illegal immigration

Brown: Extend Medicaid to more than 17,000 kids

SALEM — Gov. Kate Brown spoke Monday in support of a bipartisan proposal to expand Medicaid coverage to the more than 17,000 children currently ineligible due to their immigration status.

Brown — whose two-year budget included the estimated $55 million the coverage is expected to cost — is joined in her support for the measure by nearly 40 advocacy groups, health care providers and unions.

“It is our duty to ensure that our youngest Oregonians have the tools to grow into healthy adults, with access to education, health care and a bright future,” Brown said during a meeting of the state House Health Care Committee.

It’s a departure from a proposal by top Oregon budget writers to cut Medicaid coverage to roughly 355,000 adults to help fill the state’s $1.8 billion budget hole.

People who joined the program under the Affordable Care Act’s 2014 eligibility expansion would lose coverage.

Advocates, however, characterize the measure, called Cover All Kids, as building on strides the state has made over the years to increase access to health care coverage for children. Lawmakers voted in 2009 to expand kids’ access to Medicaid and subsidized health insurance policies. In 2010, the Affordable Care Act allowed Oregon to expand its Medicaid program to kids in families with incomes up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level. The coverage only applied to lawfully present children, however.

Still, it’s estimated about 2 percent of children in Oregon remain uninsured, the majority of whom are ineligible for coverage because they’re in the country illegally. House Bill 2726, along with its counterpart in the Senate, would extend Medicaid coverage to anyone under age 19 with family incomes up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level — $48,720 annually for a family of two or $73,800 for a family of four — regardless of immigration status.

Medicaid programs in California, Washington state, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., already cover children in the country illegally.

The measure’s sponsors include Republicans Rep. John Huffman of The Dalles, Rep. Andy Olson of Albany and Sen. Brian Boquist of Dallas. Democratic sponsors include Sen. Arnie Roblan of Coos Bay, Rep. Diego Hernandez of Portland, Sen. Laurie Monnes Anderson of Gresham, Rep. Teresa Alonso León of Woodburn and Rep. Pam Marsh of Ashland.

Huffman told the audience at Monday’s hearing the bill makes sense both morally and economically.

“Morally, because I have always advocated for supporting our most vulnerable citizens,” he said. Economically, because healthy kids miss less school and their parents miss fewer days of work.

Former Republican Rep. Vic Gilliam also submitted testimony in support of the measure, which he wrote would not be just another government “entitlement” program but would strengthen communities.

Linda Roman, director of health policy and government relations for the Oregon Latino Health Coalition, said in an interview the issue boils down to values.

“I think across party lines, across chambers of the House and the Senate, we all believe that every child in our state on day one of school needs to be prepared and ready to learn,” she said. “I think our legislators in Oregon really understand that and embrace that.”

Even though the coverage would cost the state an estimated $55 million over the next two years, Roman said it would save money in the long run. Access to health care prevents treatable illnesses from becoming expensive health care crises, she said. Further, Roman said children with insurance perform better in school, are more likely to graduate high school and contribute more in taxes later in life.

“We’ve seen that it works,” she said. “It saves money.”

All of the written testimony submitted to the House Health Care Committee ahead of its hearing Monday urged lawmakers to support the measure. Organizations included the Oregon Primary Care Association, Basic Rights Oregon, the Oregon Nurses Association, the Oregon School-Based Health Alliance and several others. Insurance carrier Moda Health and health systems Legacy Health and Providence Health System also voiced support.

Monday’s session was a public hearing; a vote was not held. The Senate Health Care Committee will host a hearing on the measure Tuesday afternoon. Brown is not scheduled to testify at that hearing, but state Sen. Jeff Kruse, a Republican from Roseburg, and Koblan will speak in support of the bill, according to the Oregon Latino Health Coalition.

Plan to provide free health care to unauthorized immigrant kids in Oregon draws praise, criticism

SALEM — When an errant baseball hit her in the face years ago, Fatima Preciado’s lip split. Soon, the 8-year-old’s cut became infected.

Preciado’s mother tried to clean the cut with rubbing alcohol and heal it with ointments, but never took her to a doctor. Without health insurance, those types of “house remedies” were often the only medical treatment her family could turn to, Preciado said.

