illegal immigration

Check this out first and then cast your votes!

Oregonians for Immigration Reform does not endorse candidates.  We do our research and find out all we can about candidates and their views on immigration issues.

OFIR has provided for you, an overview of immigration specific information about most candidates running for office in the Nov. 4 general election.  Please check it out and then be certain to fill out your ballot and send it in before the deadline.  If you don't vote - we won't win!

If you find the information helpful, please send us a note telling us so.  If there is something else we can do to help you, please let us know.

If you have information about a candidate that is not included, and should be, we would be happy to post that, as well.

Remember to Vote NO on Ballot Measure 88 - NO driver cards for people illegally in our country!

 


  Read more about Check this out first and then cast your votes!

Where candidates stand on immigration

Alert date: 
2014-10-27
Alert body: 

OFIR has now added to the website a section on candidates in the Nov. 4 general election.  Please visit it to see the latest information on candidates’ positions on benefits to illegal aliens, use of E-Verify, and related issues. Click here:  http://www.oregonir.org/immigration-topics/2014-general-election.

Once again, LaMountain nails the argument against driver cards

Rick LaMountain - OFIR member and Chief Petitioner for the Protect Oregon Driver Licenses Citizen's Veto Referendum, in his just published article in The Register Guard, makes the case against granting state issued ID - in the form of driver cards - for people illegally in our country.
  Read more about Once again, LaMountain nails the argument against driver cards

Voters Strongly Oppose Legal Rights, Government Benefits for Illegal Immigrants

The Obama administration yesterday announced that it is spending $9 million to provide lawyers for some of the young illegal immigrants who flooded across the border earlier this year, but voters strongly believe these illegal immigrants do not have the same legal rights U.S. citizens do.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 68% of Likely U.S. Voters say the new illegal immigrants should not have the same legal rights and protections that U.S. citizens have. Just 19% disagree. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure. (To see question wording, click here.)

Seventy-one percent (71%) say these illegal newcomers should not be eligible for government services and benefits. Sixteen percent (16%) believe they are entitled to government aid. Again, 13% are undecided.

Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters think the availability of government money and services draws illegal immigrants to the United States. Twenty-one percent (21%) believe this government assistance is not a magnet for illegal immigration, but 15% are not sure. These views are little changed from early March 2010 when we first asked this question.

Thirty-eight percent (38%) now say some of this year’s wave of illegal immigrants have been moved by the federal government to their state. Fifteen percent (15%) say their state hasn’t received any of these illegals, but nearly half (46%) of voters don’t know. The administration refuses to make public where these illegal immigrants are being moved and, in most cases, is not telling local and state officials beforehand.

Just 29% of voters approve of housing these illegal immigrants in their state. Only 34% think the administration needs to release publicly the locations of where the illegal immigrants are going, but a plurality (47%) believes it should get the approval of elected officials in a state before moving them there.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on August September 29-30, 2014 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Most voters think the president wants this latest group of illegal immigrants to stay in this country despite majority support for their quick deportation.

Just 30% of voters give the Obama administration good or excellent marks for its handling of the thousands of illegal immigrant children who have entered the country this year. Forty-seven percent (47%) rate the administration’s handling of the problem as poor. This is unchanged from mid-August.

Fifty-four percent (54%) of Democrats give the administration positive marks for dealing with the latest immigration situation, compared to six percent (6%) of Republicans and 26% of voters not affiliated with either major party.

Democrats, however, tend to agree with the others when it comes to legal rights and government benefits for illegal immigrants but not nearly as strongly. For example, while 89% of GOP voters and 70% of unaffiliateds think illegals should not have the same legal rights and protections that U.S. citizens have, just a plurality (49%) of voters in the president’s party agree.

Similarly, 51% of Democrats do not think illegal immigrants should be eligible for government services and benefits, but that compares to 91% of Republicans and 75% of unaffiliated voters.

Republicans are more aware than the others whether some of the new illegal immigrants have been moved to their state.

Men and women are in general agreement when it comes to legal rights and benefits for these illegal immigrants. Voters under 40 are only slightly more supportive than their elders in both cases.

School districts around the country are beginning to discover where the administration has moved many of the new illegal immigrants, but 53% of all voters don’t believe these youngsters should be allowed to attend local schools. Thirty-two percent (32%) disagree, while 14% are undecided.

