government

URGENT - STOP AMNESTY BILL! Call Congress

Alert date: 
2019-12-08
Alert body: 

H.R. 5038 is called the Farm Workforce Modernization Act of 2019.  It’s a massive amnesty bill disguised as “modernization.”  It should be called the Ag Amnesty and Indentured Servitude Act.  Or just the "Ag Amnesty bill".  It’s on a fast track in the House, scheduled for Rules Committee on Tuesday, Dec. 10, with floor vote likely Wednesday, Dec. 11.

Please call your Representative and voice your objections. In speaking to the U.S. Representative’s office, refer first to the bill number, H.R. 5038.  Phone numbers are given below.

Here are a few key facts, compiled by NumbersUSA.  They have prepared a more complete analysis here.

Amnesty -- H.R. 5038 would give amnesty--including work permits, green cards, and a path to citizenship--to illegal aliens who have been unlawfully employed in agriculture at least part time during the past two years. In fact, illegal aliens who spent just most weekends working in agriculture over two years would qualify.

H-2A Expansion -- Rather than providing incentives for mechanization to reduce the need for manual labor, or even just streamlining the existing H-2A program, the sponsors of H.R. 5038 decided that it is time to complete the hollowing out of several other industries, in addition to seasonal farm work. They kept the numerically unlimited H-2A category for seasonal work, but created a new, non-seasonal, year-round category so that at least 20,000 (and potentially many more) low-paid foreign workers can be imported each year to work at dairies, meat-packing plants, fish canneries, nurseries, and more.

Indentured Servitude -- Congress knows that giving amnesty to illegal agricultural workers will fail to produce a stable, legal workforce, because they've tried it before. Congress passed an agricultural amnesty in 1986, as part of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). But there was a catch: most of the amnestied ag workers left agriculture for better-paying jobs as soon as they got their work permits. The sponsors of the Farm Workforce Modernization Act decided to address this problem by regressing to the 17th Century practice of indenturing these newly amnestied agricultural workers for various durations, mainly four to eight years.

In its Alert on H.R. 5038, NumbersUSA says it's “important for every office's staff to know that WE THE PEOPLE know the amnesty vote is coming. And that WE THE PEOPLE probably know more about what is in the amnesty bill than their boss the Representative knows. For example, do they know this is a bill that re-establishes indentured servitude in this country.  Let's cause those staffers to start scrambling to see what is actually in this bill.”

If you have not signed up with NumbersUSA to receive its Alerts directly and to use its free messaging to Congress, we recommend that you do.  NumbersUSA staff watch Congress constantly, and the NumbersUSA website has a large fund of pertinent information.

The last thing the U.S. needs now is another massive amnesty for illegal aliens.  There have been too many amnesties already in recent decades, resulting in disrespect for immigration law and law in general. Amnesties stimulate further illegal immigration.  Oregonians face congestion already, along with widespread homelessness, expensive housing, climate crisis, drug crisis, etc. The future will be even grimmer as more and more people from other countries pour into the U.S.  See this trenchant commentary on H.R. 5038 by Bob Dane, of the Federation for American Immigration Reform.


Phone numbers for Oregon’s Representatives

You can reach the Washington office of any Representative by calling the U.S. Capitol switchboard number: 202-224-3121 (not a toll-free number). Then ask the operator to connect you with the Representative to whom you wish to speak. 

District 1 – Suzanne Bonamici – 202-225-0855

District 2 – Greg Walden 202-225-6730

District 3 - Earl Blumenauer – 202-225-4811

District 4 - Peter A. DeFazio – 202-225-6416

District 5 – Kurt Schrader – 202-225-5711

If you don't know the name of your Representative, you can find it here:  https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/FindYourLegislator/leg-districts.html

Oregon courts try to lock out ICE

[Abstract only; view the complete article here.]

Oregon recently became the latest state to order Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) out of its courthouses, elevating the rights of criminal aliens at the expense of public safety.

In 1987, Oregon became the first sanctuary state in the nation, enacting its sanctuary law, which forbade law enforcement officials’ cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. 

However, Oregon’s sanctuary law didn’t go far enough to satisfy the open-borders crowd. On October 14, Martha Walters, the Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court, issued a new sanctuary court rule. This rule does not allow anyone to make a “civil arrest” in a state courthouse or its “environs” without a warrant or other order signed by a judge.  The definition of “environs” is expansive and includes “the vicinity around a courthouse, as well as all public entryways, driveways, sidewalks, and parking areas intended to serve a courthouse.”

Oregon’s new ICE lockout rule is similar to others recently adopted by California, New York and New Jersey.  …

The federal Immigration and Nationality Act gives ICE and other federal immigration agencies the authority to make immigration arrests, both with and without warrants, anywhere in the country, which under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution clearly preempts these state rules.  Moreover, there is no such thing as a judicial immigration warrant, as federal law grants authority to issue immigration warrants to ICE supervisors, not judges. …

ICE spokeswoman Tanya Roman fired back, saying “[i]t is ironic that elected officials want to see policies in place to keep ICE out of courthouses, while caring little for laws enacted by Congress to keep criminal aliens out of our country,” and adding that the idea of judicial warrants for immigration violations is “simply a figment created by those who wish to undermine immigration enforcement and excuse the ill-conceived practices of sanctuary jurisdictions that put politics before public safety.” …

On Thursday, William Barr, the Attorney General of the United States, and Chad Wolf, the Acting Secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, sent a joint letter to the chief justices of both the Oregon and Washington Supreme Courts urging them to “reconsider this dangerous and unlawful course of action.” To view the full letter, please click here.

