legal immigration

So what, another Earth Day comes and goes

Oregonians for Immigration Reform was founded 16 years ago by just a handful of people that were very concerned about the impact on our environment of unfettered illegal immigration and excessive legal immigration. 

The roots of many organizations across the country working to stop illegal immigration and slow legal immigration to a more sustainable level often start with concerns about the environment and the impact of more and more people coming to the US.

OFIR has since expanded it's membership to include thousands of members across the state with those same concerns and many more, i.e. national security, terrorism, jobs, stagnant wages, over-crowded schools, crime, drugs, disease, a culture of corruption, gangs and on and on.

CAIRCO's Fred Elbel wrote of his experiences with the Sierra Club, a group that chose to ignore the impact of immigration on our fragile environment and our own quality of life.  They made that choice - for money.  He included an informative article written by Ian Smith and published in the Daily Caller that explains just how it happened.

NOTE:  The CAIRCO website is a treasure trove of information for anyone wanting to learn more about immigration.

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

Yesterday was Earth Day. 

I once was a member of the Sierra Club in the mid-1990s, back when their population policy included addressing mass immigration as the root cause of US Population growth. At that time, environmentalists had a lot of common sense. 

Some environmentalists still do, but most environmental organizations today are feel-good social justice corporate profit centers. Take the Sierra Club as a case in point. They sold out to immigration political correctness to the tune of $100 million!

This excellent article by Ian Smith explains the gory details. It's a good read.

Earth Day: A Time To Remember When Tightening The Border Topped The Green Agenda, The Daily Caller, April 22, 2016.

I was a member and a director of SUSPS, which in the late 1990s fought to reinstate the Sierra Club's long-standing, sensible immigration policy:

"Since 1996, leaders of the Sierra Club have refused to admit that immigration driven, rapid U.S. population growth causes massive environmental problems. And they have refused to acknowledge the need to reduce U.S. immigration levels in order to stabilize the U.S. population and protect our natural resources. Their refusal to do what common sense says is best for the environment was a mystery for nearly a decade.

Then, on Oct. 27, 2004, the Los Angeles Times revealed the answer: David Gelbaum, a super rich donor, had demanded this position from the Sierra Club in return for huge donations! Kenneth Weiss, author of the LA Times article that broke the story, quoted what David Gelbaum said to Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope:

"I did tell Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me."

In 1996 and again in 1998, the Club's leaders proved their loyalty to Gelbaum's position on immigration, first by enacting a policy of neutrality on immigration and then by aggressively opposing a referendum to overturn that policy. In 2000 and 2001, Gelbaum rewarded the Club with total donations to the Sierra Club Foundation exceeding $100 million. In 2004 and 2005, the Club's top leaders and management showed their gratitude for the donations by stifling dissent and vehemently opposing member efforts to enact an immigration reduction policy...

Read more at SUSPS.

Here is a formal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on United States Immigration Policy. Immigration driven US population growth really does have environmental consequences - which most politicians gladly ignore in exchange for support from their donor base.

 

Sincerely,
 

Fred Elbel
Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform

 

Oregon Freedom Rally - Saturday, February 6

Alert date: 
2016-01-25
Alert body: 

If you are interested in seeing Michelle Malkin, Dinesh De'Souza, Todd Starnes and Rep. Greg Walden and hearing what they have to say about the upcoming elections, then you won't want to miss the Oregon Freedom Rally at the Oregon Convention Center, Saturday, February 6 from noon - 3:00pm.

Register on line and get more information here.

OFIR will be hosting a table at the event.  Please stop by and say HELLO!

 

Are Cruz and Rubio natural born citizens? How do we decide who is eligible to be President?

We've been down this road before - eight years ago.  And, here we go again...

What criteria defines eligibility to be President?  Does one need to be born on American soil to parents that are both American citizens?  What about being born to one parent that's an American citizen, but not born in the US?  Or, what about being born to parents that are not American citizens, but being born in the US?

As our country is flooded with more immigrants every year, coming here both legally and illegally, it's past time to define, once and for all, who is eligible to hold our country's highest office. 

The framers of our Constitution had very specific reasons for including in the requirement to be President, that the candidate be "natural born".

Scholars from across the country have weighed in on the motive and intent of "natural born". 

Read more about how your favorite candidate may be disqualified from the Presidential race.

January 20th forum will discuss refugees coming to Salem

Alert date: 
2016-01-15
Alert body: 

A public forum on Jan. 20 will discuss 50 refugees who will be coming to Salem starting in February and continuing through September.

The forum, known as the Refugee Forum on Jobs and Literacy, is scheduled from 7 to 8:30 p.m. in the Anderson Room of the Salem Public Library, 585 Liberty St SE.

Francisco Lopez, a refugee from El Salvador, will host the event.

During the event, there will be speeches and presentations made by various organizers from Catholic Charities and local groups, as well as a panel of three refugees who live in Salem currently, followed by a Q&A session.

Organizers will discuss what services and programs are already in place for the refugees and what help they need from community members and volunteers. Any unresolved issues will be addressed during the Q&A period.

Organizers said they would like to form task forces during this period should further work need to be done.

They will primarily be discussing employment, education and English-language learning, cultural transition, and transportation.

There will be other activities and refreshments as well. This event is free and open to the public.

By Natalie Pate


 

Letters of frustration continue to flood newspapers across the country

A collection of letters from across the country reveals the growing frustration of Americans with the current administration's lack of regard for the impact of their actions.

It takes just a few minutes to write and submit a letter to the editor.  Be concise and to the point with your thoughts.  Need help getting started?  Check out letters others have written for ideas for your own letter.