Norma Baltazar says she struggled for years to get dental health care for her young son, Raul. Finally, when a molar in the back of his mouth grew too painful, she rushed him to the emergency room. Without health insurance, she had to pay $900 to have the tooth removed.

Both Preciado and Baltazar are unauthorized immigrants, having separately come to the United States from Mexico more than a decade ago.

Today, Preciado is an 18-year-old Portland State University student and a so-called “Dreamer,” having secured a work permit and deportation deferral under former President Obama’s DACA program.

Baltazar, a Salem house cleaner, brought Raul to America when he was only 3, making him an unauthorized immigrant as well. She’s since had another child, a daughter, who, by virtue of her birth of U.S. soil, is a legal U.S. citizen.

Now, both women are advocating for a new state law, dubbed “Cover All Kids” by supporters, that would extend government-­funded health insurance in Oregon to many unauthorized immigrants under the age of 19.

The proposal would give government-funded health insurance to an estimated 17,600 unauthorized immigrants, at a cost of $55 million in the biennium that starts July 1. Critics blast the concept and the price tag, especially given state government’s cash crisis.

But supporters say it’s a humane and sensible idea.

“My mom always was scared that I would get hurt or get sick because we didn’t have insurance,” Preciado said of her childhood. “I just wanted to play.

“Kids don’t worry about getting hurt, they don’t understand,” she added.

The proposed policy would let those young immigrants receive free health insurance through the Oregon Health Plan, the state’s version of Medicaid, if their families make less than 300 percent of the federal poverty level.

That’s the same eligibility requirement as that for an Oregon minor who is a legal resident now, and it translates to an annual income of $73,000 for a family of four. The coverage would apply only to the unauthorized immigrant children of the household, not the adults.

Faces opposition

The proposal is backed by Gov. Kate Brown, House Speaker Tina Kotek, a Portland Democrat, a contingent of Democratic and Republican state legislators, and many Oregon health care providers.

Similar policies are in place in California, Washington, New York, Illinois and Massachusetts.

Still, the costly proposal in Oregon faces significant headwinds this session as the state must close a $1.8 billion budget gap — a hole that’s in large part the result of the growing cost of the Oregon Health Plan for legal Oregon residents.

Senate Bill 558 and House Bill 2726 would make 17,600 noncitizens newly eligible for the Health Plan, according to early estimates.

The state would have to cover the full cost of their health insurance, a projected $55 million in the 2017-19 budget. That’s different than for the rest of Oregon’s 1 million-strong Medicaid population, where the federal government picks up most of the tab.

The policy and its cost anger opponents of illegal immigration.

“We have a state that thinks it has a $1.8 billion budget gap and yet we’re considering giving more state benefits to thousands of illegal immigrants,” said Jim Ludwick of Oregonians for Immigration Reform. “It boggles the mind.”

Ludwick said his group doesn’t want “any harm to come to children.” But, he added, the bill, if passed, “could well be the foot in the door” for Oregon Health Plan coverage to be extended to unauthorized adult immigrants as well.

Despite progressive stances on many social issues, Oregon voters have sometimes resisted policies favoring unauthorized immigrants. In 2014, they thrashed, by a 2-to-1 ratio, a proposal to grant them short-term driving licenses.

“Emergency clauses”

SB 558 and HB 2726 both contain “emergency clauses,” however. That means that, if they pass, they’ll go into effect immediately and couldn’t be referred to voters.

Supporters say the cost of expanding Medicaid coverage to unauthorized minors would be a smart investment for the state. It would mean they could get more preventative health care, reducing their need for expensive emergency care, and allowing them to be more successful in school and later life.

“Oregon children should have the opportunity to be healthy and ready to learn, and Oregon families should feel confident that a medical event will not dramatically change the trajectory of their lives,” Gov. Brown told the House Health Care Committee on Monday.

Rep. John Huffman, a Republican from The Dalles, said the insurance expansion “makes sense morally and economically.”

“Covering kids up front saves us money down the road,” he added.

Patchwork of care

Both Preciado and Baltazar on Monday described a complicated patchwork of health care options available now to unauthorized immigrants. Many of them don’t or can’t get health insurance through work. They aren’t eligible for the subsidies to help people buy their own health insurance policies on the exchanges set up by Obamacare.

