illegal immigration

ICE ERO immigration arrests climb nearly 40 percent

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In the 100 days since President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Orders (EOs) regarding immigration enforcement priorities, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has arrested more than 41,000 individuals who are either known or suspected of being in the country illegally. This reflects an increase of 37.6 percent over the same period in 2016.
Between Jan. 22 and April 29, 2017, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) deportation officers administratively arrested 41,318 individuals on civil immigration charges. Between Jan. 24 and April 30, 2016, ERO arrested 30,028.
“These statistics reflect President Trump’s commitment to enforce our immigration laws fairly and across the board. ICE agents and officers have been given clear direction to focus on threats to public safety and national security, which has resulted in a substantial increase in the arrest of convicted criminal aliens. However, when we encounter others who are in the country unlawfully, we will execute our sworn duty and enforce the law. As the data demonstrates, ICE continues to execute our mission professionally and in accordance with the law, and our communities will be much safer for it,” said ICE Acting Director Thomas Homan.
Nearly 75 percent of those arrested during this period in 2017 are convicted criminals, with offenses ranging from homicide and assault to sexual abuse and drug-related charges.
The arrest of aliens at-large in the community increased by more than 50 percent, from 8,381 last year to 12,766 arrests this year during the same period.
The arrest of convicted criminal aliens climbed nearly 20 percent, from 25,786 last year to 30,473 this year.
Violent crimes such as homicide, rape, kidnapping and assault accounted for more than 2,700 convictions.
While these data clearly reflect the fact that convicted criminals are an immigration enforcement priority, Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly has made it clear that ICE will no longer exempt any class of individuals from removal proceedings if they are found to be in the country illegally. This is evident by the rise in non-criminal arrests over the same period, which increased from approximately 4,200 in 2016 to more than 10,800 in 2017.
“All of those arrested will receive the due process afforded to them under the law. ICE will take action to remove individuals subject to a final order by a federal immigration judge. We are a nation of laws, and ignoring orders issued by federal judges undermines our constitutional government,” said Homan.
Read the entire report here.

Obama DOJ Reprimanded SPLC for Hateful Attacks on Immigration Control Groups

The radical leftist group that helped a gunman commit an act of terrorism against a conservative organization was officially reprimanded by the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) for its hateful attacks, according to documents obtained by Judicial Watch. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an extremist nonprofit that lists conservative organizations that disagree with it on social issues on a catalogue of “hate groups.” The previously undisclosed DOJ rebuke is a vindication for groups targeted by the SPLC’s witch hunts and is especially impactful because the Obama administration was tight with the SPLC and even hired the controversial nonprofit to conduct diversity training for the government. Judicial Watch uncovered documents relating to the SPLC’s diversity training at the DOJ back in 2013.

Also in 2013, Judicial Watch reported that a Virginia man who planned a mass shooting based on the SPLC’s “hate map” of conservatives got a 25-year prison sentence. Prosecutors called it an act of terrorism and recommended a 45-year sentence. The terrorist, Floyd Lee Corkins, stormed into the headquarters of the Family Research Council (FRC) and carried out the politically-motivated shooting based on an SPLC target list. The FRC is a Christian organization that promotes the traditional family unit and the Judeo- Christian value system. Corkins pleaded guilty and admitted that he learned about the FRC from the SPLC, which describes itself as a civil rights group but labels conservatives who disagree with it on social issues as hateful.

In 2015, the SPLC issued a hit list of U.S. women against sharia law, the authoritarian doctrine that inspires Islamists and their jihadism. This included a starter kit for Islamists to attack American women who refuse to comply with Sharia law and a detailed list of female bloggers, activist and television personalities who reject Sharia law, which is rooted in the Quran. Among those targeted were colleagues and friends of Judicial Watch who fear for their safety simply for practicing their rights under the U.S. Constitution. That SPLC hate list is titled Women Against Islam/The Dirty Dozen and includes illustrations and detailed information on all the women, who are branded “the core of the anti-Muslim radical right.” The SPLC hate brochure further targets them by claiming that they’re “a dozen of the most hardline anti-Muslim women activists in America.”

