enforcement

Donald Trump won ... now what?

On Tuesday, Americans elected Donald Trump as the 45th President, and according to exit polling, many based their vote on Trump's tough stance on illegal immigration and his pro-American worker positions. So what can we expect from a Trump Administration?

Historically, a President's first 100 days in office are when they can accomplish the most, and in late-October, Trump laid out a fairly detailed plan for his first 100 days, including actions he plans to take on immigration.

First, Trump said he'll cancel Pres. Obama's executive orders and actions. This includes ending Obama's executive amnesties -- DACA and DAPA -- and could also mean an end to his extension of the OPT program that allows foreign students who graduate with a degree in a STEM field to stay and work in the U.S. until they can get an H-1B visa and an end to Obama's regulation that allows H-1B holders to stay and work after their visa expires if their employer has applied for an employment-based green card on their behalf, just to name a few.

Second, Trump announced that he would cancel ALL federal funding for Sanctuary Cities. He's likely to receive some pushback on this; Seattle has already announced that it will continue to be a Sanctuary City under a Trump Administration, but if Trump does withhold funding, that policy will probably end quickly. The question is: how far will Trump go? Will he only block law enforcement funding, or will he also block funding unrelated to law enforcement.

Third, Trump will begin removing the 1 million criminal illegal aliens still present in the United States who have already been ordered removed. Most have not been removed because of Pres. Obama's Priority Enforcement Program which only allows for the removal of the most dangerous criminal aliens. Some have not been removed because their countries won't take them back. On the latter issue, Trump has also pledged to block new visas to countries that refuse to repatriate their citizens.

Fourth, Trump has promised to suspend immigration from terror-sponsoring countries. There's been some debate over whether a President has the authority to do this, but federal law specifically gives the President discretion to block entry to foreign citizens. It'll be interesting to see how Congress responds to Pres. Obama's demands to dramatically increase refugee resettlement during the lame-duck when they'll have to pass a spending bill to keep the government running past Dec. 9.

Fifth, Trump promises to have legislation introduced within the first 100 days that fully funds the building of a border fence (with Mexico paying for it) and includes Kate's Law that would establish minimum sentencing guidelines for aliens who illegally re-enter the United States.

Just as important will be who Trump appoints to certain key positions throughout his Administration. The Attorney General, DHS Secretary, and Secretary of State will all play key roles in ending illegal immigration and reducing overall immigration numbers.

For Roy's reaction to Trump's election and a list of things Trump promised to do, read his new blog here. I've also posted a blog reviewing what happened in the House and Senate races and what impacts there may be for immigration.

 
 


  Read more about Donald Trump won ... now what?

Opinion: How employers could stop illegal immigration in seconds

Published by:  MarketWatch Nov. 4, 2016

Written by:  Mark Krikorian - Center for Immigration Studies

Government’s free E-Verify takes just seconds to determine if a worker is here illegally, so why isn’t it mandatory?

Whatever you think of Donald Trump’s proposal to build a wall on the Mexican border, there’s another wall we can complete right now: E-Verify.

That’s the name of the free online system that enables employers to check whether the people they hire are telling the truth about who they are. By entering the name, Social Security number, and date of birth of the new hire — something employers already have to collect — they get an answer in seconds about whether the person is an illegal immigrant or not.

This matters because jobs are the main reason foreigners sneak into the United States (or overstay visitor visas). And the large majority of the estimated 11 million illegals work on the books. So the harder it is for an illegal immigrant to get a job, especially an on-the-books job, the less appealing it will be to sneak in or overstay.

Read the complete article.

  Read more about Opinion: How employers could stop illegal immigration in seconds

OFIR members and citizens speak out in Letters to the Editor

We are just days away from what might be considered the most pivotal election in American history.  In the time leading up to the election, OFIR members and concerned citizens from all over the country have done all they can to educate the undecided voter.  Now - we wait.

While OFIR is non-partisan and single issue, OFIR supports good ideas put forth by candidates on the best ways to stop illegal immigration and slow legal immigration to a more sustainable level.

Read what OFIR members and people from all over the country are writing about the most pressing issue - immigration - in our vast collection of letters to the editor.

 


  Read more about OFIR members and citizens speak out in Letters to the Editor

A concise comparison of Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump on eight key issues

Here are the big election cycle political issues and Donald Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s positions on what each wants to see and make happen, according to political analysts John Porter, James Kouri,...