Submit letters to your local newspaper or larger regional newspapers.  Don't forget the small, weekly papers which are often read cover to cover. 

If your letter is published, send it to OFIR and we will post it on our website in our letters section!  Get started today!

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

The Jamestown Sun

Letter to the editor: OPT expansion damaging to American worker

By Mark Schuttenhelm Today [January 5, 2016] at 7:38 a.m.

Barack Obama’s reign of terror over the American middle class continues. His most recent slap in the face of the American worker is part of his executive order, which attempted to legalize and provide work permits to about 5 million illegal aliens. He doesn’t have the power, legally, to pull any of this off, but why should that stop him?

Part of that executive order is an expansion of OPT, or Optional Practical Training program. This program is so damaging to the American worker even the pro-Democrat AFL-CIO came out against it. OPT is a jobs program that benefits foreign students at the expense of homegrown American students and jobseekers. Currently under this program, about 130,000 foreign students per year are given temporary work permits for one or two years. Obama’s new proposal increases the number to about 700,000 per year and extends the time period to three years.

Why is this so damaging to unemployed Americans seeking to enter the job market? Potential employers pay no payroll taxes for these foreign graduates. That saves the employer about $12,000 per year for each foreign student hired over an American. If that isn’t bad enough, the foreign student gets a pass on his or her portion of the Social Security payroll tax also, which shortchanges the Social Security fund by about a $1 billion a year, a number that will only increase under Obama’s new proposal. That’s a billion-plus dollars not available to pay American retirees.

And these are good STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) jobs, averaging about $50,000 per year. So if your son or daughter has just graduated college with a pile of student debt, or perhaps you yourself are seeking employment, remember, thanks to the current occupant of the White House, a prospective employer has about 12,000 reasons to give that job to a graduating foreign student. Your federal government strikes again.

http://www.jamestownsun.com/letters/3917204-letter-editor-opt-expansion-damaging-american-worker

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

WyomingTribuneEagle
WYOMING NEWS.com

Muslims not committed to principles of America

From Mark Roberts, Cheyenne  [January 5, 2016] 3 hrs ago

I know that the liberal leftists who we have entrusted our country to have to rely on emotions to advance a forever left-moving agenda in America.

To that end we hear statements like “That’s not who we are” by House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., when asked about halting Syrian refugees until they could be vetted. Even former President George W. Bush had the audacity to refer to Islam as a religion of peace!

Well, let’s forget the propaganda and look at some facts.

Fact No. 1 – On Sept. 11, 2001, 2,752 people were killed in New York City, 184 in Washington, D.C., and 40 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. And since 9/11, 89 people have been killed on U.S soil by Muslims!

The number of Muslims killed on American soil in retaliation? One! A Muslim convenience store owner was killed in Texas by a white supremacist who claimed to be angry after he saw the towers fall on 9/11.

Even the worst president in our history (before Barack Obama) had the good sense to limit immigration from Iran after “students” took more than 60 hostages at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979.

Fact No. 2: Yes, Jimmy Carter not only stopped Iranians from coming here, he also required Iranian “students” who were already here to report for possible deportation.

Religion of peace? Islamic people are governed by the sharia. These peaceful people who want to live in the land of the free have a list of laws that have to be enforced to be a good Muslim.

And let us not forget that Muslims under sharia are required to practice taqiyya, which is to lie to non-Muslims to the advancement of Islam.

In other words, these “peaceful” people are required to lie when asked if they support killing non-Muslims while their leaders make no bones about wanting death to America!

Fact No. 3: In a recent poll of Muslims in America, when asked if they believe that sharia law supersedes the Constitution, 51 percent said yes. I wonder if the other 49 percent were practicing taqiyya?

http://www.wyomingnews.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/article_6fb207ae-b36a-11e5-a949-174d0e7f96e7.html

 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Press-Enterprise

LETTERS: Free speech trumps hate speech

PRESS-ENTERPRISE

Published: Jan. 4, 2016 Updated: 6:29 p.m.

“Google’s dangerous bid to block ‘hate speech’” [Opinion, Jan. 2]: The column rightly says that it is difficult to brand hate speech.

But liberals are desperate. They brand everything Donald Trump says as hate speech. The constitution guarantees the right to free speech. But that applies to everyone, not just the liberals.

Free speech is a valuable thing and should be used wisely. I do not believe that free speech gives one individual the right to say hurtful or disrespectful things about another human being. But it does give you the right to disagree with someone’s actions or positions. That is not hate or racist, which is what liberals constantly accuse Republicans of doing. They are desperate and dead wrong.

This country is waking up to the lies they have been fed for so many years. It is in danger from our enemies, and those enemies are now Islamic. The president and the peaceful Islamic community needs to wake up and condemn the radical Islamists before they destroy the faith.

Donald is right, we cannot allow anyone into our country when they are suspected of terrorism. This applies to everyone, not just the Syrian refugees. This is not hate speech, this is a matter of our safety.

So let’s shut up with the hate and racism rhetoric and protect our country. We do not need anymore refugees, so let them stay home and fight for their country of origin. And while we’re at it, let’s demand proof of citizenship for all employees and jail employers that hire illegal aliens. That would soon solve the illegal alien problem as they would go back home voluntarily if they cannot find work.

The only hate involved in any of these ideas is the hate of government which constantly makes excuses for law breakers and possible terrorists.

Clean up government and enact these ideas and the problem goes away.