Another favorite SPLC target is any group or individual that speaks openly against illegal immigration. The DOJ reprimand, issued last year but kept quiet at the agency’s request, involves the SPLC’s atrocious behavior during immigration court proceedings. Two groups that oppose illegal immigration, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), were the target of personal, baseless and below-the-belt attacks from SPLC attorneys during official immigration court proceedings. The SPLC filed a motion attacking and defaming the two respected nonprofits by describing them as “white supremacist”, “eugenicist”, “anti-Semitic”, and “anti-Catholic.” In its reprimand the DOJ says it is troubled by the conduct of SPLC lawyer Christopher Strawn and that his conduct “overstepped the bounds of zealous advocacy and was unprofessional.” Furthermore, SPLC made “uncivil comments that disparaged FAIR and its staff,” the rebuke states, adding that the language constitutes frivolous behavior and doesn’t aid in the administration of justice.

The Obama administration kept the reprimand confidential and asked FAIR and IRLI to keep it under wraps. In the meantime, SPLC continues to publicly trash the groups and escalate attacks against them by putting them on the official hate list. The executive director and general counsel of IRLI, Dale Wilcox, says his nonprofit and FAIR will keep fighting for immigration policies that put America first. “The SPLC’s latest tactic in its never-ending witch-hunt and the federal government’s resulting reprimand should send the following message to the mainstream media,” Wilcox said: “Stop using the SPLC as a legitimate hate-watch source in your news coverage. That a cabal of biased list-keepers can play such an important role in distorting the immigration debate in this country is testament to the utter failure of much of the mainstream media which frequently publishes their inflammatory commentary and refuses to question their baseless methods or financial motivations.”

Victory in Texas: Governor Abbott Signs Anti-Sanctuary Bill

On Sunday, May 7, Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) signed Senate Bill (SB) 4, strong anti-sanctuary legislation to promote public safety and ensure law enforcement is able to fully cooperate with federal immigration officials. (Texas Tribune, May 7, 2017) Texas is the second state to pass a state-wide anti-sanctuary law this year. Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant (R) signed a bill into law outlawing sanctuary cities in March. (US News, Mar. 27, 2017)

Specifically, SB 4 prohibits state and local entities from adopting, enforcing, or endorsing policies that prohibit or materially limit the enforcement of immigration laws. (SB 4) Public university and college campuses are explicitly included in these requirements. (Id.) SB 4, however, does make an exception for local school districts, public health centers, and other community centers. (Id.) SB 4 also authorizes law enforcement to inquire into a person’s immigration status during a lawful investigation to a criminal offense. (Id.)

To ensure officers comply with the law, SB 4 subjects law enforcement officials with criminal, Class A misdemeanor, charges if they do not comply with detainers sent by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Id.) Additionally, localities or colleges who defiantly impose sanctuary policies may be subject to pay a fine, between $1,000 and $25,500 per day the policy is in place. (Id.)

Governor Abbott has consistently taken strong positions on immigration enforcement since taking office and made passing state-wide anti-sanctuary legislation a legislative priority for 2017. (FAIR Legislative Update, Jan. 10, 2017; FAIR Legislative Update, Feb. 7, 2017) “As governor, my top priority is public safety, and this bill furthers that objective by keeping dangerous criminals off our streets,” Abbott said. (Reuters, May 8, 2017)

Texas has been on the front lines of the illegal immigration surge that expanded during the Obama Administration. (FAIR Legislative Update, July 5, 2017) Former President Obama’s lax enforcement policies encouraged record numbers of illegal alien minors and families from Central America to cross the southern border into Texas over recent years. (Id.) As a result, Texas taxpayers have fronted billions in costs associated illegal immigration, particularly with regard to law enforcement, education, and public benefits spending. (Id.)

Let's Start Debunking Immigration Myths

There are common sense, fact-based ways to fix immigration in U.S.

Taxpayers are subsidizing big business and a desire for cheap labor at a massive cost to society.