Governor Brown and AG Rosenbaum push for open borders

Governor Brown and Attorney General Rosenbaum show their true colors again, and they’re not red, white, and blue. 

Both Brown and Rosenbaum exalt the interests of migrants over the interests of U.S. citizens, and have done so repeatedly during their time in office.  See here and here.  Their actions in advancing unlimited immigration have harmed this state. 

Rosenbaum will be up for reelection in 2020. She already has a campaign website requesting donations and listing her recent edicts.  Gov. Brown’s term of office extends through 2022.

Here’s the latest evidence that their first loyalties are with international migrants, not U.S. citizens:  Oregon Challenges Trump Administration’s “Public Charge Rule.”

Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum and Oregon Governor Kate Brown today joined four other states in filing a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) “Public Charge Rule”.

Rosenbaum has also sued previously, usually with Brown’s enthusiastic approval, to stop several other actions by Pres. Trump that would control immigration.

The necessity of a public charge rule is obvious if we are to avoid inundation by all the poor of the world and the collapse of our nation.  Such a policy existed here even in colonial days before the U.S. became an independent nation, and was enacted into law long ago. 

In his article in The National Review, Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies gives a concise history of the policy and explains why it’s important.

Excerpt:

The newly finalized rule about immigrant welfare use is 837 pages long, but it boils down to two things: Foreigners who can’t pay their bills shouldn’t be allowed to move here, and “welfare” doesn’t just mean cash benefits.

As to the first: The first comprehensive immigration law at the federal level was the 1882 Immigration Act, which, among other things, excluded anyone who was “unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.” That principle — the “public-charge doctrine,” as it’s called — has been included in all subsequent immigration legislation, including the 1996 immigration and welfare-reform laws.

But the exclusion of “public charges” didn’t start in the 19th century, but well before that, when immigration law was handled by the states. In fact, preventing the immigration of people who couldn’t support themselves was the subject of the very first immigration law ever passed in the colonies, in Massachusetts Bay in 1645. It’s not too much to say that the public-charge doctrine is the founding principle of American immigration policy. …

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Acting Director Ken Cuccinelli, in an interview with Fox News, gives many interesting details about the new rule and why it’s needed.  He said that the rule “is entirely in line with the president keeping his promises to make the immigration system work better for America.”  Read Cuccinelli’s comments here.

Why block the traditional Census citizenship question?

On the last day of its recent session, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 to block the traditional citizenship question from America's 2020 Constitutionally-required Census. While the court ruled the question is indeed constitutional, Chief Justice Roberts apparently did not like the "tone" of the Trump administration's insistence the traditional citizenship question be reinstated.

Our government has demographic information on legal immigrants and visa holders. The Census citizenship question would provide demographic information on those who are not citizens.

If the citizenship question were to be asked, then it would be a rudimentary process to subtract the set of legal immigrants and visa holders from the set of those who are not citizens. The result would be the set of those who are illegal aliens, complete with address of residence.

This is the information that the Democrat party does not want revealed, as they benefit from a mass influx of illegal aliens - and their descendants - who ultimately will vote Democrat.

Excerpts from articles analyzing this decision follow:

 

Supreme Court Votes 5-4 To Block Citizenship Question on 2020 Census, by Ken Klukowski, Breitbart, June 27, 2019:

Chief Justice John Roberts was the swing vote in a sharply divided Supreme Court that voted 5-4 in deciding the U.S. census can ask about citizenship, but by a separate 5-4 vote is sending the case back to the lower court.

Consequently, the citizenship question cannot be asked on the 2020 census, because the additional hearing cannot take place before the cutoff for printing the census forms for next year.

This decision will immediately be compared to the 2012 decision saving Obamacare. Roberts was joined by the four conservative justices to say federal law permits asking about citizenship, but then switched over to join with the four liberal justices to remand the case to the federal trial court for further evidentiary hearings....

Roberts noted “demographic questions have been asked in every census since 1790, and questions about citizenship in particular have been asked for nearly as long.”...

Conservatives and the Trump administration will be deeply disappointed by this decision, and are likely to harshly criticize the chief justice....

The impact of today’s decision reaches far beyond the 2020 census. Justice Thomas concluded in his dissenting opinion for conservative justices:

The Court’s erroneous decision in this case is bad enough, as it unjustifiably interferes with the 2020 census. But the implications of today’s decision are broader. With today’s decision, the Court has opened a Pandora’s box of pretext-based challenges in administrative law.

Today’s decision marks the first time the Court has ever invalidated an agency action as “pretextual.” Having taken that step, one thing is certain: This will not be the last time it is asked to do so. Virtually every significant agency action is vulnerable to the kinds of allegations the Court credits today. These decisions regularly involve coordination with numerous stakeholders and agencies, involvement at the highest levels of the Executive Branch, opposition from reluctant agency staff, and—perhaps most importantly—persons who stand to gain from the action’s demise. Opponents of future executive actions can be expected to make full use of the Court’s new approach.