Glen Chaffin - Corona

http://www.pe.com/articles/hate-790863-speech-country.html

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

BOZEMAN DAILY
CHRONICLE

Immigration analysis missed many points

By Craig Bryant  Dec 4, 2015

The Nov. 12 article “GOP divide grows on immigration, threatening election prospects” contains analysis that its author, David Lightman of McClatchy’s Washington Bureau, presumably thinks is knowledgeable and shrewd. It “ain’t.”

Lightman divides Republican candidates into “hard-core conservatives who have had enough of compromises” (Trump and Cruz) and “pragmatists” (Rubio, Kasich, and Bush ). The division is between those who agree that illegal aliens must leave our country, including by deportation -- a strategy that journalist Lightman clearly thinks is “nuts” -- and those who favor amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, the pragmatic approach according to Lightman.

This reveals Lightman’s ignorance, for consider the history: The original 1986 mass amnesty, promised to us citizens as a one-time evasion of the rule-of-law, to fix a long-festering problem, was expected to legalize about one million illegal aliens. The number turned out to be around 2.7 million, and the incidence of fraud was enormous (estimated at 800 thousand concentrated in the Special Agricultural Worker component of the amnesty.) Despite that “one time” promise, there have been six subsequent mass amnesties, aggregating to about another three million illegal aliens gaining legal status.

Yet after all that, there are now well over 11 million illegal aliens in the U.S., far more than when we started down this road to nowhere. So what would be “pragmatic” about yet another mass amnesty?

The only strategy that will actually end illegal immigration is to rigorously enforce the laws so that illegal aliens can’t get jobs, can’t collect public benefits, and will be deported (individually) if they have encounters with police. Then most illegal aliens will leave (“self deport”) on their own, the “attrition by enforcement” approach that’s worked whenever it’s been tried. Trump and Cruz understand this, while Kasich, Rubio, Bush and journalist Lightman choose not to. Militarized mass deportations aren’t needed.

Craig Bryant - Bozeman

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/opinions/letters_to_editor/immigration-analysis-missed-many-points/article_95852e7f-09d8-5b48-851f-79e638792f14.html

 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UTICAOD.COM
OBSERVER-DISPATCH The Mohawk Valleys Information Source

YOUR VIEW: Letters to the editor

Posted Jan. 3, 2016 at 3:15 AM

Let’s make English official language of United States

Theodore Roosevelt, our 26th President (1901-1909) once said “Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or leave the country.”

Then why in Utica, New York, are over 42 languages spoken in our public high school? People come to America to assimilate into the American Society to become part of a new culture. The naturalization oath completely renounces all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign state and to support and defend the constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Instead they come to America and demand that we adjust to their languages, cultures, values and heritage.

If they want to keep their heritage they have to go back to their own countries. Otherwise they are welcome to stay in United States and keep their heritage at their own expense, but not at the expense of the taxpayer.

When will Congress draft an amendment to the Constitution and make English the official language of this country? English is the glue that keeps America together. We need courageous representatives in Washington to assemble 226 years after George Washington to agree unanimously and make English the official language.

JOSEPH JACOB - Utica

http://www.uticaod.com/opinion/20160103/your-view-letters-to-editor

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

Star Beacon

Posted: Sunday, January 3, 2016 12:30 am

Joyce siding with Obama

Once again, Republican Congressman Dave Joyce (Ohio’s 14th District) has failed his constituents. This time, he voted for the $1.1 trillion Omnibus spending bill that gives President Obama essentially a blank check to fund his disastrous agenda to transform America.

But that is not the whole story. Mr. Joyce knew that 86 percent of his constituents were not in favor of allowing a flood of Syrian refugees into our country. However, he disregarded the overwhelming majority’s wishes and chose to fully fund Obama’s Syrian refugee program by supporting this bill. In the same vote, Mr. Joyce also agreed to the funding of illegal alien resettlement, sanctuary cities and Middle Eastern immigration programs.

In doing so, Mr. Joyce has demonstrated his acceptance of Obama’s radical vision of “Hope and Change” while violating his oath of office to serve and protect the citizens of his congressional district. Now, he is clearly in lockstep with the ruling class elites who are determined to change America by literally changing the make­up of our population.

The 2016 elections are crucial to the future of our country and to all of us as individual citizens. We must turn fears of our current transformation into real hope for a brighter, safer future. One way of doing that is to replace those incumbents such as Dave Joyce who no longer believe in the sovereignty of our nation, those who continue to choose the interests of foreign nationals over Americans.

Please check out the website MattLynch.com. You will find an honorable man who will represent your interests and believes in our constitutional rights and our nation’s sovereignty. Mr. Lynch will be part of the conservative coalition in Congress that is needed to eliminate the profound and pervasive government spending and corruption. Mr. Lynch will fight to reverse our current march toward a country we would otherwise soon not recognize.

Brian Massie - Concord Township

http://www.starbeacon.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/letter-to-the-editor/article_df52f033-ecbc-5d9a-981e-83a7e911709e.html

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

The Buffalo News

Letter: Trump’s critics need to stick to the facts

on January 3, 2016 - 12:01 AM

Trump’s critics need to stick to the facts

It’s disgusting to see people like the Rev. Richard Malone, Dr. Khalid Qazi and many other so-called community leaders twist and distort statements made by Donald Trump to fit their agenda.

They continually leave out the word “temporarily” from his statement on stopping Muslim immigration. Just as the media and community leaders leave out the word “illegal” when he talks about Mexican immigrants.

They have their right to their opinion, but that should be based on accurate information and not a distorted version of what people actually say to fit a certain narrative or agenda.