HOLDEN — Our media is inundated with political narrative, misinformation and myths on immigration. A few examples:

 Reducing immigration is “anti-immigrant” and “right-wing.”

 Only Trumpites oppose sanctuary cities.

Last October, the Obama Justice Department announced that cities would receive federal law enforcement grants only if they fully complied with federal immigration reporting laws. The current administration is continuing this policy. In addition, 80 percent of Americans oppose sanctuary policies, and even in hyper-blue California, a majority felt that cities should not be allowed to refuse to cooperate with federal authorities.

 Immigrants pay taxes.

The National Academy of Sciences was clear: Immigrants are currently a huge fiscal drain. In 2013, the fiscal deficit – taxes paid minus services used – was $279 billion. But why? They work hard. Their wages are low because most are unskilled. Bottom line: Taxpayers are subsidizing cheap labor for the employers.

• If illegal immigrants left, our produce would rot in the fields.

Alabama’s agricultural output rose in the three years after passage of its “draconian” immigration law. In addition, the H2A visa program, which allows farmers to employ foreign guest workers, has no caps. There’s no excuse for any illegal workers picking our produce.

• We need immigrants to “do the jobs Americans won’t do.”

Nobel economist Paul Krugman: “The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays – and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants.” When garlic famers couldn’t find enough workers, they recently increased wages by $2 an hour, and were flooded with applicants. Surprise! Americans picking produce!

• If we pay more, food prices will skyrocket.

Philip Martin, of the Commission on Agricultural Workers, reports that raising farmworkers’ wages by 40 percent would increase a family’s annual food budget by only $16. By hiring legal workers and paying a livable wage, we save taxpayers the cost of poverty programs, and government gets more taxes.

• We need high-skilled foreign science, technology, engineering and math workers.

The Wall Street Journal: “America’s dazzling tech boom has a downside: Not enough jobs.” And The New York Times: Corporations, claiming dire shortages, are displacing Americans with foreign workers. “STEM shortages”?

• We’re caught between “mass deportations” and “mass amnesty.”

We have other choices. Passing mandatory E-verify for all new hires would immediately end the jobs magnet. Over five years, we could phase in E-verify for all workers. A five-year transition period would allow employers now dependent on an illegal workforce to rethink their business plan, and it would allow illegal immigrants time to make other arrangements.

 Families could be divided!

It’s not our responsibility to provide amnesty and citizenship to people who’ve committed Social Security card fraud and identity theft and lied on federal documents in order to “make a better life.” If native-born Americans commit these crimes, they face jail time.

• What about “Dreamers,” brought here as children? They’re innocent.

Legalization without citizenship for a limited number of highly deserving Dreamers makes sense. But their plight shouldn’t become a Trojan horse for another mass amnesty.

• We need more young people!

Since immigrants sponsor their elderly parents, too, immigration has no discernible effect on generational demographics, according to the pro-restriction Center for Immigration Studies.

• President Barack Obama deported millions. Illegal immigration is simply unstoppable.

The Los Angeles Times: The Obama administration changed the definition of “deportation.” Citing that fact, Obama himself called his deportation statistics “a little deceptive.” Using the old definition, deportations declined by 40 percent under Obama.

How can we stop illegal immigration? It’s obvious: Go after the employers. Decisive enforcement. No more “catch and release.” Immigration policy will affect nearly every aspect of our society for generations. Let’s try applying a fact-based discussion to this complex problem.

Jonette Christian of Holden is a member of Mainers for Sensible Immigration Policy. She can be contacted at jonettechristian@

Pendleton City Council declines sanctuary city status

The City Council took no action on the mostly symbolic measure of making Pendleton a sanctuary city.

At a Tuesday meeting, city resident Shaindel Beers asked the council to declare Pendleton a sanctuary city by adopting an American Civil Liberties Union-endorsed list of nine policies and rules that limited local police cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

Beers’ request only drew public support from city councilor Scott Fairley, whose motion to adopt the policies died from a lack of a second.

In her presentation, Beers said that although Oregon is already considered a “sanctuary state,” adopting the ACLU’s policies and rules would send a message to undocumented immigrants that Pendleton was a safe and inclusive place.