But unauthorized immigrants can receive primary medical care in some public schools and, for a fee, at 200 “safety net” community health centers around the state.

Hospitals, meanwhile, are required by federal law to provide free emergency care to all people, regardless of their residency status, when a patient is at risk of dying, losing a limb or is pregnant.

Many nonprofit groups also help unauthorized immigrants cover their regular health and dental care costs or help raise money for expensive treatments.

For example, Baltazar said Raul was recently found to have a heart condition that could eventually require surgery. She said she’s already identified a church-affiliated nonprofit that might help pay for the operation.

But, she added: “It still worries me. There’s no guarantee.”

“I don’t want (Raul) to worry about how we will pay for it,” Baltazar said. “Any child deserves to have a healthy life.”

Preciado said her older sister is intellectually disabled and prone to epileptic seizures. There were times during her childhood when the family, for weeks, couldn’t afford the daily medication her sister needed, Preciado recalled.

“There would be nights when I would awake from my mother’s frightened screams as she watched my eldest sister uncontrollably experience an epileptic seizure,” she said. “It was very traumatic.”

Mexican Presidential Candidate Holds Anti-Trump Rally in L.A.

Imagine if a stranger came to your home and criticized you to your family. That’s what happened in Los Angeles last Sunday, Feb. 12, when Mexican presidential candidate Andres Manuel López Obrador held a rally and criticized President Trump’s plans to build a wall across the U.S.-Mexico border.

López Obrador, who represents the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) said, “I think the wall and the demagoguery of patriotism are no match for the dignity and humanity of the American people.” He went on to praise California as “a refuge and blessing for immigrants,” and exclaimed “long live California,” to the cheers of the crowd.

Many recognize that most Mexican politicians suffer a deep inferiority complex toward Texas and the America. Toward Texas because they defeated Santa Ana and won their independence, and toward the U.S. because they beat them and won half of their territory, all in an attempt to win Texas back.

The current border and immigration problems the U.S. has are a reflection that Mexico has never truly accepted or respected the international border. Legal and illegal commerce and immigration have flowed back and forth with little to no restraints since 1848.

After the Mexican revolution of 1910, Mexican nationalism went into high gear. In the 1920s and 30s politicians and artists coupled the hyper nationalism with socialism and anti-capitalist, anti-Christian, and anti-American rhetoric. In 1926, Pres. Plutarco Calles initiated a fierce backlash against Catholics which led to the Cristero War. In 1938, Pres. Lazaro Cardenas nationalized the Mexican oil industry which was owned and managed by American, British and Dutch companies.

Lopez Obrador represents PRI, a Mexican political party that was founded in 1929, and that held power uninterruptedly in the country for 71 years until 2000. The PRI participates in the Socialist International, but they are not considered a true social democratic party because they have done more to loot the people and nation of their wealth, than to redistribute the wealth. In 1990, Peruvian Nobel Prize laureate for literature, Mario Vargas Llosa, called the Mexican government under the PRI “la dictadura perfecta” ("the perfect dictatorship").

While superficially Mexican politicians show a friendly face toward the U.S., they are actually very insecure and envious of their neighbor to the north. Mexican politicians routinely criticize American policies toward their nation, but heaven forbid if an American politician, particularly a president like Trump, ever criticizes Mexico.

The idea of a Mexican presidential candidate criticizing an American president on American soil is repugnant. Furthermore, the American national media and the United Nations ignored this national affront. We can also assume that California leftist arranged the visit to embarrass or provoke Trump. You can bet Lopez Obrador would not have had the same reception in Texas.

Typical of all insecure and dishonest governments, Mexican politicians see themselves and their country’s failures as faultless victims of “Yankee imperialism”. But it is ominous when foreigners are being bold enough to come to the U.S. to verbally attack us, and dangerous when fellow citizens are foolish enough to host them, and destructive when the Mainstream Media ignores or downplays the incident.

