already in this country: 64 percent see this as an important goal, including 33 percent who say it's very important.

With this background, it's no surprise to find initial support for the plan rolled out by the senators. It provides a combination of improved border security with a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants already here. Fifty-nine percent of voters nationwide favor the approach, while only 18 percent are opposed. Most Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliated voters are on board.

Especially popular is the inclusion of strict penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Sixty-four percent support this provision. Voters have long been supportive of penalizing employers and landlords who profit from illegal immigration. They would rather punish them than penalize the immigrants. For most Americans, it's easier to understand why people would want to better themselves by coming to America than to tolerate U.S. companies that knowingly encourage them to break the law.

Yet despite the broad support for the outlines of the bipartisan legislation, the prospects for its passage are far from clear. The reason has little to do with the immigration issue itself and everything to do with the lack of public trust in the government. If the proposal were to become law, only 45 percent of voters believe it is even somewhat likely that the federal government would make a serious effort to secure the borders and reduce illegal immigration. That figure includes just 15 percent who think the government is very likely to make such an effort.

As on most issues, Democrats are far more trusting of the government. Two-thirds of those in the president's party think the government is likely to enforce the entire law. However, 69 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of unaffiliated voters think the government is unlikely to follow through on the provisions to reduce illegal immigration.

Overcoming this skepticism is the key to maintaining support for any comprehensive reform. Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, one of the group of eight, has said that the enforcement provisions will have to be working before the pathway to citizenship can be opened. That's consistent with public opinion. But Rubio and his colleagues have their work cut out convincing voters that the plan really will work that way.

To find out more about Scott Rasmussen, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2013 SCOTT RASMUSSEN

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Be at the Capitol - Tuesday, Feb. 26 - DRUG WARS: Silver or Lead screening

Alert date: 
February 22, 2013
Alert body: 

If you couldn't make it to the showing of DRUG WARS: Silver or Lead last month, you're in luck.

Tuesday, February 26 from 9-11am, OFIR will be showing the documentary again at the Oregon State Capitol Building - Room 257.

Every concerned citizen should attend and find out what's really happening. This is not an issue confined to the US-Mexican border. Like a cancer, it's spreading throughout the entire US. Citizen APATHY is one of the greatest tools used by drug cartel operatives. Now, they want our drivers licenses!

Your attendance is encouraged! Before or after the event, please plan to visit your Senator and Representative. Tell them about your concerns. If they aren't available, make an appt. for a later date (or make one before you come).

The Capitol is YOUR building and the people inside should be working for Oregonians. Your Legislator has regular visits from lobbyists and advocates working to advance the agenda of illegal aliens. Have they seen you? If not, you should introduce yourself and tell them YOU are a constituent. Thank them if they are working to protect Oregon jobs and American sovereignty.

NOTE: Bring quarters for the meter (75 cents an hour). Plan to stay at least the first hour and a half...the last half hour will be Q&A. The documentary is 1 hour and 21 minutes long.

Hope to see you there!

OFIR president to speak at Pachyderm luncheon Thursday

Alert date: 
February 18, 2013
Alert body: 

Cynthia Kendoll of Salem, president of Oregonians for Immigration Reform, will speak at the next luncheon of the Valley Pachyderm Club.

The luncheon will start at noon Thursday [February 22nd] at the Scottish Rite Center, 4090 Commercial St. SE, Salem. Reservations are requested by Wednesday; call (503) 585-9525 or email robert@mosqueda.com.

OFIR has been outspoken against legislation [HB 2787 / SB 10] allowing in-state tuition rates for students in the country illegally.

 

Confidential, expensive USDA sensitivity training: ‘The Pilgrims were illegal aliens’

Footage of the United States Department of Agriculture’s compulsory “Cultural Sensitivity Training” program reveals USDA employees being instructed to refer to the Pilgrims as “illegal aliens” and minorities as “emerging majorities” — at “a huge expense” to taxpayers.

The video clips were made public Thursday evening by the conservative government accountability group Judicial Watch, which obtained them through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made on May 18, 2012.

The clips star Samuel Betances — a diversity instructor with Souder, Betances and Associates — who says in the video that he got his diversity training start under former Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. In the clips, Betances instructed USDA employees on the proper thinking about diversity and minorities — or, as he called them, “emerging majorities.”

Between requiring the employees to repeat that “every federal agency has discriminated against African-Americans, Hispanics, Native American Indians and other groups,” and a long account of his personal history, Betances encouraged the employees to take note because the presentation is “a huge expense.”

“If you take a look at all of you here and you think about your salaries and your benefits and what you have left undone – plus my fee – plus the expense of the team that’s putting the video together, this is a huge expense,” he says in his video.

In another clip, Betances attempted to dispel the stigma of illegal immigrants by calling the Pilgrims illegal aliens.

“I want you to say that America was founded by outsiders – say that – who are today’s insiders, who are very nervous about today’s outsiders,” he said in the clip.

“I want you to say, ‘The Pilgrims were illegal aliens,’” he continued. “Say, ‘The Pilgrims never gave their passports to the Indians.’”

Throughout the session, Betances had the employees shout “Bam!” to reinforce his points.

Betances also explained in another clip Judicial Watch highlighted — from the more than three-and-a-half hour video — that he does not like the word “minorities.”

“By the way, I don’t like the word ‘minorities.’ How about ‘emerging majorities’?” he said.

At times in the video, Betances poked fun at “white males.”