“A scared population isn’t a safe population,” she said. “If we can make people feel safe and included we would be a better community and a community that people would be proud to be a part of.”

Beers, an English instructor at Blue Mountain Community College, said BMCC already had “safe spaces” on campus, although she was unaware if any other cities in Eastern Oregon had adopted the ACLU’s list.

Thanks to state law, police chief Stuart Roberts told the council that the city was already practicing many of the policies and rules listed by the ACLU.

Roberts said the exception was a rule that required immigration enforcement agents to always wear duty jackets and make their badges visible at all times while in city facilities.

He added that officers don’t usually detain suspects in the police department and rarely come into contact with immigration enforcement.

Roberts said adopting the ACLU policies wouldn’t affect how Pendleton police conduct business or the department’s budget, meaning he didn’t have a strong opinion on the list one way or the other.

Councilor John Brenne worried that President Donald Trump’s threats to strip federal funding from sanctuary cities would hurt Pendleton.

Both Roberts and city attorney Nancy Kerns were unsure if the Trump administration would legally be able to level punitive measures against sanctuary cities.

Sometimes the council’s deliberations resembled glass half-empty or glass half-full argument. While Fairley thought there was no downside to adopting the ACLU policies, councilor Neil Brown saw no upside.

Ultimately, Beers’ request couldn’t find enough supporters on the council besides Fairley and the council took no action.

Lewis & Clark students, faculty push back against controversial speaker as protest continues

When student organizers invited Jessica Vaughan to speak at Lewis & Clark College's International Affairs Symposium, they knew there would be pushback.

The policy director for the right-wing Center for Immigration Studies, recently designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, repeatedly told the audience gathered inside the Agnes Flanagan Chapel that she's not against refugees seeking asylum in the U.S.

"Then how can you explain your Twitter feed?" a professor asked during the Q&A section of the panel discussion Vaughan shared with Galya Ruffer, founding director of The Center of Forced Migration Studies at Northwestern University.

Ads by ZINC

"I choose certain cases to share," Vaughan explained...

(She does, it should be noted, also share stories from outlets such as CBS News and The Daily Beast that may be seen as detrimental to the White House's arguments for its stance on immigration and refugee issues.)

The discussion was at times difficult to hear as a protest, organized by Portland's Resistance...20 demonstrators chanted, at times employing the siren feature of a bullhorn...

The protest was organized on Monday after history professor Elliott Young...

Catherine Kodat, dean of Lewis & Clark's College of Arts and Sciences, said student organizers began preparing for the possibility of a protest after the post began to spread...

On at least two occasions, a pair of doors near the stage shook as someone outside pounded on them. A shout of "Nazi scum" could be heard between the sound of boots on wood...

Vaughan's critics Tuesday evening contended that those "certain cases" paint immigrants and refugees in broad strokes, stoking racism against both groups.

"I don't think immigration has anything to do with crime. At all," she said.

The back-and-forth on crime among refugee and immigrant populations was a departure from the debate...

The discussion, moderated by associate professor Heather Smith-Cannoy, was supposed to center around the question of whether countries were obligated to offer refugees asylum within their borders or help them re-settle within their country of origin.

At the outset of the debate, Ruffer thanked the student organizers for their decision to not create a "safe space" but rather promote conversation.

Yet all but three questions from debate attendees were directed at Vaughan, criticizing her previously published works.

Smith-Cannoy may have drawn the loudest applause of the evening when she challenged Vaughan's previous assertions that the Obama Administration released 36,000 undocumented immigrants from detention in 2013 and that 72 individuals from countries listed in President Trump's original executive order had been linked to terrorist activity.

(Both claims had been debunked by The Washington Post and other fact-checking agencies.)

Vaughan pushed back, telling the crowd that her research was open-sourced.

And so it went, until professor Bob Mandel approached the stage to signal the end of the discussion....

Gregory McKelvey, leader of Portland's Resistance, was among those standing outside...

"The people here are intelligent people," McKelvey said. "It doesn't take much for them to argue effectively against people who use made-up facts to make their points."