  1. OPEN OR CLOSED BORDERS: National Security

Hillary Clinton is for an entire Western Hemisphere of open borders, free travel with no restrictions as to identity or the numbers of people entering these countries, including the U.S. She wants a mirror image of the European Common Market. It is estimated up to 600 million people could freely migrate here.

Donald Trump is for completely closed borders with strict limitations and extreme vetting on who and how many people are allowed to enter the U.S. He is soundly opposed to the European Common Market concept.

  1. AMERICA’S MILITARY STRENGTH:

Hillary Clinton is opposed to substantially increasing the size and strength of the U. S. Military forces. This in its self means a weaker military presence in the world. She, like Obama, doesn’t believe we should be a dominant military power.
 

Donald Trump is in favor of substantially increasing both the size and strength of the U.S. Military forces. This would be restoring us to the strongest military presence in the world. He, like Ronald Reagan, believes we should be a dominant military power. The Military is in the worse possible position since WWI.

  1. FEDERAL INCOME TAXES:

Hillary Clinton plans to substantially increase Federal Income Taxes on both individuals and all businesses, large and small, and increase the inheritance tax rate to 65% of what someone, upon their death, leaves to their children or family. Increase the number of brackets to eight.

Donald Trump plans to substantially lower taxes on all individuals and all businesses, large and small, and totally eliminate the inheritance tax all together on what someone, upon their death, leaves to their children or family. Decrease the number of brackets to three.

  1. AMERICA’S ECONOMY: Trade with foreign countries

Hillary Clinton has stated she has no desire to open any of our trade agreements with foreign nations to renegotiation. She is satisfied with NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) in spite of an $800 Billion dollar trade deficit with our trading countries, and is in favor of the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership). She believes NAFTA has boosted the American economy, in spite of a terribly slow and sluggish economy with over 95 million American workers having left the work force because there are no jobs available to them. She wants to continue the same policies.

Donald Trump has stated he wants to open our current trade agreements and renegotiate the terms of those agreements and make them more fair for the U.S. He is very unsatisfied with NAFTA and will not sign on to the TPP without further negotiations. He believes NAFTA has destroyed American manufacturing jobs and greatly weakened our economy. He sites the huge trade deficit and so many leaving the work force as evidence of it. He wants to put plans into motion that will halt American Companies from leaving this country and bring those back which have left.

  1. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT:

Hillary Clinton wants to appoint judges who will make rulings that will be more in line with modern day Liberal and Progressive ways of thinking, possibly infringing on the right to bear arms, the right to free speech, and religion (especially Catholics and Evangelicals) being targets of change.

Donald Trump wants to appoint judges who will follow the Constitution strictly. The right of citizens to own guns, speak freely in all matters, and freedom of worship will not be infringed.
(This issue alone could effect our nation for generations to come.)

  1. PUBLIC EDUCATION:

Hillary Clinton wants to leave Common Core in tact and is opposed to school choice. She wants local school boards to teach what they are directed to teach by Common Core Standards, and parents send their children to the schools they are directed to, eliminating school competition.

Donald Trump wants to eliminate Common Core and is in favor of school choice. He wants to return all school subject content selection to the states and local school boards, and parents can send their children to the school of their choice, creating school competition.

  1. MEDICAL CARE:

Hillary Clinton wants to keep, as is, what is referred to as Obamacare, expand upon it and finally morph it into a national government paid and managed medical system with no competition, much like Canada.

Donald Trump wants to completely repeal Obamacare and have it replaced with a free market medical system, eliminating the regulation restricting insurance companies to certain states, allowing them to sell nationwide, creating fierce competition.

  1. RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM, THE THREAT OF ISIS:

Hillary Clinton does not believe we are at war with Radical Islamic Terrorists, will not recognize them by name. She recently said, “I am not worried about terrorism in America.”

Donald Trump believes we are at war with Radical Islamic Terrorists, does recognize them by that name. He recently said, “We are at war with Radical Islamic Terrorism.” “They declared war on us and we need to declare war on them and fight to win.”

Remember Ronald Reagan’s words. You are the driver. Which of the roads above do you wish to travel and how fast do you want to drive? You are leaving the driveway and MUST turn right or left. Your decision can’t be delayed any longer, a choice has to be made.