“White males founded the USDA! Say ‘Thank you, white males.’ I know it got stuck, some of you couldn’t get it out,” he said to laughter. “I understand. Let’s try that again. Go ahead.”

“Notice I’m not saying, ‘Thank you for slavery, or sexism, or what happened to the indigenous Native American folks.’ I’m saying thank you for what? I’m saying, ‘Thank you for establishing the agency in which those of us that are not white males seek to play a larger role,’” Betances said in a faux giddy manner, before explaining that unity begins with gratitude, before turning to grievances. “We’ve got grievances!,” he said. “This institution, like all federal institutions, have not been fair.”

The training videos were supposed to be kept secret: Judicial Watch describes an Oct. 10, 2011 email exchange in which USDA Training Administrator Vincent Loran requested the training video from Betances and promised it will never get out.

“It will not be used for or show [sic] in any way shape or form,” Judicial Watch quotes Loran as writing…

Judicial Watch notes that in 2011 and 2012, USDA paid Betances and his firm nearly $200,000.
 

Mexican drug war topic of film

Showings of “Drug Wars: Silver or Lead,” a 2008 documentary about drug trafficking in Mexico and its implications for the United States, will be sponsored by Oregonians for Immigration Reform.

One showing will start at 1 p.m. Wednesday [February 20th]; the other will begin at 9 a.m. Feb. 26. Both will be in Room 257 of the Capitol. The film runs 82 minutes.

The group has been critical of federal immigration policies and hopes to influence state legislative debate on related issues.

— Peter Wong

 

Immigration reform is not about semantics

It seems everyone has some advice for beleaguered Republicans these days, especially when it comes to Hispanic voters and the issue of immigration.

Among the many groups and interests who may or may not have the best interests of the Republican Party at heart is the Hispanic Leadership Network, which bills itself as a coalition of Hispanic Republicans. In an appeal to congressional Republicans, the HLN suggests that the party’s rhetoric on immigration policy is the decisive impediment to winning more of the Hispanic vote.

As alluring as it might be for Republicans to believe that they are a catch-phrase or two away from cutting into the Democrats’ sizeable advantage among Hispanics, it is simply not the case. For starters, the Republicans’ difficulty with Hispanic voters predates recent immigration debates. Mitt Romney’s poor showing among Hispanics was not significantly out of line with what other GOP presidential nominees have polled over many decades.

The Republicans’ “Hispanic problem” is not an immigration-related one; it is an economic one. Every poll of Hispanic voters has found that jobs and the economy top the list of concerns expressed by these voters and that by overwhelming majorities they favor the Democrats’ solutions. Immigration policy ranks far down the list of concerns for most Hispanic voters.

The HLN offers up an appealing list of euphemisms that Republicans might use as they engage in the looming policy debate about immigration reform. Euphemisms may make it easier for Republicans to compromise core values. But engaging in euphemism will not impress Hispanic voters who are voting against Republicans in large numbers for reasons that have nothing to do with amnesty for illegal aliens. And it certainly will do nothing to benefit American workers and taxpayers who will bear the brunt of the truly destructive policy euphemistically labeled “comprehensive immigration reform.”

Republicans should not shy away from using the term amnesty for what is being proposed. It is what it is, even if illegal aliens have to jump through a few hoops, endure a slap on the wrists, and wait awhile to become citizens. The HLN’s preferred term, “earned legal status,” ignores the fundamental truth that the most important criterion for earning legal status is having broken the law. Not only that, while illegal immigrants are going through the process, they will get to remain here, be eligible to compete for most every job available, and enjoy many public benefits including ObamaCare.

Another helpful rationalization suggested by the HLN is removing the word illegal (either as a noun or adjective) from the immigration debate lexicon. Such people should be referred to as “undocumented immigrants,” Republicans are urged. The problem, of course, is that the term is not only inaccurate, but utterly divorced from reality. Being an immigrant to the United States is not a status people can bestow upon themselves, any more than being a congressman, senator, doctor, or a lawyer is.

The people who would benefit from amnesty are citizens of other nations who either entered or remained in this country in violation of our laws. Like all human beings, they need to be treated with respect and dignity, but that should not preclude us from calling what they are – illegal aliens – or demanding that they comply with our laws.

Warm and fuzzy language should not obscure the most important consideration of how we address immigration reform. Illegal immigration is harmful to the well-being of American workers and taxpayers, and is a potential threat to our security. Amnesty would only validate the harm that has already been inflicted and compound it over time. In particular, Hispanic Americans who often compete directly with illegal aliens for jobs, wages, and educational opportunities as they endeavor to get ahead, stand to lose the most.

Instead of adopting empty feel-good rhetoric, Republicans need to offer a compelling message for why enforcing our immigration laws would be enormously beneficial to low-income Americans, including Hispanics. There is a clear choice that needs to be made in dealing immigration. Either we can prioritize people who broke our immigration laws and the narrow political and economic interests that benefit from them, or we can do what is right for Hispanic citizens and legal immigrants, and their children.

A realistic chance at upward mobility, not mass amnesty, is precisely what Hispanic voters say they want. A rational immigration policy, not patronizing language, is the Republicans’ best hope for winning the votes of Hispanic Americans.

Dan Stein is president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

 

 

Congress...are you listening?

Elizabeth Van Staaveren hits the nail on the head with her message of attrition through enforcement in her recent letter published in the Statesman Journal.  Let your elected officials know that another sweeping amnesty solves nothing.  True enforcement of existing laws is where we begin solving the illegal immigration issue.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - enforcement