Courthouses as Sanctuaries?

There are over 300 jurisdictions today that obstruct cooperation with federal immigration efforts, by enacting laws or policies prohibiting police agencies from honoring immigration detainers or providing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents with the information needed to identify and apprehend alien criminals.

One of those sanctuaries is Multnomah County, Ore., in which an activist open-borders mentality apparently percolates through all three branches of government.

The county sheriff was recently interviewed after his office released a convicted sex offender rather than tender the alien to ICE on the detainer it had filed — a routine occurrence in that sheriff's office. The sheriff defended his decision by claiming the office couldn't afford to expend resources "toward immigration enforcement". I'm hard pressed to figure out exactly what resources are needed to simply hand an alien criminal over to ICE, or how the community's safety is better served by that choice.

But the sheriff's actions pale in comparison to those of Multnomah County judge Monica Herranz, who is "under internal investigation" after it's alleged that she helped an illegal alien escape from her courtroom rather than end up in the hands of waiting ICE agents. She apparently escorted him through back corridors available only to court employees and on to freedom. This happened in late February. ICE agents brought it to the attention of the U.S. Attorney's Office, whose chief, Billy Williams, an Obama administration appointee, apparently then simply took the complaint back to the Multnomah County judiciary for said "internal investigation" rather than do his job by convening a grand jury to begin the process of indicting and prosecuting Judge Herranz for harboring and shielding from detection an alien illegally in the United States — a federal felony (see 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii)).

It's been more than a month now and there is little reason to think that the matter is being handled in any way other than sweeping it under the rug. I'm presuming that Williams was one of those Obama holdovers whose resignation was recently requested by new Attorney General Jeff Sessions. (I hope so.) Perhaps it's time for someone under Sessions' leadership at the Department of Justice (DOJ) to revisit the patently obvious shuffling-off of this outrageous and prosecutable offense, and to direct the U.S. Attorney's Office to do its job.

But following on the heels of this judge's disgraceful and illegal conduct — assuming it to be true, and all indications are that it is — how has the judiciary generally reacted?

Rather than express outrage at the conduct, or speak in a measured way about the proper role of the judiciary, California's chief justice weighed in to blast renewed federal immigration enforcement efforts under the new administration, and called ICE presence at courthouses an assault against the rule of law.

Washington State's chief justice also got involved and wrote to John Kelly, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to urge him to direct ICE agents to stay away from courthouses by declaring them to be "sensitive locations".

Since then, both DOJ and DHS have rejected the suggestion that courthouses should be put off limits, and they're right to have done so. Think about the whole thing for a moment: officers of the law being told that courthouses, those bastions of the law, are out of bounds? How logical is that?

At any rate, judges need to accept the reality that ICE agents are at those courthouses because it is one of the few avenues available to them to take alien criminals into custody when it becomes evident that the police or sheriff's office refuse to cooperate. It would be in everyone's best interest that custody transfers take place in a secure location like a county jail — but when that opportunity is by denied to them by foolish and misplaced sanctuary policies, ICE agents go where they must to do their jobs.

Of course, following the declination of DHS and DOJ to pursue such a course, along comes a member of Congress to file a bill attempting to force the matter through enactment of a law. Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, from Oregon (no surprise), has joined with several other Democratic colleagues to introduce the "Protecting Sensitive Locations Act".

This is typical. If Democrats had their way, they would simply legislate away the ability of ICE agents to do their jobs by making the "sensitive locations" list so large and cumbersome that nothing would be left.

It's already been made hard enough in the past eight years through a horrendous admixture of former White House policy, and activist judicial decisions:

Worksites? Nope, pretty much off the table. Why actually do enforcement operations to remove aliens working illegally at various employer sites? Just make the pretense through occasional paperwork audits.

Homes? Heaven forbid! What kind of country is this, you jackbooted minions of the law?

Colleges or universities? How dare you intrude on this sacred institution of learning? Our students need their safe spaces.

Jails, prisons, sheriff's offices, or police booking stations? Absolutely not. How dare you try to "commandeer" our resources by asking for information or trying to take custody of an alien on our premises?