George Rodriguez

El Conservador

Read the FOX News report

The appalling hypocrisy, ignorance of courts on immigration and states' rights

One of the most absurd aspects of this immigration lawsuit pending in the Ninth Circuit is the notion that a state can have standing to sue the federal government in order to bring in more immigrants, visitors, and refugees. It would be akin to a state suing the president because it doesn’t like his foreign policy or if a state felt that the military deployments are hurting and disrupting the lives of residents of their states. Those assertions may or may not be valid, but they are political, not legal questions.

Moreover, the courts have demonstrated an appalling level of hypocrisy and ignorance of the entire purpose of federal control over immigration by simultaneously ruling against states that wish to clamp down on undesirable immigration and protect their own sovereignty.

Federal immigration power is all about protecting national sovereignty

As we’ve observed in previous columns, immigration laws — generally speaking — provide the president with broad latitude to ratchet down immigration but not the authority to increase immigration. It’s rooted in the concept of national sovereignty and consent-based immigration. A decision to bring in more people must be done judiciously with a transparent debate of all the people’s representatives. A decision to keep out people, on the other hand, is often needed to protect national sovereignty and security at a moment’s notice.

As James Madison wrote in 1835, “[I]n the case of naturalization a new member is added to the Social compact …by a majority of the governing body deriving its powers from a majority of the individual parties to the social compact.” This is why our Constitution vested Congress with plenary power over immigration policy, and why the courts — before they became autocratic in recent years — conceded that they have absolutely no jurisdiction to second-guess the legislature or executive officials on any immigration decision not involving U.S. citizens.

The same principle of national sovereignty is behind the underlying premise of why the Constitution transferred authority over immigration from the states to the national government. The power was transferred to the federal government not for the purpose of violating the sovereignty of the states and forcibly flooding their jurisdictions with endless flows of third world immigrants. It was quite the opposite — to prevent individual states from bringing in too many dangerous or costly immigrants in order to bolster their representation in Congress and thereby negatively affect the entire union.

Commenting on the power of Congress (as opposed to states) over immigration, the inimitable Justice Joseph Story explained, “If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges.” While this was written in 1833, every word is speaking to liberals today in states like Washington who want to endanger the nation with unlimited numbers of Sharia-adherent immigrants and refugees during a time of global Islamic uprisings.  

Roger Sherman, among the greatest of all the Founders, noted during the House debate on the Naturalization Act of 1790 that “it was intended by the Convention, who framed the Constitution, that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order to prevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner.” (emphasis added) Sherman was emphatic that federal control was designed to “guard against an improper mode of naturalization,” and prevent individual states from flooding the country with immigrants based on “easier terms.”

Thus, the federal plenary power over immigration was not to be used as a hammer to crush state sovereignty with boundless immigration, but rather as a shield to protect states and the entire federal union from irresponsible immigration policies of insidious state officials.  

States have power to enforce the law on behalf of their sovereignty, not to violate national sovereignty

Yet, as the courts have done with every aspect of the Constitution, they have flipped the entire structure and purpose of federal power over immigration on its head — upside down, inside out. When states want to protect their sovereignty from a president that blatantly violates statute and the Constitution to harm national and state sovereignty, the courts tell those states to get lost. In some cases, the courts even prevent those states from passing laws to protect their citizens. Yet, when states complain about a president using 100% existing law to protect sovereignty, the courts give the states a forum to codify their political desires for more immigrants into laws that say the exact opposite.

This perversion of the letter and spirit of the Constitution played out in numerous cases. For example, when states sued President Obama for flooding their jurisdictions with refugees without notifying them even after the fact, much less giving them “advanced consultation” — as required by statute — the courts threw out the lawsuit. Now states can demand more refugees when they have no such right!

The courts prevented the Arizona government and Sheriff Arpaio from enforcing existing federal immigration law, yet they have green lighted sanctuary cities.

The courts have blocked Texas from preventing illegal aliens from obtaining birth certificates, thereby disenfranchising and stealing the sovereignty of American citizens. Yet, they have allowed Chicago to ignore ICE detainers.

The court’s called Mississippi’s grievances against Obama’s illegal DACA amnesty “speculative,” but have readily welcomed Washington State’s illegitimate grievances demanding more immigrants.      