Most voters oppose the president’s reported plan to unilaterally grant amnesty to several million illegal immigrants and think Congress should challenge him in court if he goes ahead with it. Consistent with surveying for years, two-out-of-three voters (67%) think securing the border to prevent future illegal immigration should come before amnesty is granted for some illegal immigrants already in this country. Just 26% believe amnesty should come first.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) favor a comprehensive immigration reform plan that would give legal status to those who entered the country illegally but have otherwise obeyed the law – if the border is really secured to prevent future illegal immigration. The problem for immigration reformers is that only 33% think it’s even somewhat likely that the federal government will actually secure the border, with seven percent (7%) who say it’s Very Likely. Read more about Voters Strongly Oppose Legal Rights, Government Benefits for Illegal Immigrants

Vote NO on 88 fall campaign kick-off meeting a big success

A standing room only crowd gathered to hear Border Patrol Council Union Vice President for the Western United States explain the connection between the recent border surge and the attraction of a state issued ID - in the form of a driver card - to people illegally in the United States.  His presentation was compelling in urging a NO vote on ballot measure 88.

Representative Sal Esquivel - Chief Petitioner on the referendum,  spoke of his disappointment in those lawmakers that support Legislation such as Ballot Measure 88, which is a clear violation of their oath of office.

Representative Kim Thatcher, also a Chief Petitioner on the referendum thanked everyone for their hard work.

After the meeting a FLASH RALLY was held out on the very busy Mission Street.  The honks and waves of support were very encouraging as we waved our signs and flags!

Visit our photo gallery if you were unable to attend the meeting. Read more about Vote NO on 88 fall campaign kick-off meeting a big success

Sheriff and State Advisor Border Summits

The Sheriff and State Advisor Border Summits were held consecutively on 11-12 and 12-13 September in El Paso, Texas.

State Representative Sal Esquivel, Morrow County Sheriff Ken Matlack and OFIR President Cynthia Kendoll represented Oregon at the conference.

Read a full report of the event.

Visit the OFIR photo gallery, as well. Read more about Sheriff and State Advisor Border Summits

Border Summit review to be featured on OLC conference call Monday

Alert date: 
2014-09-18
Alert body: 

Cynthia Kendoll - Oregonians For Immigration Reform President will be on the Oregon Liberty Coalition's conference call Monday at noon. She will give the highlights of her trip to Federation for Immigration Reform's (FAIR) Border Summit in El Paso, Texas last weekend.

Representative Sal Esquivel from Medford and Sheriff Ken Matlack from Morrow County also represented Oregon at the 3 day event.

Contact Bob Sowdon of the Cottage Grove 912 Project for more information about the OLC.

 

 

 

 

 


 

Immigration Chicanery

The strategists who base their political advice on public opinion polls have just had a surprise. A new poll reports that the American people are now more likely to trust Republicans to handle immigration and less likely to trust Democratic plans to offer illegals a path to citizenship (a.k.a. amnesty).

The new survey is decisive; 35 percent say the Republican Party would do a better job on immigration while only 27 percent say the Democrats would. That’s a dramatic reversal from the previous year.

The Wall Street Journal poll also revealed another change in public opinion that should get the attention of candidates. Support for the much-discussed “pathway to citizenship” has dropped significantly from 64 percent in April to 53 percent today.

Obama was saying all summer that his plan was to bypass Congress and the Constitution and issue an “executive amnesty” for millions of illegal aliens. His amnesty plan has since changed to be issued only after the 2014 elections so as not to defeat Democrats up for election in November.

His planned amnesty will include work permits, photo IDs, and Social Security numbers for millions of people who entered the U.S. illegally, overstayed their visas, or defrauded U.S. immigration authorities.

As Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said, “Never in recent memory has the divide between the everyday citizen and the political elite been as wide as it is now.” He says the immigration debate comes down to several major questions:

Does our country have the right to decide who comes to live and work here? Do we have the right to demand that our representatives enforce our laws? Should American workers get priority for jobs?

If your answer is Yes, it is essential to block Obama’s planned executive amnesty and demand that Harry Reid call this up for a vote.

As Sessions said, “Let this sink in. The majority leader of the Senate is bragging that he knows the president will circumvent Congress to issue executive amnesty to millions.” Read more about Immigration Chicanery

Lines drawn in alternative driver's license debate

Supporters say measure would improve safety on Oregon streets; opponents worry it would make state vulnerable to fraud

In the ongoing national debate about immigration reform, Oregon was one of a number of states to make changes to driver’s license policies in 2013.

The Legislature’s response was Senate Bill 833, which was intended to make four-year “driver cards” available to residents who cannot prove their legal presence in the United States.

The bill was approved, but before it was enacted, a veto referendum was successful in placing the issue on the ballot for the Nov. 4 general election.

The driver card would differ from an Oregon driver’s license in several ways, including that the card would be valid for only four years, as compared to the license’s eight.

The card, like the license, would also require applicants to pass written and behind-the-wheel tests, provide proof of residency in Oregon for at least one year and provide proof of identity and date of birth.

But that’s not enough for Jim Ludwick, communications director for the political action committee Oregonians for Immigration Reform and the Protect Oregon Driver’s Licenses (PODL, pronounced “poe-dle”) committee.

Ludwick said his organization, which led the referendum effort, is worried that SB 833, if enacted, would make the state and its licensing offices more susceptible to foreign criminals and drug traffickers.