 

SCOTUS sides with Trump on constitutionality of census citizenship question, but the question is still unlikely to appear on 2020 forms due to remand, Conservative Review, June 27, 2019:

In a complicated 5-4 ruling handed down on its last day of its recent session, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration’s addition of a citizenship question to the census complied with the constitution, but also effectively blocked its implementation for the 2020 survey.

In short, the ruling finds that the executive branch has a right to reinstate a question about citizenship, but that it needs to come up with a better explanation for adding it....

 

Upshot of today’s SCOTUS rulings: Courts are God except for one ‘rare circumstance’, by Daniel Horowitz, Conservative Review, June 27, 2019:

Today’s Supreme Court ruling in the gerrymandering cases was a victory for those who believe in the proper role of courts, irrespective of political outcome. It’s a refreshing change of pace from judicial supremacy. Unfortunately, what the chief justice giveth in the redistricting case, he taketh in the census citizenship case where he reaffirmed the power of the courts to get involved in every other political question and litigate it to death....

in the census case, while recognizing that “our interpretation of the Constitution is guided by a Government practice [asking a citizenship question] that “has been open, widespread, and un-challenged since the early days of the Republic,” he refuses to reverse the lower court’s interference with its enactment.

In a complex and defragmented plurality ruling that morphed into a unanimous order, Chief Justice Roberts helped give liberals a majority in keeping the litigation against the census question alive by remanding the case back to the courts. Meanwhile, rather than rebuking the lower courts for getting involved in a political dispute in such an unprecedented way, he legitimized much of their ruling. Moreover, with this ruling, he gave them endless ammo to shut down any common sense and lawful executive actions governing the enforcement of many critical laws, which will reverberate in other spheres of policy such as border security.

The 2010 Census under the Obama administration was the first time since 1840 that the citizenship question was not asked in any form. The same way Obama decided to extirpate it from the Census without question, Trump had the power to reinstate it....

In comes Roberts and admits that nothing in the Constitution or statute could possibly preclude the secretary of commerce from adding the citizenship question. But in what has become a pernicious pattern of the courts over the past few years, Roberts decided that he didn’t like the administration’s motivation behind it and feels it requires further litigation in the district court. He didn’t even agree with the plaintiffs that the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by promulgating a regulation that is “arbitrary and capricious,” another favorite of the lower courts....

In reality, 13 U.S.C. §221 states very clearly that every resident is required to answer any question under penalty of fine unless it’s a question about religion. That is the only question walled off by Congress....

The Trump administration lawyers are going to have to come to terms with defending the prerogatives of the executive branch of government or risking the implementation of Obama’s third, and perhaps, fourth term in office....

 

Why the Citizenship Question Is So Important, Kris W. Kobach, Breitbart, June 27, 2019:

... From 1820 to 2000 a version of the citizenship question was asked in every census but one (in 1840). After the 1950 census, the Census Bureau decided to create two census forms—a short, basic form that all households would receive and a long form (which about 1/6 to 1/4 of households would receive) that would ask all of the information that the federal government needed. Thereafter, the citizenship question remained on the long form until the long form was terminated after the 2000 census. At that point the long form was replaced by the annual American Community Survey, which still contains the citizenship question. But only a tiny percentage of the population receives it.

The Trump Administration in early 2018 made the entirely-correct decision to restore the citizenship question to the census....

In a rational world, the Court would have issued a 9-0 decision rejecting each of these arguments. Instead, the Court ruled by a narrow 5-4 vote that asking the citizenship question was consistent with both the Constitution and the Census Act....

There are so many additional reasons for the United States to know how many citizens it has, that it is difficult to select any single one as the most important. Here’s my list:

1. The number of citizens is something that every sovereign country should know. Canada, Mexico, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and dozens of other modern countries ask the question....

2. The principle of one person, one vote is at stake. Right now, state and federal legislative districts are drawn up simply based on the number of warm bodies in each district. Not only are legal aliens counted, but illegal aliens are counted too. As a result, citizens in a district with lots of illegal aliens have more voting power than citizens in districts with few illegal aliens.

3. The assumption behind moving the citizenship question to the long form turned out to be wrong. It was hoped in the 1950s that a recent federal statute requiring all aliens to register and notify the federal government whenever they moved would be followed and enforced. That data could be substituted for the information lost by moving the citizenship question to the long form. However, the assumption turned out to be incorrect....

4. The citizenship question provides important information about voting. Knowing who is a citizen and who isn’t allows the government to make a more accurate determination of what percentage of eligible citizens are voting in each state and each county.

5. It yields a wealth of valuable information about immigration. The question allows the government to determine which regions of the country see greater naturalization rates among aliens. This in turn reflects the assimilation of aliens into the American community. Citizenship data also enables the government to better calculate the number of illegal aliens in the country. Right now, estimates range from 11 million to 30 million. The open-borders Left doesn’t want the American people to know the true number.

And the list goes on....

 

SCOTUS Loses Its Census over Citizenship, by Daniel John Sobieski, American Thinker, June 28, 2019:

Supreme Court Justice John Roberts may go down in judicial history as the worst Republican SCOTUS pick ever. The man who found ObamaCare constitutional by inventing the fiction that it was a tax has joined the court’s four liberals to block a citizenship question on the 2020 Census, not because it is unconstitutional, but rather because he didn’t like the Trump administration’s reasons for asking for it.