You get the idea.

But to go back to the matter of the judiciary: When asked during his confirmation hearings, newly invested Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch was asked about tweets from the president lambasting the judiciary, which he dutifully lamented in his gentlemanly way, saying among other things, "I find that disheartening and I find that demoralizing."

My own take is that the current atmosphere of disrespect for the judiciary — by the public as well as the president — is in large measure a self-inflicted wound.

The question in many minds is: Why, exactly, do we support an institution, at least at the federal level, in which individuals are given lifetime sinecures for jobs in which they themselves are the only ones who hold the power to decide the limit of their power? This leads ultimately to an unbridled lack of restraint and the inevitable taint of politicization into the third branch of government, the only one of the three intended specifically to avoid that taint.

Perhaps it is time we in America undertook a reformation to see them systemically defrocked of such unlimited lifetime power. After all, the only members of the federal judiciary for whom this appears to be a constitutional requirement (and the language even there is not straightforward) are members of the Supreme Court. Legislative change would suffice for all of the rest.

I am not the first to make such a suggestion, nor to observe that lifetime appointments have not served to preclude politicization of the judiciary. If judges have come to see themselves as demigods, it is our own fault, for we have allowed them to invest themselves with those qualities. A judge who had to consider his future might be more prudent in the present.


Advocates for illegal aliens and their tactics

Two bills before the Oregon Legislature in March 2017 illustrate the tactics of illegal alien advocates in using children to institutionalize acceptance of illegal immigration.  Their position is that anyone who opposes health care to children is mean and unfeeling.
The bills are HB 2726 and SB 558, with identical text.  They entitle “all children” in Oregon to state-paid health care.  We already have Medicaid and the Oregon Health Plan that cover indigent citizens and their children, so why add another plan?
Almost all of the statements submitted by interested parties at the Legislature’s hearings carefully avoid mention of the illegal status of the proposed recipients; they simply cite a figure of some 17,000 children estimated not to have regular access to medical care.
Who is pushing these bills? Both of the bills were pre-Session filed, meaning that they were probably filed at the request of someone or some organization, besides the sponsors named in the bill.  Named sponsors are: for HB 2726, Reps. Gilliam, Huffman, Monnes Anderson, Alonso Leon, Marsh and Senators Roblan and Boquist.  For SB 558, legislative sponsors are Senators Roblan, Kruse, and Boquist, Reps. Huffman, Alonso Leon, and Olson.
Public hearings were held early in the session, one immediately after the other; the House hearing first on Feb. 20 and the Senate next on Feb. 21.  This could be viewed as fast-tracking by the Legislative leadership to push through quickly a bill they expect would face public opposition if fully known and understood.
While the bill had little public notice, its advocates had advance, unlimited opportunity to prepare and present their testimony.  The result was predictable:  At the House hearing, some 43 supportive “exhibits” were presented but only one short statement from a private citizen that politely questioned the expenditure in light of the state’s financial situation.  At the Senate hearing, there was also a large number of supportive statements and no opposing statements.
At both hearings, most supporters of the bills were well-practiced lobbyists from organizations many of which are known for regularly speaking in favor of unlimited immigration and citizenship privileges for anyone who chooses to come into the U.S. and settle here, without regard to the wishes of, or effects on, citizens.
These organizations had representatives who submitted supportive statements to the House Health Care Committee for its hearing on HB 2726 on Feb. 20:
AFL-CIO Political Director
AFSCME Council 75