As Justice Scalia made clear in his masterful dissent in Arizona v. United States (2012), a state’s “power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there” is “the defining characteristic of sovereignty” and that the “Constitution did not strip the States of that authority.” “To the contrary,” wrote Scalia, “two of the Constitu­tion’s provisions were designed to enable the States to prevent “the intrusion of obnoxious aliens through other States.” Letter from James Madison to Edmund Randolph (Aug. 27, 1782).”

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, but that is not true of the contemporary federal courts. They are wrong all the time and flip the Constitution upside down.

The gospel of liberal jurisprudence comes from the misunderstood Marbury case, in which John Marshall declared, “it is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Now we are seeing that the courts have made it their job, with devastating perverse consistency and deleterious consequences, to say what the law isn’t.

- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/02/appalling-hypocrisy-ignorance-of-courts-on-immigration-and-states-

Jeff Sessions Confirmed as Attorney General Amid Partisan Acrimony

Alert date: 
2017-02-08
Alert body: 

Senate Approves Jeff Sessions as Attorney General

The Senate voted Wednesday night to confirm Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, to become the nation's attorney general after three days of partisan acrimony over President Donald Trump's Cabinet nominees.

The 52-47 vote proceeded along party lines, with one exception: Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia, voted with Republicans. Sessions himself voted "present."

"It was a special night, and I appreciate the friendship from my colleagues — even those who, many of them, who didn't feel able to vote for me — they were cordial and so we continue to have good relations, and [I] will continue to do the best I can," Sessions told reporters immediately after his confirmation.

This was the Sessions' second attempt at a Senate confirmation. His first attempt, in 1986, was for a federal judgeship, which failed after he was accused of racial insensitivity.

 

Jeff Sessions Thanks Senate, Acknowledges 'Heated Debate' Over Confirmation 3:17

Democrats, many of whom have worked with him in the Senate for years, opposed Sessions because of his positions on voting rights, immigration and women's health, among other issues. But their opposition wasn't enough to defeat his nomination, as it takes a simple majority to confirm Cabinet positions.

"Everything he was accused of, I've never seen," said Manchin, the only Democrat to support him. "So I'm basing my knowledge of Jeff Sessions and who I think Jeff Sessions is, and I think he'll be fair and very deliberate of what he does. And I think he'll be very good at the rule of law and administrating it."

Sessions is expected to be sworn in Thursday morning.

 

 

 

 

 

OFIR launches billboard campaign

Alert date: 
2017-02-06
Alert body: 

OFIR would like everyone to know and understand what a sanctuary policy means.

While the argument over the sanctuary status of college campuses or cities goes on, it's important to understand that Oregon is actually a sanctuary state.  What does that mean?  Find out more.

OFIR's billboard campaign helps to educate the public about the fiscal burden of being a sanctuary state.
 

Law enforcement hands tied by Oregon Legislature

In 1987, the Oregon Legislature passed a bill making it against the law for our law enforcement officers to enforce the law.  It's time to put an end to this ridiculous loophole known as state statute 181A.820.

How many illegal aliens do you suppose are in Oregon and the only "crime" they have committed is to be in our country illegally - thus breaking our immigration laws?

Think about that for a moment...

Illegal aliens often come to this country illegally to work - which is in violation of our employment laws.  And, they are likely hired by an employer who knows full well that they are an illegal alien.

But, before securing employment, they must first acquire identification.  I hear that one can be bought on the streets for about $75.  It's not a quality ID, but it's enough to pass for the willing employer.   Isn't that against the law - to buy and sell fake identification?  And, whose identity is being stolen?  Yours, mine - or, your grandchild's?

Now, the only in the country illegally, illegal alien needs a way to get to their new found job.  They have a buddy that gets them a car which they proceed to drive to work - without a license or insurance.  That too, is against the law! 

So, please explain how it's a necessity to forego enforcement of our immigration laws to protect those that are only in our country illegally!

The Sheriffs of Oregon have released a statement - I encourage you to read it - then call your elected officials and tell them to repeal State Statute 181A.820

Oregon sheriffs: Quick change in immigration actions 'unlikely'

WILSONVILLE, Ore. - Oregon sheriffs issued a statement Friday explaining the background to their stance on not reporting all undocumented immigrants to federal authorities, due to state law, and how that likely means no immediate change in their agencies’ procedures.