The man who supervises the FISA Court, which blindly accepted every lie and fake document the Obama FBI and DoJ put before it to justify the deep state coup against the Trump presidency, says the reasons Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross presented for requesting its inclusion, well, didn’t smell right....

Asking this question is necessary to the functioning of a modern state and is an international norm, not the wet dream of white supremacists. As Hans von Spankovsky writes in the Washington Examiner:

To have an informed debate, shouldn’t we have accurate information about the citizen/noncitizen population of the country? In fact, even the United Nations recommends that its member countries ask a citizenship question on their census surveys, and countries ranging from Australia to Germany to Indonesia all ask this question. Only in the U.S. is this considered at all

Restoring the citizenship question to the Census is not unprecedented, not unconstitutional and absolutely necessary to help restore our national identity watered down by the “we are the world” globalists and denounced by the 2020 Democrats who want to decriminalize illegal border crossing and throw the borders open....

The importance of the Electoral College

Oregon Governor Signs Bill Granting State’s Electoral Votes to National Popular Vote Winner, D.C. Clothesline, June 20, 2019:

Fifteen states in total have jumped on the bandwagon to grant their state’s electoral college votes to  the winner of the national popular vote, in an attempt to try and elect a candidate from their own party.  Oregon Governor Kate Brown has now made her state the fifteenth to join the National Popular State Compact....

The Electoral College is established by Article II of the United States Constitution. It is important to understand why Democrats want to abolish the electoral college, as discussed below.

From the article Abolish the electoral college? Dream on, Democrats, The Washington Post, November 16, 2016:

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), as she has before, introduced a bill this week to get rid of the electoral college. In the below post from the wee hours of the day after Election Day, we discuss why it's not happening.... For the second time in 16 years, Democrats appear to have won more votes than Republicans, but lost the presidency. And while it was close in 2000, it may be a chasm in 2016....

So you can bet that are a whole bunch of Democrats right now that would like to put an end to this whole electoral college thing.

The bad news: They have virtually no power to make that happen -- and even they did have any power, it'd be immensely difficult.

The electoral college, after all, is enshrined in our Constitution, which means getting rid of it requires a constitutional amendment. That's a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate and the ratification of three-fourths (38) of the 50 states....

Back in 1934, a vote to abolish the electoral college failed in the Senate by just two votes. At the time, then-Sen. Alben Barkley (D-Ky.), who would later become vice president, labeled the system "useless." "The American people are qualified to elect their president by a direct vote, and I hope to see the day when they will," he said.

By 1966, Sen. Birch Bayh (D-Ind.) led hearings on the prospect of repealing the electoral college. He was a passionate advocate for the change for years. In 1979, the Senate debated a direct-election alternative, but it failed 51-48 -- shy of the two-thirds it needed.

More recent efforts have focused on workarounds, rather than repeal.

The National Popular Vote interstate compact has been assembling states who pledge to award all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national vote if and when they all combine for a majority of electoral votes (270). The effort has gained support from 11 states combining for 165 electoral votes, but so far only blue states have jumped on-board -- suggesting the red and swing state problems described above apply here too....

The Electoral College is an integral component of America's election process. From History Central: Why the Electoral College:

The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.

The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief....

Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped. Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice. The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others....

One aspect of the electoral system that is not mandated in the constitution is the fact that the winner takes all the votes in the state. Therefore it makes no difference if you win a state by 50.1% or by 80% of the vote you receive the same number of electoral votes. This can be a recipe for one individual to win some states by large pluralities and lose others by small number of votes, and thus this is an easy scenario for one candidate winning the popular vote while another winning the electoral vote. This winner take all methods used in picking electors has been decided by the states themselves. This trend took place over the course of the 19th century....

In the January 8, 2019 article, The Electoral College Must Remain, Elad Hakim states:

Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., recently introduced a proposed constitutional amendment that would eliminate the Electoral College. This was obviously done in response to the fact that Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election despite winning nearly 3 million more votes than President Trump....

Cohen's position is clearly partisan, will almost certainly fail, and will face stiff resistance from many smaller states.

According to HistoryCentral, "[t]he Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states." The first reason revolved around the possibility that a candidate could manipulate public opinion to such a great extent that it would lead him to secure the presidency. In other words, the Founders did not believe that the citizens could make the right decision on their own. Therefore, the electorate served as a system of checks and balances. This does not appear to be as much of a concern today.

The second reason, however, is still relevant. Generally speaking, the number of electorates in a given state directly correlates to the number of congressional representatives in the state. The minimum number of electorates for a given state is three. Therefore, the "value" of a vote in a smaller state with a lower population would "count" more than it would in a state with a higher population. For example, if a state had 90,000 votes and had three electorates, each electorate would represent 30,000 votes. On the other hand, a large state with 10,000,000 votes and 54 electorates would mean that each electorate would represent approximately 185,000 votes. Therefore, this system was initially used to appease the smaller states....

While the Electoral College is not perfect, it is the most legitimate system.  It is in line with the intent of our forefathers, protects the smaller states, and helps to protect against the possibility that several very densely populated cities will decide the presidential election for the entire nation.