“(Interstate 5)?is a major artery for Mexican drug cartels,” Ludwick said. “And they want these driver cards. I think the feeling is, if they have a driver card, they can go anywhere.”

Ludwick said he is worried that SB 833 would reinstate the practice of Matrícula Consular cards being accepted by the Department of Motor Vehicles as proof of identification.

Although issued by the government of Mexico with a number of security features, the card has been criticized by U.S. law enforcement officials and agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as being unreliable and highly vulnerable to fraud.

Ludwick is afraid that, under SB 833, a criminal could falsify a Matrícula card, then use it to obtain a driver card, in which case the state would be effectively lending legitimacy to the fraudulent identity.

“That would basically be Oregon verifying that this is the person whose face agrees with that name,” he said.

Ludwick said the current law in Oregon already allows legal immigrants or temporary residents to obtain driver’s licenses, but the licenses are valid only for the duration of the individual’s documented legal presence in the country.

As further evidence of safety concerns associated with the measure, Ludwick pointed out that the referendum has been publicly supported by a number of law enforcement officials, including Clatsop County Sheriff Tom Bergin, former Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller and the Sheriffs of Oregon political action committee.

But Caroline Fitchett, campaign director for Yes on 88, rebutted Ludwick’s claims. She said there are “important safeguards required in order to obtain a driver card,” designed to address safety concerns.

“The facial recognition feature, proof of identity and proof of residency in Oregon for at least one year are key requirements the DMV will utilize in order to prevent fraud,”?she said.

She pointed out that law enforcement officials have also supported the Yes on 88 campaign, including retired Hillsboro Police Chief Ron Louie.

Other proponents of Yes on 88 includes dozens of Latino and migrant workers’ advocates, civil rights groups, labor unions and religious organizations, including the Woodburn-based farmworkers union PCUN.

“Oregon’s neighboring states, Washington, California and Nevada, have laws that allow all Oregon residents to get tested and insured to drive,” Fitchett said. “By passing Measure 88, Oregon would join our neighboring states in making this needed change for public safety.”

Fitchett also said that, under Measure 88, the driver card could not be used as valid ID? in the way that a driver’s license can.

“The driver card is limited for driving purposes only,” she said. “The driver card cannot be used as identification to board a plane, register to vote, buy a gun or obtain government benefits.”

She said the card would comply with Congress’ 2005 Real ID Act, so it could not be used for any federal identification purposes. She added that, as a matter of federal law, a state-issued driver card could not convey or change anyone’s immigration status.

In addition to helping the families of undocumented workers, Fitchett said the measure would assist senior citizens who are unable to access their birth certificate or were never issued one.

If Measure 88 is approved in November, the law could take effect in as little as 30 days. Read more about Lines drawn in alternative driver's license debate

Immigration judges' union advocates for independent, stand-alone court to rule on deportations

WASHINGTON — The federal immigration court system should be separated from the Justice Department and operated independently of federal law enforcement, the top two leaders of the immigration judges' union said Wednesday.

Judge Dana Leigh Marks, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, said immigration judges act as arbiters in deportation cases being argued by Homeland Security Department lawyers but judges also are treated as attorneys for the government.

As employees of DOJ's Executive Office for Immigration Review, Marks said, the judges' dual roles can potentially blur the lines for judges who are supposed to act as neutral arbiters in a complicated court system.

"Our goal is to serve as a neutral court, but paradoxically we are housed in a law enforcement agency," Marks said.

And often, decisions about how the court is run are made beyond the court system.

Marks said an example of this is the recent decision by the Obama administration to have immigration courts start hearing cases of newly arrived immigrant children caught crossing the border alone before all other pending cases.

She said there is no other court system in which the government would be allowed to order a total overhaul of the docket, placing particular cases at the top. Marks, a judge in San Francisco, spoke Wednesday at the National Press Club with Denise Noonan Slavin, a Miami-based judge who is the union's executive vice president.

In a statement, the DOJ agency said the immigration court system is designed to be handled within the Justice Department and separating it "would take significant resources."

The type of civil administrative adjudications that EOIR conducts are designed to be handled within the structure of the Department and it would take significant resources to create an agency separate from an executive branch cabinet officer.

Beyond potential conflicts of interest, the judges said the DOJ agency and the court system have been underfunded for many years, which has contributed in part to the backlog of more than 375,000 pending cases.

Because of the backlog it can take several years for an immigration cases to be resolved.

Slavin said investing more money in the court system would solve many problems. Just under 2 percent of immigration enforcement spending goes toward immigration courts, Marks said.

And while creating a new, independent immigration court system might be costly initially, she said it would ultimately be more efficient.

"If your gas tank has a leak do you keep filling it up with gas or do you fix it first?" Slavin asked. Read more about Immigration judges' union advocates for independent, stand-alone court to rule on deportations

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - illegal immigration