Their statement that Trump’s proposals will “bring comfort to the Islamic State and its allies” is similar to Hillary Clinton’s statement that Trump “is becoming ISIS’ best recruiter.” This has been fact-checked and proven to be wrong.

And I would like to ask these people: At what point will the United States be unable to accept immigrants? Because that time will come, and what will they say then?

David Nowak - Amherst

http://www.buffalonews.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/letter-trumps-critics-need-to-stick-to-the-facts-20160103

 

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

TCPALM

Letter: It’s not ‘anti-immigrant’ to oppose illegal immigration

[January 3, 2015] 4:00 a.m.

Diane Greto, Vero Beach

Letter: It's not 'anti-immigrant' to oppose illegal immigration

Nathaniel Osborn (Dec. 23 letter) takes letter writer John Grychak to task for siding with Donald Trump and his plans to "build the biggest, highest wall ever built" to keep out Muslims and Latinos.

Osborn goes on to lecture about "anti-immigrant rhetoric," and mentions the German, Irish, Chinese and Eastern European immigrants who came to this country in the 18th and 19th centuries and who were accused of undermining America at the time.

As a "local high school teacher," Mr. Osborn surely you know the difference between illegal and legal. The bodies coming over our border are illegal and a threat to our national security, plain and simple.

Meanwhile, there are thousands of immigrants-to-be who are waiting patiently and going through the right channels legally to come to this great country. They want to learn the English language and Pledge of Allegiance to our flag and become American citizens in every way, just like those early immigrants. Those are the immigrants I welcome.

Meanwhile, we must protect our borders in every way possible.

http://www.tcpalm.com/letters-to-the-editor/letter-its-not-anti-immigrant-to-oppose-illegal-immigration-2808e9c9-5313-284b-e053-0100007f0f75-363843081.html

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

Courier Life’s
BROOKLYN DAILY

January 3, 2016 / News / Letters

Sound Off to the Editor

‘Bravo,’ Sue

To the editor,

Inevitably some will call her racist but I say “bravo” to Sue Smith of Bensonhurst for her letter describing how our borough is being taken over by illegal immigrants, who use our social services and contribute nothing to our society (“Sounding off,” Sound of to the Editor, Dec. 25). Thank you, Sue, for being brave enough to write what you did.

Maureen Abato - Sheepshead Bay

http://www.brooklyndaily.com/stories/2016/1/all-letters-2016-01-01-bd.html

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

Tri-City Herald

January 2, 2016 5:28 PM

Letter: Why can’t government use social media posts to screen immigrants?

If I understand correctly, it is OK for employers to use social media posts when making decisions on whether to hire or not to hire an applicant, or to dismiss an employee.

However, under the wise leadership of the current administration, government organizations responsible for approving applications for admittance into the United States are not allowed to use social media as part of the decision-making process. Did I miss something somewhere?

According to a former Department of Homeland Security official, the administration ordered them to terminate their efforts to monitor individuals with potential ties to terrorists who wanted to come into the United States, because it might be considered profiling. Seems to me that all of these terrorists fit one profile. It is not guns that are killing Americans, it is political correctness.

Gerald Sorensen, Richland

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article52558875.html

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

TIMES-CALL
Letters to the Editor

William Manion: Government attempting to mold people's attitudes

Posted:  01/02/2016 11:17:45 PM MST | Updated:  about 10 hours ago

My 1,700 page dictionary does not list "inclusivity" as being a real word. Same for "sustainability."

It seems to be that the Boulder County commissioners like to come up with some cause they want to promote, then they invent a name for it to try to make it sound important. If it is something truly important, doesn't it deserve a title that makes use of real words?

Here is a heads-up for the county commissioners: It is not your job to try to mold people's opinions or attitudes.

Millions of U.S. citizens are appalled that our federal government has not secured our borders. Our country is inundated with immigrants, many of them here illegally. Those of us who do not want to welcome other immigrants at this time certainly have good reasons for feeling that way.

I believe that we citizens need to be wary of any attempts by government officials to influence citizens' opinions or attitudes to conform to their extremes of "political correctness."

William Manion - Longmont

http://www.timescall.com/opinion/letterstotheeditor/ci_29336525/william-manion-government-attempting-mold-peoples-attitudes

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

Your News, Your Way.
Tyler Morning Telegraph

Published on Saturday, 2 January 2016 20:21 - Written by

TRUMP

If Republican leaders keep up their stupid agenda of little or no opposition to President Obama, then Donald Trump will soon be the nominee of the vast hoard of outraged Republicans. Some may not agree with all he says, but much of it is what people want to hear.

Current Republican leadership stinks and is completely lacking in tough opposition to President Obama and his irresponsible policies on virtually everything, including open borders for illegal immigrants, criminals, refugees and terrorists.

History says under today’s conditions and chaos, Trump will emerge as our new president, like it or not.

Citizens are fed up with all career politicians and their false promises and lies. The good will be voted out with the bad when citizens feel betrayed and put upon by abusive government policies, regulations and legislation gushing out of Washington in the trillions of dollars - money we don’t have.

Harry Bergman - Tyler

http://www.tylerpaper.com/TP-Letters+to+Editor/229254/george-will-wrongly-dismissed-creationists-believers

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

         The
Californian A Gannett Company

Syrian refugees and terrorism

Virgil M. Piper 12 a.m. PST January 2, 2016

When it comes to U.S. Immigration, it appears we are very good at ignoring the law. To begin with, it is offensive, apparently, to use the term “illegal alien.” Instead, it is considered good manners to refer to the millions of persons in this country in violation of our immigration laws as “undocumented immigrants.”