  Read more about A concise comparison of Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump on eight key issues

Feds targeted adoptee from South Korea because of crimes

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — A man who was adopted as a 3-year-old from South Korea....and flown to America is in detention awaiting deportation because of "the severity of his criminal history," U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said on Monday.

Adam Crapser was ordered deported last week....  No one sought U.S. citizenship for him as he grew up in America, abandoned by one adoptive family, thrown into the foster care system and winding up with abusive parents. The lack of citizenship made him liable for deportation, especially after he built a criminal record.

ICE prioritizes immigration enforcement resources "on individuals who pose a threat to national security, public safety, and border security," Rose M. Richeson, spokeswoman for ICE's Seattle field office, said in a statement.

Richeson cited Adam Crapser's criminal history...

Oregon court records reviewed by The Associated Press list charges all the way back to the early 1990s...

....Adam has a substantial criminal history," Walls wrote AP in an email. But she said some charges are duplicates...

The decision by a federal immigration judge last week not to give Crapser a reprieve for deportation was a big blow to his supporters... Read more about Feds targeted adoptee from South Korea because of crimes

Adopted at 3 by Oregon couple, South Korean man to be deported

SALEM — A South Korean man flown to the United States 37 years ago and adopted by an American couple at age 3 has been ordered deported ...

“It is heartbreaking news,” said Dae Joong (D.J.) Yoon, executive director of the National Korean American Service & Education Consortium, who had been in contact with Adam Crapser. Crapser remains confined in an immigration detention center...

Crapser’s plight mirrors those of thousands of others who were brought to the United States but whose adoptive parents didn’t secure green cards or citizenship for them. ...

Yoon said arrangements are being made for Crapser to get documents to enable him to fly to South Korea.

Seven years after Crapser and his older sister were adopted, their parents abandoned them. The foster care system separated Crapser, 10 at the time, from his sister.

The boy was housed at several foster and group homes.....he was physically abused, Crapser has said....

Federal immigration officials say they became aware of Crapser after he applied to renew his green card two years ago: his criminal convictions, ranging from burglary to assault, made him potentially deportable under immigration law. ..

“He will be deported as soon as Immigration and Customs Enforcement makes the necessary arrangements,” Walls said. “Adam, his family, and advocates are heartbroken at the outcome.” Read more about Adopted at 3 by Oregon couple, South Korean man to be deported

Still undecided about who should be President? Watch this video...

Alert date: 
October 27, 2016
Alert body: 

The media takes great pride in claiming to be unbiased, all the while very obviously omitting valuable coverage of pertinent campaign information. 

Breitbart chose to include the video of candidate Donald Trump's powerful speech last week in historic Gettysburg.  Mainstream media had no wide spread coverage of the event.

Watch this before you mark your ballot: 
 

Forget the fence — E-Verify shuts down illegal immigration's magnet

Ten years ago today, President George W. Bush signed into law the Secure Fence Act, a bill requiring the kind of 700-mile partition on our southern border so controversially called for by Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

The mandate to build double-layered fencing, which was designed to stop not only illegal border-crossers on foot, but also drug-traffickers by car, passed breezily in both chambers and garnered a supportive vote from Hillary Clinton, then in her fifth year as New York’s junior senator.

Trump’s proposal, of course, shows we never actually got what our reps voted for, a scenario known all too well by immigration-control advocates.

While an advisor to former Mexican president Vicente Fox in the early 2000s, Fredo Arias-King led a delegation to discuss immigration policy with members of Congress; what he was told in closed-door exchanges has become lore in restrictionist circles.

Several dozen congressmen from either side of the aisle not only candidly voiced their absolute support for open-borders, but also admitted their active abuse of our immigration laws...

In any case, a reaffirmation of the decade-old Secure Fence Act is likely not even necessary...

The biggest magnet for illegal immigration is employment: the “linchpin” to deterrence according to the former chair of the 1994 Commission on Immigration Reform, Barbara Jordan.

In Mexico, for instance, a relatively wealthy country compared to many other immigration-sources, average wages are just 10 percent of what they are in America. E-Verify would go farthest in securing this linchpin, certainly more so than a longer and higher fence.

Co-administered by DHS and the Social Security Administration, the ‘electronic verification’ system allows employers to verify that their potential employees are actually authorized to work in the country...

Where it’s been most comprehensive, the results have been striking.