Hakim's conclusion bears repeating: The Electoral College as established in Article II of the U.S. Constitution is the most legitimate system. It protects against the likelihood that densely populated cities - that tend to vote Democrat - could decide the presidential election for the entire country.

 


Related

2016 U.S. Presidential Electoral votes by county:

2016 electoral votes by county

 

 

Update: The Mob Is Right Outside the Constitution’s Wall, Breitbart, May 24, 2019:

On Tuesday, Nevada became the 15th state, along with the District of Columbia, to pass a measure that would grant its electoral college votes to the candidate that won the nationwide popular vote....

This movement is being led by an organization called National Popular Vote. The 501(c)(4) was co-founded by election law expert and attorney Barry Fadem and John Kaza (co-inventor of the scratch off lottery ticket).

The objective is to have a group of states that in total control 270 electoral votes (the number needed to win the presidency) form a compact wherein each of them will agree to cast those votes based on the nationwide popular vote, regardless of how their own state’s citizens voted....

Our Founding Fathers had the debate at the beginning of our nation as to how our system of election and governance would be structured. Democracy was rejected because of the well understood tendency of a majority to act as a tyrant. While much of what was created by our Founders was original, this concept wasn’t.

The critique of democracy dates back to Plato and the Republic. The demos, as they were called in Greek, couldn’t be trusted; they would just vote to satiate their voracious appetites at the expense of others or the nation at large....

In Madison’s mind, the structure of government and the process for electing the chief executive were designed to try to fragment the power of majority.

When you read Federalist 9> (Hamilton), Federalist10, and Federalist 51 (Madison), three key elements they felt existed to help give the new United States a chance for success were its population size, geographic size, and the differing interests of the independent states. Back in the late 1700’s, these factors would all make it more difficult for minority factions to attain the sort of critical mass required to do real damage....

We need these controls to prevent the very kind of efficiency in voting that can lead to majority dominance. The electoral college is one of those most fundamental controls. If we effectively neuter it through state collusion, then we move one step closer to a world our Founders feared, and that Plato described.

For those who are wondering, Plato’s next stage was total tyranny....

The Electoral College is still right for America, by Rob Natelson, Complete Colorado, January 29, 2019:

... it is not true, as some claim, that the Founders acted only out of distrust of democracy. Rather, the system was a brilliant response to...

Having created a unique office, the Founders needed an adequate process for choosing its occupant. They set forth several criteria:

  • The electoral process had to produce presidents competent to discharge their extensive responsibilities. Not only must the president be qualified for the job, but he must be able to exercise judgment independent of Congress and of the states. Thus, those directly choosing among the candidates should either know them personally or have reliable knowledge of their character and qualifications.
  • The process should give great weight to popular preferences, while minimizing dangers of “stampeding” and other mob-like behavior.
  • It should reduce the risks of foreign and other secret influence.
  • It should balance state and national interests.
  • It should produce presidents of national stature. A purely regional executive could tear the country apart, either by his election or by policies favoring some parts of the country at the expense of others.
  • The process should discourage states from trying to increase their influence by artificially inflating their vote levels....

Did the Electoral College worked as intended in 2016? Yes and no.

It worked insofar as it denied election to Hillary Clinton, who, although the popular vote choice, was largely a regional candidate. But it failed to work insofar as state statutes prevented electors from voting for any candidates other than two widely seen as unacceptable. Those statutes also discouraged qualified people from seeking the office of presidential elector.

An end-run around the Electoral College, by Peter Skurkissm, American Thinker, February 28, 2019.

Prelude to a Revolution, National Popular Voting, by Don Mellon, Canada Free Press, March 16, 2019.

Don’t let Colorado be an Electoral College dropout, by Mike Rosen, Complete Colorado, February 5, 2019.

The One-Two Punch to Knock Out Electoral Democracy, by Michael S. Kochin, American Greatness, June 16, 2019.

Colorado Moves To Bypass Electoral College: Will Assign Electoral Votes To Popular Vote Winner, by Marc Slavo, Freedom Outpost, February 28, 2019.

Colorado Gov. Polis signs national popular vote bill into law, March 16, 2019.

Democrats Want To Kill The Electoral College Because They Fear The Constitution - The Left is increasingly comfortable attacking foundational ideas of American governance, by David Harsanyi, the Federalist, March 20, 2019.

See the 270 To Win website for an interactive electoral college map (included below) and electoral college maps of Historical Presidential Elections.


Interactive 2020 electoral college map - 270 to win

 

 

Books:

 

Moving Closer to Mob Rule: No Choice, No Voice, by Ray DiLorenzo, Canada Free Press, May 25, 2019:


Half of the U.S. population lives in these counties

 

The nightmare on the border is real

To get a shocking, unvarnished picture of what’s happening on the U.S.-Mexican border now, look at this account by John Wahala, of the Center for Immigration Studies, who for several years has been leading annual group tours to the border to see activity there first-hand.

 He describes findings of this year’s tour in vivid detail. It’s a long article, worth reading in full.

 Here are some excerpts:

Most of the families that are being released into the United States are simply not eligible for asylum. What is worse is that some of the "family units" are not families at all. A top Border Patrol agent told us they apprehend men traveling with children who have either been kidnapped or bribed along the way.