California, desperate for cheap labor, has abrogated or otherwise ignored immigration requirements by issuing driver’s licenses. The state has encouraged local authorities to ignore an agreement with the Obama administration allowing federal immigration agents to review fingerprints under the “Secure Communities Program” in order to track down and pick up every deportable immigrant arrested by local police. Incredibly, San Francisco has opted to be a “Sanctuary City.”

Currently, we have a controversy involving the refugee status for 10,000 Syrians. President Obama claims this process takes two years to complete but he proposes that we do our part by resettling 10,000 refugees by October 2016.

On the other hand, several states have given notice they will not accept Syrian refugees. President Obama claims these states cannot deny entry – but what are the guidelines provided by U.S. Law?

The Refugee Act of 1980 was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on March 17, 1980. A refugee is defined as “any person outside his or her country unable or unwilling to return to his or her country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” One wonders how many of these 10,000 Syrian refugees actually fall within this defined requirement.

Section (2)(A) of the 1980 Refugee Act: “The Director and the Federal agency administering subsection (b)(1), shall consult regularly (not less often than quarterly) with State and local governments and private nonprofit voluntary agencies concerning the sponsorship process and the intended distribution of refugees among the States and localities before their placement in those States and localities.”

Accordingly, by law the various States do have the right to refuse refugees. Relocation concerns include the availability of employment opportunities, affordable housing, and public and private resources (including educational, health care and mental health services) for refugees in the area. The most important consideration is the likelihood of refugees placed in the area becoming self-sufficient and free from long-term dependence on public assistance.

The obvious question is whether we are granting entry of terrorists among these refugees. On the other hand, how many of the more than 11 million illegals already present in the United States are sleeper terrorists?

According to one senior official, approximately half of the estimated 11-plus million undocumented immigrants crossed the Mexican border illegally; the other half simply stayed beyond the expiration date of their visa or pursued refugee status much like the children lined up on the Mexican border. Additionally, the Cuban Adjustment Act allows Cuban citizens the right to stay in the United States if he or she is able to set foot on American soil.

One wonders why a terrorist would bother with this two-year Syrian refugee process when all they have to do is become a Cuban citizen or simply slip across the Mexican border.

Clearly, this country must make some attempt to enforce existing immigration laws if the threat of terrorism is to be taken seriously.

Virgil M. Piper, a frequent Soap Box contributor, is a Marina resident.

http://www.thecalifornian.com/story/opinion/2016/01/02/syrian-refugees-terrorism/78187808/

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

app.com ASBURY PARK PRESS
A GANNETT COMPANY

LETTER: Fixing illegal immigration requires honesty

2:56 p.m. EST January 1, 2016

People who walk across our border illegally have performed a criminal act. Politicians want to give them amnesty. Why?

We have laws, but no one will enforce them. When you give them welfare, food stamps, even a driver’s license, you only encourage more of the same bad behavior: lawbreaking criminal acts.

How about everyone who came here legally? What about the hard work and money they spent to assimilate to the American way of life? Why doesn’t anyone bring up the fact that it’s an insult to these people who came here legally and went through the process to become an American?

Most of us are tired of lawbreakers — that includes politicians. The last seven years have been brutal. The destruction of America led by President Barack Obama, the Democrats and willing Republicans is despicable!

We can fix the illegal problem easily, but we need honest, law-abiding politicians who actually love America and everything it stands for.

Matilda Schafhauser - Westmont

http://www.app.com/story/opinion/readers/2016/01/01/letter-fixing-illegal-immigration-requires-honesty/78181102/

New Year’s Surprise: Obama Regulation To Give Work-Permits To Foreign College-Graduates

As the nation prepares to ring in the New Year, President Barack Obama is preparing a colossal new executive action that could print-up work permits for a huge number of foreign white-collar graduates every year, above and beyond the levels set by Congress.

This executive action, which directly bypasses Congressional lawmakers, is likely to reverberate across the presidential race, as GOP voters look to choose a nominee they believe will most effectively roll back the President’s still-expanding agenda.  And it will certainly raise new security concerns as it covers categories of immigration utilized by migrants from the Middle East and nearby regions.

President Barack Obama’s Department of Homeland Security plans to publish the proposed rule tomorrow, the last day of 2015.

The 181-page rule focuses primarily on giving work-permits to foreign college-grads who will compete against Americans for white collar jobs, despite the large number of American graduates now stuck in lower-wage positions and struggling to pay off college debts. The rule will also make each foreign graduate much cheaper for U.S. employers to hire than many U.S.-born college grads.

“Obama has gone the Full Monty to bust the immigration system,” says immigration lawyer John Miano. “What is going on is he is effectively giving Green Cards to people on H-1B visas who are unable to get Green Cards due to the [annual] quotas… it could be over 100,000.”

The new rules to aid foreign college-graduates are an extension of his earlier efforts to bypass popular laws against illegal immigration, said Miano, the co-author of a new book about the painful impact of the white-collar guest-worker programs, titled “Sold Out.”

This executive action could have been prevented, however, had the bipartisan 2016 omnibus funding included language proposed by Immigration Subcommittee Chairman
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
80%

.

In April, Sessions proposed language to reduce and cap the number of work-permits — dubbed “Employment Authorization Documents” — that could be distributed to foreign workers each year. Sessions’ recommendation was rejected by GOP and Democratic leaders in Congress, and so House Speaker
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)
56%

’s December omnibus is enabling the president’s new executive action.