When Arizona made E-Verify mandatory in 2008, it was so successful in pushing illegal aliens back home that the neighboring Mexican state of Sonora sent a delegation to Tucson to complain that they couldn’t handle the returning influx.

Their burden was likely vast, judging by the immediate benefits experienced by Arizona. The state’s public school system immediately began experiencing relief with a $50 million surplus suddenly appearing on the books that year. Apartment buildings reported alien-tenants moving out by the thousands (leading, no doubt, to more affordable rents for American residents).

And, although the law went into effect around the time of the financial crisis, when many illegal aliens likely had additional motivations to leave, researchers have found that Arizona had by far the largest decline (20 percent) in illegal-alien figures in the country, breaking the ceiling, no doubt, on long-depressed working-class wages in that state.

Other benefits of the program abound. Since E-Verify uses government data rather than documents provided by potential employees, it removes the possibility of Social Security and identity fraud, a chronically underreported crime that’s created a giant mafia-run black market and which disproportionately hurts American children.

The system also reduces the threat of discrimination against applicants...

But like any law, a federal E-Verify mandate is good only to the extent it’s enforced.

Currently, it is illegal for employers to “knowingly hire” an illegal alien — a prohibition set out in 1986’s Immigration Reform Control Act (IRCA)...

A drywall company in Washington state recently became the first such defendant sentenced in the entire history of that state’s western district court. The attorney for the company pleaded with the judge that IRCA after all was a law “broken daily” and that his client’s “employment practices have been indistinguishable from thousands of other employers nationwide who have ignored IRCA at no peril.”

Returning the country to a nation of laws will require an amped up vigilance on the part of its citizenry. They’ll have to show the political elite that if they continue to ignore the American people, it will be at their peril, not America’s. 

Smith is an attorney in Washington, D.C. Read more about Forget the fence — E-Verify shuts down illegal immigration's magnet

Exploring our Northern border - the similarites and differences

I have traveled with Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) on three of the last five border tours they have organized to study the US / Mexico border. 

So, I can honestly say I was really looking forward, with great anticipation, to the latest trip, my fourth, to the US / Canadian border in September

CIS does an outstanding job putting together the best, most in-depth tours of our border.  Their dedication to providing a wide array of  "real life" representatives that live and work in the area that can tell us their own stories about the border and the issues they face on a daily basis make the trip invaluable.

Strategic stops are planned, allowing us to explore key locations along the route traveling east from Ottawa, traversing the US / Canada border exploring the New York, Vermont and Quebec border regions. 

The weather was near perfect and I'm fairly certain CIS most likely planned for that, as well.

CIS border tour groups are small, with just 9 guests and 3 CIS staff members traveling in two SUV's.  CIS takes great care to make certain that all our wordly needs are met - often going to extraordinary measures to accommodate us.

Visit the OFIR photo gallery to see a few of my photos - there will be more posted.

Upon our return, CIS Assistant Director, John Wahala provided an outstanding, detailed write up of our experience - complete with some of his photos!

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

Diligence on a Changing Canadian Border

By John Wahala, October 13, 2016

The Center for Immigration Studies recently completed its sixth border tour. Heading north for the first time, we began our trip in Ottawa. From there we traveled east, crisscrossing nearly a thousand miles over the waterways and rolling hills of upstate New York and Vermont and into the lush forests of Quebec. The geography and relative calm of the region is a stark contrast to the rugged terrain and volatility of the U.S. Southwest. But behind the bucolic charm a host of factors are at work to make securing this part of the border just as challenging as the more trafficked parts.

Cooperation along the northern border is good. Every official we spoke with, currently serving or retired on either side of the border, praised the binational relationship that exists. The United States and Canada work together to apprehend people and illicit goods moving in both directions. Unlike enforcement efforts in the Southwest, where communication with Mexican counterparts is often strained or nonexistent, the relationship with Canada appears to be one of mutuality and respect.

Policies and procedures, however, have tightened since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The casual nature of the relationship no longer exists. A retired border agent told us he used to routinely cross into Canada, where it was less populated and he could cover ground more quickly, before reentering the United States in pursuit of fugitives. No approval at a port of entry was necessary. Local residents tell their own stories about crossing back and forth for various reasons, unmolested. That does not happen any more.