American Federation of Teachers Oregon
Asian Pacific-American Network of Oregon
Basic Rights Oregon
Cascade AIDS Project
CAUSA Oregon
Children First for Oregon
Coalition for a Healthy Oregon
Coalition of Communities of Color
Coalition of Community Health Clinics
Fair Shot for All Coalition
Family Forward Oregon
Health Share of Oregon
Human Services Coalition of Oregon
Keny-Guyer, Rep. Alissa, representing Rep. Vic Gilliam
League of Women Voters of Oregon
Legacy Health (a health care provider)
Moda Health 
Multnomah County Office of Government Relations
Northwest Health Foundation
Northwest Human Services
Northwest Workers’ Justice Project
Oregon Commission on Asian and Pacific Islander Affairs
Oregon Commission on Hispanic Affairs
Oregon Community Health Workers  
Oregon Education Association
Oregon Health Equity Alliance
Oregon Latino Health Coalition
Oregon Law Center
Oregon Nurses Association
Oregon Primary Care Association
Oregon Public Health Institute
Oregon School-Based Health Alliance
Partners for a Hunger-Free Oregon
Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste, Oregon’s Farmworker Union
Planned Parenthood Advocates of Oregon
Portland Jobs with Justice
Portland State University, student
Service Employees International Union, Oregon State Council
United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 555
United Oregon
YWCA of Greater Portland
Many of the same organizations listed above again presented “exhibits” at the next day’s hearing by the Senate on SB 558.  Also, these organizations which did not make statements for the House hearing, did so for the Senate hearing. 
Coalition of Local Health Officials
Oregon Center for Public Policy
Siskiyou Community Health Center
Valley Family Health Care
Wallace Medical Center
The medical groups can hardly be blamed for seeking public funds to help their work because they’re daily confronted with far greater numbers of people needing medical care than would be here if immigration were controlled as it should be.
The answer to this medical care problem as well as the answer to the chaos now surging in the nation is to reduce immigration levels to sustainable numbers.  We are in dire need of a moratorium on immigration for an extended period because for several decades now, the levels have been far too high, overwhelming the country’s capacity to provide an acceptable quality of life for citizens. Our natural environment is dangerously degraded because of overpopulation, and at the same time, all social services are faltering from too-high demand.
Citizens who understand immigration issues and work for strict immigration law enforcement or reductions in immigration are often labeled haters and all-around bad guys.  It is fair to call out opponents of immigration controls, point out the fallacies of their arguments and question their motives as well. 
Politicians and political groups advocating for amnesties and benefits to illegal aliens consistently oppose efforts to pass mandatory E-Verify requirements for all employers, a step that would soon effectively stop illegal immigration.  Opponents claim the federal E-Verify program is not ready or is too prone to errors that hurt workers.  Such claims have no merit, as the program is not new, having been started in 1997 and now with some 20 years of successful operation.  
The basic dividing question is:  Should the U.S. continue to be a nation or should we have open borders and admit any and all persons who may wish to live here?  Sensible people realize the dangers of open borders, and most prefer to continue as a nation.  European countries are showing vividly what happens when there are inadequate limits to immigration.
Too many citizens are naïve and quick to sympathize when media highlight illegal immigrants as blameless and forced to live “in the shadows.”  Immigration laws exist to protect the safety and well-being of citizens, and if these laws are not respected and enforced, the U.S. will swiftly be subsumed by the millions around the world who would like to live here.
Aspiring immigrants should work to improve their own countries instead of fleeing them.  The U.S. has given generous financial aid and technical assistance to poor countries continuously for over 70 years; it’s time for them to help themselves now.
News reports:

ICE names recalcitrant "sanctuary" jurisdictions

Here are excerpts from two reports about the new lists that ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) will be issuing weekly in accordance with Pres. Trump’s Executive Order.  The lists include details about each case where a request for detainer to hold for ICE action has been declined by State or local law enforcement agents that refuse to honor these requests.  
Both CIS and NumbersUSA are offering interactive maps which show the locations of the “sanctuary” jurisdictions. NumbersUSA notes that Washington County OR is among the top 10 non-cooperating counties in this week’s list.
From the Center for Immigration Studies:
Naming and Shaming: The First ICE Weekly Alien Criminal Releases List
By Dan Cadman, March 23, 2017
Following the directives in one of President Trump's immigration-related executive orders (EOs) and the augmenting instructions in a subsequent policy memorandum from Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary John Kelly, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has issued its first report identifying state and local jurisdictions that have refused to honor immigration detainers filed to hold alien criminals until they can be taken into custody by ICE agents.
The EO directed that ICE prepare the data contained in this report, and make it available in a readily understandable and accessible form for public consumption.
The report comes in four parts, the first three being most informative from the public's point of view:
• Section I: Highest Volume of Detainers Issued to Non-Cooperative Jurisdictions between January 28, 2017 and February 3, 2017; 
• Section II: Jurisdictions with Recorded Declined Detainers Broken Down by Individuals Released between January 28, 2017 and February 3, 2017; 
• Section III: Table of Jurisdictions that have Enacted Policies which Limit Cooperation with ICE; and 
• Section IV: Report Scope and Data Fidelity.
Section I of the report states that ICE issued 3,083 detainers in the week beginning January 28, 2017. This is a sign of a significant increase in interior enforcement activity against criminal aliens, and represents very good progress at a very early point in the new administration. This number is approximately double the average weekly number of detainers issued by ICE in the last two years of the Obama administration. In 2015 and 2016, ICE issued a weekly average of 1,863 and 1,596 detainers, respectively. …
From NumbersUSA:
Published:  Wed, MAR 22nd 2017 @ 12:15 pm EDT
More than 200 ICE detainer requests were declined during the week of Jan. 28 – Feb. 3, according to the first Weekly Declined Detainer Outcome Report from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This weekly report was mandated by Pres. Trump in his Jan. 25 interior enforcement executive order.
The weekly report includes all current sanctuary jurisdictions that decline ICE detainer requests and lists the type of crimes each illegal alien was charged or convicted within those jurisdictions. It also includes a table that shows why each county, city, or agency does not cooperate with ICE, whether it is a law, regulation, or policy.
This report is important since Pres. Trump has said he will cut off federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions who refuse to enforce federal immigration laws. …
During this week the top ten non-cooperating counties are Clark County, Nevada; Nassau County, New York; Cook County, Illinois; Montgomery County, Iowa; Snohomish County, Washington; Franklin County, New York; Washington County, Oregon; Alachua County, Florida; Franklin County, Iowa; and Franklin County, Pennsylvania.
“When law enforcement agencies fail to honor immigration detainers and release serious criminal offenders, it undermines ICE’s ability to protect the public safety and carry out its mission,” Acting ICE Director Thomas Homan said in a press release. …

Immigration Impunity

WASHINGTON (March 7, 2017) – In the third of a series of reports on the placement of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UACs) in communities across the country, the Center for Immigration Studies explores the implications of tens of thousands of UACs being entrusted to illegal immigrant sponsors. These sponsors, of whom more than 80 percent are already defying U.S. law by living in the country illegally, often also fail to comply with their responsibilities as sponsors, and the Obama administration simply ignored this non-compliance and the resulting safety consequences.

According to Joe Kolb, a Center fellow and author of the report, "From FY 2014 – FY 2016, 106,802 UACs were placed in illegal alien households throughout the country as a result of Obama administration policies. Approximately 13,000 of these minors skipped out on their immigration court hearings. This represents 36 percent of the cases completed. Of those whose cases have finished, a mere 25 percent have qualified for permission to stay."

View the three UAC reports:

Thirty days after placement, the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) calls each household to ensure the child is safe and still residing with the sponsor, attending school, and is aware of court dates. But "only nine percent of parental sponsors, 15-18 percent of non-parental sponsors, and less than half of the youths have been reached in these calls." The lowest rates of participation in the follow up phone calls were the family friend or distant relative sponsors. "For those who aren't reached, there is no further action by ORR and for those who decline to participate there is no penalty or enforcement attached to non-compliance."

Jessica Vaughan, the Center's Director of Policy Studies, stated, "The Obama administration policies on the surge of youth and family arrivals from Central America has been a failure, not only for communities where they have settled but often for the kids too, as many have fallen prey to abuse, exploitation, and conscription into gangs. The Obama administration's overriding goal was to releasing the kids from custody, leaving schools, police, and immigration courts to deal with the problem. The solution has to be to deal with the cases at the border, and to hold family members who have broken our laws responsible for their choices."

Contact: Marguerite Telford


Subscribe to RSS - illegal immigration