In 2012, Obama bypassed laws against illegal immigration by awarding two-year work-permits to at least 800,000 younger foreign migrants who were brought here by their illegal immigrant parents. In 2015, the courts blocked his November 2014 amnesty plan to award work-permits to roughly 5 million resident migrants who have U.S.-born children. From 2009 to 2015, Obama also allowed at least 250,000 Central American migrants into the United States to request asylum or refugee status. In 2013, Obama added roughly 2 million extra foreign workers to the economy, while roughly 4 million young Americans began looking for work.

“The objective here is to strip American workers of their protections from foreign labor embodied in the Green Card quotas” that are set by Congress, not the White House, Miano said.

The annual award of Green Cards — and vital preliminary work-permits — is limited by quotas that mostly impact the many Indian and Chinese graduates who come to the United States as H-1B guest-workers, or who first arrive as students and later start working in the United States via the Optional Practical Training and H-1B programs.

Roughly 650,000 foreign graduates are working in the United States for roughly 5 years each under the H-1B program. Roughly 120,000 foreign graduates of U.S. colleges are working in the United States for two years each via the OPT program, often called the ‘mini-H-1B program.’ Without this new regulation, most of those foreign graduates will return home after several years, forcing companies to hire U.S. graduates in their place.

The foreign graduates typically get entry-level jobs that would otherwise go to new U.S. business graduates, designers, doctors, programmers, engineers and scientists.  Also, the foreign graduates are used to replace mid-level American professionals once they seek mid-career pay-raises to help pay for mortgages and child-rearing.

According to the pending regulation, “many of these changes are primarily aimed at improving the ability of U.S. employers to hire and retain [foreign] high-skilled workers who are beneficiaries of approved employment-based immigrant visa petitions and are waiting to become lawful permanent residents (LPRs), while increasing the ability of such [foreign] workers to seek promotions, accept lateral positions with current employers, change employers, or pursue other employment options.”

The new policy also creates a large economic incentive for U.S. employers to hire foreign college-grads instead of new American college-grads.

That’s because the policy will allow U.S. employers to hire foreign college graduates at very low salaries. The foreign graduates will gladly take those low-wage white-collar jobs because the new policy allows them to get deferred payments from the federal government — valuable permanent work-permits that are the first step on the golden pathway to Green Cards and citizenship.

In contrast, employers can’t pay American graduates with this combination of low-salaries plus the federal promise of citizenship — because the Americans already have citizenship.

That means employers must pay more money to hire American college-grads than they would to hire foreign college-grads. That puts a huge disadvantage on American graduates because they need higher salaries to pay off their expensive U.S. college debt.

Miano slammed the new regulations, and said they reflect Obama’s preference for foreigners over Americans.

“Notice that when foreign workers are going to lose their jobs, Obama has DHS make protecting their jobs the agency’s highest priority,” chiefly by minimizing enforcement of immigration laws, he told Breitbart News. But “when American workers lose their jobs to foreign workers, Obama does absolutely nothing,” he said.

“We have a president with a very warped sense of priorities,” he added.

The public can object to the new regulations, according to the DHS document.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before [Insert date 60 days from date of publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by DHS Docket No. USCIS-2015-0008, by one of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: You may submit comments to USCIS by visiting http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

E-mail: You may submit comments directly to USCIS by e-mailing them to:

USCISFRComment@dhs.gov. Please include DHS Docket No. USCIS-2015-0008 in the subject line of the message.

Follow Neil Munro on Twitter, at @NeilMunroDC
 

Post Mortem on Omnibus spending bill

 
The Republican leadership in Congress has shown itself uncaring about the prospects of citizen workers for job opportunities and adequate wages.  Neither Republican nor Democratic party leadership is working in the best interests of citizens, and both appear to cooperate in selling citizens short.  John Miano of the Center for Immigration Studies, details here their shocking conduct in pushing the Omnibus spending bill through with hidden giveaways to powerful, greedy businesses that have no regard for U.S. citizens’ well-being.
 
Oregon's Rep. Greg Walden voted to fund Obama's amnesty executive orders, the open border acceptance of Syrian refugees, continued funding for sanctuary cities and a quadrupling of the number of H 2-B low-skilled workers, from 66,000 to 264,000 this year.
 
Joining with Walden in passing this bill were Oregon’s Representatives Earl Blumenauer, Suzanne Bonamici and Peter DeFazio. Voting against the bill: Rep. Kurt Schrader.  Thank you, Congressman Schrader.
-------------------------------------------------
Speaker Ryan's Unpersuasive Response on H-2B Visas 
By John Miano, Center for Immigration Studies, December 23, 2015
 
[Slightly condensed version:]
 
On Monday I was one of many to write about the travesty of Paul Ryan's corrupt business-as-usual-in-Washington budget bill [passed on Dec. 18]. Yesterday [Dec.22], Speaker Ryan responded to the critics, a response that shows how deprived of reality the leaders are in Congress.
 
The main area of contention is the changes to the H-2B visa program. (My colleague David North also addresses Ryan's assertions about the program.)
 
The speaker's response starts off with the heading, "And Nothing Was 'Slipped' into the Bill Either."
 
To which I have to ask, how stupid does Speaker Ryan think we are?
 
The increase in H-2B visa is located on page 701 of the budget bill, nestled between two appropriations, with no heading, and no mention of H-2B. Only the few people who know that 8 U.S.C. 1184(g) deals with visa quotas would have a clue reading this passage would know that this provision has nothing to do with appropriations:  …
 
This visa increase could not have been slipped into the bill any better.
 
The title of Speaker Ryan's post is "No, the Omnibus Doesn't Quadruple Visas for Foreign Workers." 
 
As I explained, the increase falls within a range of between doubling and quadrupling the visas available. I also explained why these numbers are theoretical and that an actual quadrupling is unlikely.
 