During our excursion we crossed several times and each time we were questioned rigorously. Canadian border officials are thorough and have more information to work with than their predecessors. The United States and Canada now share the criminal histories of their respective citizens using various databases, such as those run by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Canadian Police Information Centre. The data is available to officers at every port of entry, who use it in making the decision whether or not to deny entry. That decision is based, in part, on how a past crime would be treated under Canadian law, which differs from the American legal system. Thousands of Americans have been refused admittance as a result of this information sharing, sometimes for infractions that happened decades ago.

The diligence we saw at the ports of entry was also evident along unpopulated stretches of the border, where only small stone markers separate the two countries. A few times when our group stopped to look around, agents came quickly to check on what we were doing. When they did not come, we were told by our guides that we were being monitored by sensors.

In one spot, a member of the Border Patrol told us they regularly interdict aliens attempting to cross into Canada. Typically these individuals are from various parts of Asia who are trying to reunite with family members. Two officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who spoke with us on the Quebec side, said they had just intercepted a dozen Middle Easterners heading north from Vermont earlier that morning. They said they detain illegal aliens from all over the world, but that most are probably from Africa. Many are drawn to Canada because of its generous asylum policies.

The seeming effectiveness of law enforcement at this section of the border is aided by a lighter flow of illegal traffic. One agent told us that the young officers in the Border Patrol all want to be down south where the action is intense. He reflected on his own time in Calexico, where he was constantly being confronted with drug runners and human smugglers. Last year's apprehension data confirms this sentiment. Only 632 arrests were made in the Buffalo and Swanton sectors, which include the New York and Vermont portions of the border, compared to nearly 150,000 in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas.

But patrolling the northern border is not without its challenges. The Swanton sector has the most drug interdictions on the northern border. It is home to the St. Regis Mohawk Indian Reservation — called Akwesasne in the native language. The reservation is small, with only a few thousand residents, but authorities say it creates a big hole in security. Questions of tribal sovereignty are complicated by the proximity to the international border and the unique geography of the region. Tension between tribal authorities, state and local officials, Border Patrol and other U.S. government agencies, and the Canadian government has long existed.

One flash point is the reservation's tax exemption on tobacco, which turned into a profitable opportunity for smugglers when governments began placing large excise taxes on cigarettes in the 1990's. It has been reported that tens of millions of cigarettes pass through the reservation each year, many headed into Canada. Agents are tasked with stopping this illicit flow on "a sprawling beat that includes countless coves, side roads and dimly lit cottage developments" that extends onto a narrow peninsula called the snye by locals. It is a small land mass that juts into the St. Lawrence River that is officially part of Quebec but is surrounded by water on three sides and the United States on the fourth. This makes law enforcement difficult. A retired agent told us it is rarely patrolled, making it a haven for people smugglers and others running from the law. He declined to take us into the snye, saying the last time he was there was the late 1980's and he was shot at.

In addition to contraband cigarettes, a steady stream of marijuana comes south into the United States through the reservation and harder narcotics, including a recent resurgence of heroin, and firearms are smuggled north into Canada. These endeavors rely on a dangerous criminal enterprise that works in tandem with people-smuggling networks. Aiding this enterprise is the dismal employment situation at Akwesasne, which helps lure many tribal members into this line of work. The situation is not unlike that of the Tohono O'odham Nation reservation on the Arizona border, which we visited during a previous tour. Further complicating the situation at Akwesasne is an internal tribal conflict. Ongoing friction between a traditional faction and a "warrior" sect creates a challenge to governance and how the reservation deals with outside authorities. The warrior sect is said to run the gaming casino and to be involved with illicit smuggling operations.

There are other issues on this seemingly tranquil stretch of the border. Over the past several years, Vermont's dairy industry — like much of the nation's agricultural sector — has transitioned their workforce to migrant laborers. The workers, most of whom are here illegally from Mexico and Central America, significantly cut operating expenses. The farmers echo the familiar refrain that they cannot find locals who are willing to work. That claim is plausible and understandable given their demands. One report said the migrants work 84 hours a week, 52 weeks a year. They are housed in bunkers or camps, tucked away from socialization with the outside world. This makes law enforcement efforts to intervene difficult. It is an unhealthy arrangement of alienation and exploitation that creates the predictable deleterious effects of increased crime and social dysfunction. Recently a Vermont state senator was indicted for a prostitution scheme involving migrant workers. Despite the problems of such an arrangement poses for everyone, the illicit use of migrant labor has the support of politicians at the highest levels of government who are beholden to powerful special interests. Fortunately, some farmers are beginning to recognize the harm and are mechanizing their operations with robots, which are more efficient and more profitable in the long term.