Here’s the Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association’s posted “legal analysis,” in full:

Many Oregon residents are asking their local Sheriff how President Trump’s January 25, 2017 Executive Order on Immigration will change local practices. The Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association provides the following analysis of this complex issue. The answer, at least in the short term, is that immediate changes to police practices are unlikely.

All Oregon police agencies are prohibited by state statute, ORS 181A.820, from spending public dollars, resources or personnel to locate or arrest a person whose only violation of law is that they are in the country in violation of federal immigration law.

That statute has been in place since 1987, and unless the Oregon legislature changes it, that law will continue to prohibit Oregon police officers from acting as immigration enforcement officers.

The county or city governing body may enact local ordinances that further restrict police officers in that jurisdiction from cooperating with ICE or otherwise assisting in immigration enforcement. The executive order signed by the President does not directly affect Oregon law enforcement officers – it is binding only upon federal agencies.

If a person is illegally in the country, and commits another violation of law, Oregon police officers are specifically allowed by Oregon law to cooperate by exchanging information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Oregon jails do so routinely. We believe Oregon jails are fully compliant with federal law requiring local cooperation in accordance with 8 USC 1373.

Oregon jails do not honor requests by ICE to detain persons past their local release date, because doing so is a violation of the person’s rights and subjects the jail to serious civil liability. See link to court case below.

Oregon jails will hold a person for ICE if presented with a warrant signed by a federal magistrate.

In light of ORS 181A.820, and the fact that the federal court has made it clear that Oregon jails do not honor ICE detainer requests in keeping with the binding federal district court decision, Oregon could be considered a “sanctuary state” under the policies of the Trump administration, and the state may be threatened with loss of federal grant funding.

 At this time, the “sanctuary” definition is unclear. Cities or counties that have declared themselves “sanctuary cities” may also face threats of loss of federal grant funds. There will undoubtedly be legal challenges if the federal government actually does take away federal grant funds for sanctuary states, counties or cities, but there is some legal authority for them to do so.

There are still many unknowns in terms of future federal immigration enforcement policy. Congress could make changes in the federal law, the Oregon legislature could modify state statute, and a city or county could reconsider their level of cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Federal courts will almost certainly weigh in on these issues at some point. Oregon Sheriffs will continue to keep the lines of communication open with federal officials and state partners as this issue unfolds.

For the time being, Oregon Sheriffs are bound to follow state law, which currently only allows exchange of information with ICE when a foreign-born person is arrested. Oregon Sheriffs are also required to follow local ordinances enacted by their county governing bodies. Each Sheriff in Oregon is elected by the people and stands ready to answer law enforcement questions you may have about your county.

Executive Order on Immigration

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/25/executive-order-border-security-andimmigration-enforcement-improvements

ORS 181A.820

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/181A.820

Oregon court case finding 4th Amendment Violation for honoring ICE detainer request

http://crimmigration.com/2014/04/17/oregon-federal-court-detainer-led-to-fourth-amendmentviolation/

8 U.S. Code 1373 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1373

Sincerely,

Pat Garrett

Sheriff, Washington County

President, Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association

http://www.ktvz.com/news/oregon-sheriffs-quick-change-in-immigration-actions-unlikely/296477600
 

Salem Immigrant Rights Rally to denounce Trump agenda

Multiple nonprofits, including unions and immigrants rights groups, are traveling to Salem on Jan. 14 to participate in the United for Immigrants Rights Rally. Set a week prior to the Jan. 20 presidential inauguration...

Phil Carrasco with Grupo Latino de Accíon Directa is orchestrating a trip from Eugene to Salem...

“We do believe that a lot of these policies being proposed are really based in hate and funded by hate groups and xenophobic groups.” And, he says, they also believe that the right to be in this country and walk freely is an exclusive privilege.

Carrasco says there’s been a call to repeal the state’s sanctuary status, which would allow the federal government to use state resources to enforce immigration policy. He says the effort could possibly show up as a ballot measure.

This is not the first time a state law that affects immigrants would be addressed in the form of a ballot measure. In 2014, Measure 88 failed to garner enough votes to grant driver cards to all Oregon residents, though the Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 833, which permitted Oregonians to apply for driver cards, regardless of their immigration status.