Speaker Ryan goes on to say that that the increase is "Only 8,000 Workers". In support of this he cites a letter from the director of the Congressional Budget Office (a letter written the same day as Ryan's posting), that states "8,000 additional workers would be in the United States" under this increase.
 
Again the speaker misses the point. If the intent of the provision is only to increase the number of workers by 8,000, why does not the bill simply state that it increases the number of workers by 8,000?
 
The answer is obvious: the bill is written that way so that, as I wrote before, "to make the actual size of the increases obscure and debatable."
 
The speaker said of the increase that it is "Only Temporarily." True enough, that increase is for only one year; does the speaker's assurance mean he'll make sure it's not renewed next year? In addition, the speaker did not mention the other H-2B provision designed to undermine the wages of H-2B workers, found at page 888. That provision is permanent. (I discuss it toward the end of Monday's posting.)
 
The speaker goes on to downplay the visa increase because "it was introduced as part of the base appropriations bill funding the Department of Homeland Security." Pray tell, Mr. Speaker, why was a provision to increase the number of H-2B guestworker visas approved by the Appropriations Committee – and not the Immigration Subcommittee – when it has nothing to do with appropriations?
 
Again, we all know the answer to that question: By giving lobbyists special access to the appropriations process, their pet provisions get slipped into the budget, where they will not be considered separately; once in a budget bill, such a provision is nearly certain to pass.
 
That Mr. Speaker, is corrupt government.
 
We might be able to understand if you said that you were new in the office, that you did not yet have firm control over the budget process, and that in the future you were going to put a stop to allowing special interests to get their pet provisions slipped into the massive budget.
 
But no, here you are defending the corrupt practices that Americans have become sick of. Mr. Speaker, by doubling down on corruption here, you have demonstrated that you epitomize the problem in Washington and are not part of the hoped-for solution.
 

25 years of helping foreigners take US citizens' jobs

 
Citizen workers today find themselves in competition with millions of foreign workers, here both legally and illegally.  How did this happen?  Aren’t Congress and Presidents supposed to work in the best interests of Americans?  Unfortunately too many elected government officials do not.  
 
The article below traces how immigration policy has changed in recent decades to the disadvantage of citizens, and names some of those responsible.
 
Today, when presidential candidates are seeking approval from voters, we have better means of assessing their true positions than in the past.  We encourage voters to learn as much as possible about candidates at all levels. NumbersUSA’s ratings for Congress and presidential candidates are an important resource; these ratings are based on voting records in Congress and examination of public statements made by the candidates.  The presidential debates are being reviewed and analyzed by NumbersUSA, FAIR’s ImmigrationReform.com, and the Center for Immigration Studies to discover and report candidates’ thinking and intentions on immigration.  Pertinent information is reported on their websites. 
 
Twenty-Five Years of Helping Foreigners Take American Jobs
By Ian Smith, December 13, 2015, in PJ Media 
 
Twenty-five years ago, President George H. W. Bush signed into law the Immigration Act of 1990. Instead of reforming the corrosive effects of the Immigration Act of 1965, an act that birthed the mass immigration system we have today, the 1990 act made the situation dramatically worse and make it less likely Americans would fill American jobs.
 
The act raised the annual immigration ceiling from 530,000 to 700,000 (excluding other types of legal entry like refugee admissions) while creating a coterie of new immigrant and guestworker visas, mostly for semi-skilled and unskilled workers.
 
Perhaps the most controversial creation of the 1990 act was the H-1B guestworker program. This “grandfather of all American worker sellouts,” according to Michelle Malkin and John Miano in their latest book on the subject, is taken up mostly by bachelor degree-holders from India (where such degrees take only three years) and, according to critics, was really designed not for the “best and brightest” but simply for “ordinary people, doing work.”
 
Crucially, the 1990 act entrenched U.S. immigration policy with a system completely indifferent to the nation’s general labor conditions. The act’s selected intake numbers were not a product of any careful labor market study and, like now, in no way recognized the actual labor-needs of the country.
 
The number of immigrant-visas based on employment (rather than family connections) almost tripled from 54,000 to 140,000 while the number and size of non-immigrant guestworker programs increased dramatically.
 
In a study of the bill years after it was implemented, Cornell labor economist Vernon Briggs noted that between the year of its passage and its implementation there were one million fewer workers employed in the country. As he put it, “[c]ertainly the last thing that the slumping economy needed was an infusion of an additional inflow of immigrant job seekers of this enlarged magnitude”—Briggs rightly sees immigration policy as essentially a labor policy and has long suggested that immigrant visa allotments be adjusted annually according to economic conditions.
 
Still, the rhetoric surrounding the 1990 act’s passage was that the country was facing a massive “skills shortage.”
 
“It was a myth,” says Briggs. In reality, he notes, “If labor shortages did occur, industry leaders feared, higher wages would be required to hold present workers and to entice younger workers to aspire to enter these skilled occupations…[f]acing the reality of such a free market outcome, industry leaders sought to find a way for government to artificially swell the skilled labor pool.” In other words, the act was largely designed to insulate corporate executives from market discipline.
 
Regarding the H-1B, its effects were confirmed immediately after the act was passed. As Alan Merten, chairman of the fifteen-member industry and academic panel, the Committee on Workforce Needs in Information Technology, summarized, “we feel [the number of H-1Bs] is so large that we are totally dependent on it and it depresses wages.”
 