… the only reason the Tucson Sector has yet to experience the volume of asylum seekers that are arriving at other areas of the border is because the local drug cartel on the Mexican side has started turning them away. Sources on both sides of the border told us that the cartel is redirecting the migrants who are heading north to Nogales and Agua Prieta because they do not want the attention on the area. …

…  But what everyone did acknowledge is that no institution in Mexico can effectively challenge the cartels. Drug money drives the local economy, creating wealth and corruption that has spilled over into neighboring Douglas, Arizona, where U.S. customs agents and others have been reportedly bribed over the years.  …

… Approximately 40 percent of drug seizures nationwide are conducted in this [Tucson] sector and, according to a top Border Patrol official, there was enough fentanyl seized in the past year to kill the entire population of the United States, twice. Since marijuana became legal in parts of the United States, authorities have increasingly been dealing with hard narcotics. …

… February saw the highest apprehension rate ever for the Tucson Sector. We were told that smugglers pay close attention to the enforcement techniques and adjust accordingly. For example, most of the crossings used to occur at night until the National Geographic "Border Wars" television show revealed how effective night vision was in spotting incursions. Smugglers realized that crossing during the day neutralized this technology, giving them a better chance to evade the apprehension. Now most of the crossings occur during the day. …

… Today, agents encounter a high volume of illegal crossers and also "rip crews," which are armed groups of bandits who rob the migrants as they make their way north. Most of the bandits are American citizens but some are foreign nationals who come across the border to commit various crimes before returning to Mexico. All of this activity poses a danger to the agents and other law enforcement officials, whom we were told are more likely to get assaulted while making an apprehension the closer they are to Mexico because migrants know they can escape prosecution if they can just make it back across the border. Smugglers and other criminals often go right through the southbound port of entry with drugs and other contraband, easily bribing Mexican officials. There are no southbound checks by the United States.

The relentlessness of this illegal influx heading north can be defeating for those who have dedicated years of their life to securing the border. Even young agents, who signed up for the excitement of being out in the field, get discouraged. Their frustration stems mostly from the persistent lack of political will to enforce the law. Morale was excellent when President Trump took office but the agents have not seen enough change. They know the steps that are needed to stop the influx, which are more extensive than simply erecting a wall, but for complex social and political reasons these steps have not been implemented. This has led to cynicism and contributed to attrition within the ranks. We were told that five hundred new agents are being hired each year but eight hundred are leaving.  …

… East of Nogales, we visited ranchers who deal with the fallout from the illegal influx every day. They explained that the situation is constantly changing and that things there are simply not normal. A theme of the discussion, which we have heard repeated elsewhere, is that the border region is a country unto itself with its own laws and customs. Illegality often goes unprosecuted and certain societal norms cannot be taken for granted. They gave us a string of anecdotes in support of this claim: vandalism and burglaries are common and there have even been murders; raw sewage flows from Mexico into the United States at several points along the border, a local hospital closed because it could not cover the costs of treating illegal crossers; a group of teenagers just got paralyzed by a batch of tainted cocaine; a group of men from India seeking asylum jumped on the top of one of their vehicles as they were driving down the road. One of the most poignant moments of our visit was when one of the ranchers asked rhetorically, "How do you raise a daughter in such lawlessness?"

The ranchers cited a study finding it costs 33 percent more to raise cattle on the border and another claiming it costs 75 percent more per animal.  … That rancher told us that the cartels cut right through the steel border wall. In the last three years, 54 trucks have driven right through his land, ripping up pastures and destroying fences.  …

… whether people can see it or not, failing to secure the border is not just a problem for overwhelmed federal agencies or migrant shelters or hospitals or schools or ranchers along the border. It is a moral, social, and political problem for the entire nation, one that threatens the very idea of nationhood.

 

-- A Growing Border Crisis; A report from Arizona, by John Wahala, Center for Immigration Studies,  May 24, 2019.   https://cis.org/Wahala/Growing-Border-Crisis

Democrats Winning 90% Congressional Districts with Large Foreign-Born Populations

Mass legal immigration is driving Democrats towards full electoral dominance, with left-wing politicians winning nearly 90 percent of congressional districts with larger than average foreign-born populations, analysis finds.

The Atlantic senior editor Ronald Brownstein analyzed Census Bureau statistics for the 2018 midterm elections, finding that the country’s admission of more than a million legal immigrants every year is set to hand over electoral dominance to House and Senate Democrats.

Among Brownstein’s findings is that nearly 90 percent of House congressional districts with a foreign-born population above the national average were won by Democrats. This concludes that every congressional district with a foreign-born population exceeding 14 percent had a 90 percent chance of being controlled by Democrats and only a ten percent chance of electing a Republican.

“After the 2018 result, Democrats now control more than 80 percent of the House seats in which minorities exceed their national share of the population, and nearly 90 percent of the seats with more immigrants than average, according to Census Bureau figures,” Brownstein writes.

Likewise, less than one-in-ten House Republicans represent a congressional district that has a foreign-born population larger than 14 percent.

It is not just congressional districts that are being driven towards Democrats through mass legal immigration. Entire states have been transformed, not only demographically, but electorally by the country’s current legal immigration levels....