Ultimately, SB 833 never went into effect.

Many people who do not have legal status in the U.S. pay taxes, funding roads, schools and other state resources, Carrasco says. “It’s important that it’s not just Latino-centric organizations participating,” he says.

Organizations representing health care, working families and labor unions are among the participants. Carrasco says these groups acknowledge that “an injury to one is an injury to all.”

Around 500 people are expected to attend, with 2,000 interested in the Facebook event. Carrasco invites anyone interested in attending and carpooling to contact him.

He adds that the event is “part of a national day of action to defend immigrant rights and to denounce Trump’s agenda of hate and exclusion in our state.”

The United for Immigrant Rights Rally is 11:30 am Saturday, Jan. 14, at the Capitol building in Salem. GLAD is on Facebook at latinocommunityactiongroup. And for carpool information contact Phil Carrasco at 541-337-6391.

Hundreds expected at rally against Trump's immigration proposals

SALEM — A pro-immigrant rally set for Saturday, Jan. 14, at the Oregon Capitol could draw several hundred demonstrators opposed to President-elect Donald Trump's positions on immigration.

U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, U.S. Rep. Kurt Schrader and several state lawmakers are scheduled to participate in the rally from 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. on the steps of the Capitol.

As of Wednesday, Jan. 11, more than 500 people had indicated they plan to attend and 2,000 had expressed interest on the event's Facebook page.

The rally is one of 50 "National Day of Action Events Against Trump Policies," according to a news release by the One Oregon coalition.

Trump has said that he will seek to deport millions of undocumented immigrants from the country, end executive orders by President Obama that shield certain illegal immigrants from deportation, and start a Muslim registry.

The coalition is "deeply concerned about the impact this will have on immigrant and refugee communities, who are integral to Oregon's economy and future," said Diane Goodwin, a spokeswoman for Basic Rights Oregon, a member of One Oregon.

One of Obama's executive orders, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, protects from deportation undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children. Young people who are eligible must apply for the program every two years, receive a work permit and may attend college.

"There are more than 700,000 individuals nationally and about 15,000 in Oregon whose lives are at stake, whose ability to continue their education and their career is at stake based on what President-elect Trump does," said Andrea Williams, executive director of Causa. "A lot of times, they have never been to their home country, don't know the language or have not been there for a very long time."

State lawmakers who have given their RSVP for Saturday's rally include Portland Democrats Rep. Alyssa Keny-Guyer, Sen. Michael Dembrow, Rep. Diego Hernandez, and Rep. Rob Nosse. Woodburn Democrat Rep. Teresa Alonso Leon, who became a U.S. citizen just five years ago, also plans to attend.

The One Oregon coalition of 60 organizations opposes anti-immigrant policies. Immigrant rights organizations Causa, APANO and Unite Oregon lead the group.

The coalition plans to support state legislation in 2017 aimed at reducing racial profiling during police stops, expanding Medicaid to more children and increasing affordable housing funding.

There are no known counter protests to the event. Oregonians For Immigration Reform, which frequently clashes with Causa on policy proposals, had no plans for a counter demonstration Saturday, said OFIR President Cynthia Kendoll. OFIR has scheduled a meeting the same day as the demonstration to discuss the results of the election and 2017 legislation.

Trump's immigration proposals have begun to address many of the frustrations some Americans have had with immigration policy and practices, Kendoll said.

"I think the Trump administration has nailed it when he said we need to reassess what we are doing and why and how is it benefiting the United States," Kendoll said.

She said she supports Trump's plan to end the DACA program.

"Those parents made the choice for their children to pick them up and bring them to this country," Kendoll said. "I didn't make that choice for them."

OFIR attempted to advance ballot initiatives last year that would have made English the official language of Oregon, required businesses to use a federal program to verify citizenship of employees and required proof of citizenship to vote. The initiatives ultimately were tied up in court after immigrant rights organizations and the ACLU challenged the ballot titles.

OFIR plans to offer at least four pieces of legislation next session, though Kendoll declined to disclose specifics Wednesday, Jan. 11. None are expected to gain momentum in the Democratic-controlled Legislature.

Also published in the East Oregonian

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - illegal immigration