This "dependency" on low-wage foreign professionals wasn’t limited to IT executives apparently. When the House passed legislation to increase the H-1B cap to nearly 200,000 in 2001 it chose to do so by a voice vote which allows one’s vote to be kept secret.
 
When asked about the voice vote, then-Senator Robert Bennet (R-Utah), a lead sponsor of the Senate-version of the bill, said frankly, “a whole lot of folks are against [the bill], but because they are tapping the high-tech community for campaign funds, they don’t want to admit that in public.” On these sorts of bills, he said, “everyone signs up so nobody can be in the position of being accused of being against high tech.”
 
Bennet’s H-1B increase was approved by a vote of 96-1 in the Senate. On the House vote, Congressman Thomas Davis of Virginia, a state that’s always been one of the biggest H-1B-employers, candidly stated, “this bill may not be popular with the public but it’s popular with the CEOs.”
 
Why it’s popular with CEOs isn’t a mystery. There’s no reason why corporations, at least big, publicly traded ones, should like hiring in a tight competitive labor market. This is especially true for Big Tech firms, which are typically asset-light and have a high level of operating costs going to labor. Most would expect that the pressure on CEOs to meet analysts’ profit estimates each quarter will trump any free-market ethos they may have every time. Why else would the industry spend billions on lobbying and public relations related to immigration? Big Tech’s message to the American public might as well be, “the free market for thee, not for me.”
 
The 1990 act cemented in place the corporatization of our immigration system, producing disastrous externalities ever since. Cutting wages by artificially expanding the labor supply increases private wealth at the public’s expense, acting like a highly regressive tax on the lower and middle classes.
 
Two and a half decades of this "immigration tax" has doubtlessly attributed to today’s growing income inequality with over half the nation now earning less than $30,000 a year. What will we be the state of American labor if we let the immigration status quo persist for another 25 years? For the American worker and our tech professionals in particular, true reform of our immigration system cannot wait.
 
Ian Smith is a lawyer with the Immigration Reform Law Institute, Washington DC.

Oregon election law trumps Portland's anti-Donald resolution

PORTLAND — The Portland City Council planned to pass an anti-Donald Trump resolution, but has changed it on the advice of the Secretary of State's Office.

The resolution passed by the City Council on Wednesday focuses more on supporting the Muslim and immigrant community...

City officials said the Secretary of State told them a staff-prepared resolution should not use Trump's name...

The city's original resolution aimed to "censure Donald Trump" and referred directly to Trump...

The resolution that passed says Portland doesn't tolerate hate speech and welcomes all immigrants and refugees...

Portland officials said the resolution doesn't mean the city supports any particular candidate...

This post includes only excerpts from the original article.

Why the U.S. should not take in Muslim immigrants

Islamic turmoil never fails to dominate the headlines, and the West is yet again split on how to deal with the polarizing issue of Islamic immigration. But liberals can no longer afford to be motivated by only political short-term goals expressed with the usual shouting, name-calling and emotion. This issue can really hurt liberal and progressive causes, as well as conservative causes.

Looking at the big picture of relocating populations, the first thing that comes to mind is that it should benefit and not hurt either the Muslim nations that are sending the immigrants out or Western nations that are absorbing the immigrants in.

If by absorbing large numbers of moderate Muslims from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan etc., are we really helping these nations to reform? The answer is no, and this is why.

Western governments are reassuring their alarmed citizens that they are vetting the Muslim immigrants and bringing in only the good and peace-loving Muslims, which is questionable...

But let us assume that Western governments this time will succeed in vetting Muslim immigrants. The important questions we should also ask ourselves are:

1- If we keep taking in the so-called “moderate Muslims” from the Middle East and leave the terrorists and bad guys, who will be left to fight ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, Boko Haram or whatever the future name might be for the next Islamic terror group?...

2- Who will lead the badly needed reform movement in Islam in the heart of the Middle East if most or all moderates move to the West?

3- Are we giving the wrong message to the Muslim world and showing them that we are serious about calling for an Islamic reformation...

It is also good to ask, before we allow them in, if large numbers of Muslims immigrant will benefit the West?

That should not be difficult to answer, since we have 1400 years of history of Islamic conquest and immigration around the world. The one thing we must learn is that Muslims do not assimilate and are forbidden from doing that by Sharia. The political and social structure and culture of every country that absorbs large number of Muslims was challenged and changed....

I have no doubt that many immigrants to the US from the Middle East, of whom I am one, both Muslim and Christian, have assimilated and positively contributed to America.

But unfortunately, it is a fact that a good portion of Muslim immigrants to the West have jihadist goals...

The West must also ask itself: what is the West rescuing Muslim refugees from? The honest answer would be from Islam itself...

Political Islam is in control of the Muslim world today and is expanding. There are about 49 to 50 majority Muslim countries around the world taking about 1/3 of the habitable land on Earth....

Western leadership and media are sympathetic to rescuing Muslims, but are obviously ignoring the fears of their own citizens...

Last night, I was told by a Middle East source that ISIS is in fact encouraging and intentionally herding desperate refugees merged with ISIS infiltrators towards its Northwest borders...

What the West does not understand is that Muslim governments are dependent on and in need of getting rid of their ever-expanding population to the West...

What the West needs to know is that by constantly absorbing the moderate Muslim population that wants reform, the West is not doing the Islamic reformation movement a favor, but just the opposite; it is delaying any hope for a reformation when the West releases the pressure on Muslim governments by absorbing those who want change.

If the West is serious about helping bring about an Islamic reformation in the heart of Islam, it should do just the opposite of what its policy has been for the last decades. It should stop immigration from Muslim countries...

This post includes excerpts from the full article.

 

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - legal immigration