Brownstein expects Democrats to largely target the remaining Senate Republicans in states with large foreign-born populations in the 2020 elections.

“Several of the remaining Republican Senate seats in that grouping (including Colorado, Arizona, Georgia, and perhaps Texas) will be among the top Democratic targets next year,” Brownstein writes.

Even the New York Times admits that continued legal immigration at its current rate of importing more than 1.2 million residents a year will transform the U.S. towards electoral dominance for Democrats.

This is most recently evident in Orange County, California — once a Republican stronghold — that has become entirely controlled by Democrats. The dominance of Democrats in Orange County has coincided with the county’s booming foreign-born population (Screenshot via the New York Times)...

Currently, the U.S. admits more than a million legal immigrants annually, with the vast majority deriving from chain migration, whereby newly naturalized citizens can bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the country. In 2017, the foreign-born population reached a record high of 44.5 million.

The U.S. is on track to import about 15 million new foreign-born voters in the next two decades should current legal immigration levels continue. Those 15 million new foreign-born voters include about eight million who will arrive in the country through chain migration.

University of Maryland, College Park researcher James Gimpel has found in recent years that more immigrants to the U.S. inevitably means more Democrat voters and thus, increasing electoral victories for the Democrat Party.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

 

The myth of the otherwise innocent illegal alien

By Alan L. Gallagher, Canby OR; Published in The Capital Press, February 26, 2019

Excerpts:  (read the entire article here)

…  Illegal aliens commit crimes by illegal entry, re-entry, and overstay. Their very first act, illegal entry, is a crime, demonstrating contempt for U.S. law. Overstay and illegal presence are not themselves crimes (they should be: they are civil offenses against the law), but failure to register is a crime. Nearly every illegal alien commits these crimes daily along with a daily cascade of other crimes related to identity. They use false/forged/stolen ID, such as Social Security numbers, resident alien cards, and drivers licenses. Many use criminal organizations to enter the U.S., or to obtain their false IDs. They swear falsely and present false documents on I-9 forms required for employment. They work and drive without required licenses, bonding and insurance.

They use false Social Security and ITIN numbers on tax returns, claim dependents and benefits to which they are not entitled (e.g. Earned Income Credits). Much of this is done with the aid of U.S. employers, government agencies (sanctuary jurisdictions), and privacy laws. Being here illegally, they use (steal) benefits to which they are not entitled, including education, welfare, and medical benefits to the tune of billions of dollars. Their children, born here, consume billions of dollars and overwhelm public services such as education. They earn billions of dollars which, while not paying taxes, they remit to their home countries.

All of this is legally and morally wrong, and deeply corrupting to the Rule of Law in America. Mexico, the major source of our illegal aliens, also sends us illegal and life-destroying drugs across the porous southern border. Everyone knows that Mexico is deeply corrupt, a narco-state, but those who “flee” to the U.S. too often bring their values here. Daily, such people teach their children that it is OK to lie, cheat and steal to get what they want. Our churches, increasing dependent on Hispanic membership, are shamefully silent on these mass daily crimes and sins. …

Illegal aliens commit disproportionately more crimes, violent and otherwise, than others in America. This is immediately obvious from the first assertion above: most Americans are not committing a cascade of crimes on a daily basis. However, illegal aliens are disproportionately present, convicted, in federal and state prisons, and on Most-Wanted lists. John Lott’s 2018 study of Arizona convicts, based upon actual convict convictions, confirms this ("Based on data from 1985 to 2017, undocumented immigrants are at least 146% more likely to be convicted of crime than other Arizonans”), as do U.S. General Accountability Office and U.S. Sentencing Commission reports for federal prisons.

The same is true for Oregon, where Oregon Department of Corrections reports, and David Cross’s summaries, most recently for December 2018, show significant and disproportionate numbers of illegal aliens in the Oregon prison system. …

We have the federal E-Verify Program so that employers can determine who has valid Social Security numbers and legal right to work. E-Verify should be mandatory, and meanwhile all employers should voluntarily use it.

I am sad and angry that Americans buy illegal drugs: Mexicans could not sell if Americans did not buy. In that sense, such Americans are deeply complicit not only in the harm done to the U.S., but also the harm done to Mexico in the drug wars, corruption, and murders in Mexico, and in the narco-corruption pervasive in that country.

That, however, does not excuse Mexico, and does not justify its use of America to relief for its unemployment, and as a major source of national income through remittances. I am sad and angry that Americans participate in the massive lawbreaking which illegal immigration requires. We could do this legally, morally, openly and honestly.

Read the entire article at:  https://www.capitalpress.com/opinion/letters/letter-the-myth-of-the-otherwise-innocent-illegal-alien/article_89e4d842-3a29-11e9-afd2-7fcd5687fe93.html

Sanctuary Nation - The Fraying of America

The Fall, 2018 Social Contract Journal is available online. The issue focuses on Sanctuary Nation - The Fraying of America.