Another immigration scandal that has beset the region is a visa scam that bilked foreign investors out of hundreds of millions of dollars. In exchange for the promise of green cards, these individuals paid for two ski resorts and a biotechnology center that were supposed to create thousands of jobs and revitalize impoverished northern Vermont. The developers took the money, but the projects were never realized. We stopped by the site of one of these projects in Newport, which now sits as a large hole in the ground, and talked to a local about the fallout of the scam. Our colleague David North has written extensively on this and other such visa scams that have occurred in the EB-5 investor program, which have beset various places across the country.

The problems on this part of the northern border are different in scale from those on the southern border, but not in kind. A predictable mix of inconvenience, vulnerability, crime, desperation, and exploitation can be found, like everywhere else there is an international boundary. It helps somewhat that both the United States and Canada are developed countries, largely eliminating the desire for established residents to cross illegally. But such calm is offset by the ease of overseas travel. People from around the world are now able to get to this section of the border and they are enticed to do so by the conflicting messages sent by both governments. This gets us to the most pressing border problem, which is not how to maintain order, but determining whether it is still politically desirable to do so.

Western elites are experiencing a crisis of confidence that is challenging long-held notions of national sovereignty. The political class has largely abandoned the conviction that immigration should be restricted. The view that there ought to be open borders now predominates among leaders in both the Republican and Democratic parties, much to the chagrin of the American people. The same dynamic is present in Canada. There was a sense of resignation from the two RCMP officers we spoke to in Quebec when they explained that most of the illegal crossers they detain get asylum. It was the same resignation that was voiced by two Border Patrol agents who told us that morale is terrible, turnover is high, and their superiors will not even furnish them with adequate equipment. And it was the same resignation we heard from a retired agent who succinctly put it: "We enforce the law, but there are no consequences." The Obama administration has resettled hundreds of thousands of illegal crossers into the United States — in direct violation of the law and the mission of the Border Patrol — in just the past couple years.

Former Canadian Ambassador James Bissett, a high ranking immigration official for more than three decades who served as an aide to prime ministers, met us for dinner one night in Ottawa. After sharing a detailed history of immigration to his country, he discussed the transformation that is now underway. Since 1985, Canada's population has increased by 40 percent — the largest increase of any developed country. Certain areas have experienced near total demographic replacement. The current Liberal Party government of Justin Trudeau, along with nearly all of the political opposition, has embraced this transformation, pledging to admit record numbers of immigrants, including tens of thousands from the Middle East. Next month they will waive visa restrictions for Mexico, creating a host of challenges for themselves and the United States. There is concern, even among some sympathetic members of the elite, that such policies are endangering the security of the region.

Mass immigration is no longer a distinctly American phenomenon. It has become the de facto position of Canada and many other western governments. The leaders who are pushing it see the free movement of people as a human right, one that is part of an emerging globalist perspective on governance. That perspective is directly at odds with the worldview of most of their citizens, creating a bitter conflict that goes right to the heart of what it means to have the consent of the governed. The rise of nationalism in Europe, the British decision to leave the European Union, and the populist surge of Donald Trump are all recent manifestations of the peoples' simmering discontent. Meanwhile, law enforcement officials on both sides of the Canadian border quietly do their jobs, leaving the more philosophical questions to their political leaders, and the voters.


Learn more about CIS - visit the Center for Immigration Studies website.

  Read more about Exploring our Northern border - the similarites and differences

Do you know what your favorite candidate really thinks about immigration?

OFIR has now posted reports on immigration positions of candidates

Please take a look at the important information OFIR has gathered and share it with others as widely as you can before the election.
 
OFIR has posted on its website detailed information on the immigration positions of many candidates in the November general election. 
 
Below is a list of the statewide offices for which information on immigration positions is available and has been posted.  There is also a report on the Presidential election candidates.
 
To see the entire list, you can visit http://www.oregonir.org/immigration-topics/2016-general-election.  Alternatively, you can visit the OFIR home page at: http://www.oregonir.org/, click on Immigration Topics in the right-column menu, then Elections, then 2016 General Election.
 

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - enforcement