Here are direct links to the articles:

  1. A Note from the Editor - How It Works: The Immigration System Is ‘Broken’ on Purpose, by Wayne Lutton, Ph.D.
     
  2. Sanctuary Country - Immigration failures by design, by Michael W. Cutler
     
  3. The Trump ‘Travel Ban’ Is Actually an Entry Restriction, byMichael W. Cutler
     
  4. Sanctuary California In Decline, by Rick Oltman
     
  5. The Refugee Resettlement Program Is Not the Refugee Resettlement Program, by James Simpson
     
  6. Spotlight on HIAS (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society), by Social Contract editors
     
  7. The World Refugee Rescue Project No Longer Makes Sense, by Brenda Walker
     
  8. Why Al Sharpton Promotes Immigration Amnesty, by Carl F. Horowitz
     
  9. Carl Horowitz’s Definitive Political Biography of Al Sharpton, by Carl F. Horowitz
     
  10. The November 2018 Election: A Referendum on Immigration Reform, by John Thompson
     
  11. The Enduring Value of Jean Raspail’s Classic Novel - New Camp of the Saints edition’s added content includes Big Other, by L.F. Mares
     
  12. Punishment Migration, by James Kirkpatrick
     
  13. Why Is Facebook Protecting Mexican Child Molesters? ...and censoring law-abiding citizens for reporting illegal alien crimes, by Dave Gibson
     
  14. Jonestown: A Preview for the West?, by John Vinson
     
  15. Immigration and Human Nature, by Martin Witkerk
     
  16. The Swamp Exposed, by Fred Elbel
     

Read the Fall, 2018 Social Contract Journal online, or obtain a printed copy.

110,000+ Oregonians Help Make The Arc Of History Bend Toward Immigration Sanity

Last Thursday and Friday, July 5th and 6th, the stalwarts of Oregonians for Immigration Reform [OFIR] submitted to their Secretary of State more than 110,000 signatures from registered voters. Their aim: Qualify for November's ballot an initiative IP 22 that would allow voters to repeal Oregon's statewide sanctuary policy that heavily restricts cooperation between Oregon law enforcement and the federal immigration agencies. (In late May, I reported on their efforts here.)


OFIR booth

 

As the number of signatures required was 88,184, OFIR has likely succeeded in the signature-gathering phase of their herculean task and must now embark on "making the sale" on IP 22 to all of the state's voters. But the OFIR-ites won't be certain of this first-step success until the Secretary of State has confirmed that enough of the signatures gathered are valid.

On July 8th, I spoke by phone with OFIR Communications Director (and founding President) Jim Ludwick, whom I have known for several years. Jim, who is also a veteran of OFIR's triumphant 2013 - 2014 "NO on 88" citizens'-veto campaign to nullify driver's cards for illegal aliens, was most impressed with the urgency many of his late-responding fellow citizens exhibited over getting their signatures in by the July 6th deadline. "On the steps at the state capitol Friday we had state employees come out to us to sign. We had truck drivers who were servicing the building sign. We had state police sign," he said. "There were people driving 60 miles each way to drop off one-line signature sheets."

"I wish everyone could see how frantic some registered voters were to get their signatures counted so that IP 22 will get on the ballot," Jim added. "There's a sense that ordinary folks are beginning to grasp what the future will be if we don't push back effectively. They know this country is at a tipping point. A lot of these people have been sitting on the sidelines, intimidated about being called 'racist.' The usual ..."

Indeed, there was active intimidation that affected how voters' signatures were obtained. Jim explained that more than 100,000 of the signatures OFIR collected were gathered by volunteers with clipboards or by people downloading single-signature petition forms from the web and mailing them in (or making a last-minute drive to the capitol in Salem!). Meanwhile, fewer than 10,000 signatures resulted from the work of paid signature-collectors because, Jim explained, the best venue for that activity is metro Portland, "where it became exceedingly nasty to collect signatures, especially for women."

Jim is quite optimistic that the 110,445 signatures OFIR submitted will yield the needed 88,184 valid signatures. That would require an 80-percent validity rate, well below the 93-percent validity rate OFIR achieved in the signature-gathering stage of 2014's "NO on 88" campaign. Nevertheless, he and the others in OFIR's battle-tested crew must wait, nervously, to hear from Secretary of State Dennis Richardson.

It's fortunate that they're battle-tested, as Jim expects that "The other side is about to pull out every dirty trick in the book." The dirty tricks will presumably be the work of "Oregonians united against profiling," an umbrella organization established on July 6th, according to an email forwarded to me. With their name presumably also announcing their approach, we can expect a campaign of distortion along the lines of that in 2010 associated with Arizona's SB 1070 law of phony "Papers, please!"-hysteria fame.

It's hard to conjure a nexus between racial profiling and anti-sanctuary policies, so "Ouap" already looks like it's grasping at straws—on their "Get the Facts" page, they trot out this indictment of OFIR and of the Federation for American Immigration Reform:

The groups behind the effort to throw out Oregon’s existing Sanctuary law are Oregonians for Immigration Reform (OFIR) and the Federation of Immigration Reform (FAIR). Both groups have been designated extremist hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Going to the link they provide lands you on a typical SPLC point-and-splutter page.

Meanwhile, assuming the signature-gathering campaign has succeeded, IP 22 will apparently be the only statewide immigration-related ballot measure in the country this fall. Immigration patriots nationwide can keep tabs on the campaign via the OFIR website and the related Stop Oregon Sanctuaries website.

 


 

Related

The SPLC File - An Exclusive Report on the Southern Poverty Law Center, The Social Contract, Spring, 2018.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - government