political

URGENT - STOP AMNESTY BILL! Call Congress

Alert date: 
2019-12-08
Alert body: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Phone numbers for Oregon’s Representatives

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

District 1 – Suzanne Bonamici – 202-225-0855

District 2 – Greg Walden 202-225-6730

District 3 - Earl Blumenauer – 202-225-4811

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

District 5 – Kurt Schrader – 202-225-5711

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

Get acquainted with Oregon candidates for 2020 Primary

Oregonians frustrated with what has happened in the Oregon Legislature - and in Congress - can learn more about the candidates and then get involved with a campaign.

Oregon’s Congressional delegation has a dismal record on protecting the interests of U.S. citizens in immigration policy.  Most of the delegation has been in office for many years, and they have consistently voted for lax to no controls on immigration.  We see the results in unsustainable population growth, overcrowding, degradation of the environment and multiple other ill effects.  The State Legislature, Governor, and Attorney General have also opposed reasonable controls over immigration.

We can look to the May 2020 Primary election to find Oregon candidates who do support the best interests of citizens in immigration policy.  The Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project has already begun posting information on primary candidates, with links to their websites.  You can check what’s happening in your districts here.  If you don’t know which your districts are, you can enter your address on the form here and find out.

In earlier elections also, the OAAVEP collected detailed information on candidates’ positions on a number of important issues, including key questions about the candidate’s position on immigration.  You can see what some of them said about immigration in the 2018 and 2016 Primary campaigns on the OFIR website. Filling out the questionnaire is up to the candidate, and many of them have cooperated in recent years.

OAAVEP has also issued reports for the General Elections.  See their website homepage for more information.

Please share your knowledge with family, friends and acquaintances

Many people in Oregon and other states still believe that illegal aliens living and working in this country do no harm and see no problem in accepting their presence.  But this view ignores the widespread falsification of identities which does harm individual U.S. citizens.  The competition from illegal alien workers often causes a drop in wage levels - and that hurts all workers.  Worse still, acceptance of illegal immigration has led to more open borders policies, putting U.S. sovereignty at risk.

The article below highlights an actual case of enforcement that is usually cast narrowly by most media as pointless cruelty.  Thanks to Stephen Dinan for reporting a more complete picture.

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

NO HARM? MOST ILLEGALS IN MISSISSIPPI ICE RAIDS STOLE AMERICANS' IDENTITIES, by Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Thursday, November 7, 2019

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/nov/7/mississippi-ice-raids-most-illegal-immigrants-stol/

Excerpts:

Most of the 680 illegal immigrants nabbed in August’s immigration raids at poultry plants in Mississippi worked under stolen American identities, the Department of Homeland Security’s top investigator told Congress Thursday, rebuffing Democrats who insisted the “undocumented” workers were doing no harm.

“They stole the IDs of 400 U.S. citizens,” said Jere Miles, who leads Homeland Security Investigations’ New Orleans office. “Where’s their voice?”

Mr. Miles was defending the Aug. 7 operations against seven processing plants as both a success and a deterrent to future illegal immigrants, battling with Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee who called a field hearing in Mississippi to criticize the raids. …

Mr. Miles said the families are in no different position than any other instance where a parent runs afoul of the law and is incarcerated, forcing spouses and children to figure things out.

Democrats challenged Mr. Miles on whether anyone nabbed had major criminal rap sheets. He ticked off some felony cases against some of the people caught, but then pointed out that 400 of them were working in the U.S. on fraudulent identities he said were stolen from Americans.

“Is that not a serious crime?” he demanded of Democrats.

At that point Mr. Thompson cut him off.

“Be quiet,” the chairman ordered. …

To Democrats who fretted that the businesses were being let off the hook, Mr. Miles urged patience. He said the heart of the August operation wasn’t the arrest of the migrants but rather to serve search warrants at the businesses, which netted 850,000 documents. …

A Review of Open Borders Inc.: Who's Funding America's Destruction?, by Michelle Malkin

Immigration by undemocratic means

John Wahala

The last four decades of mass immigration did not just happen by chance. Complex social and political forces drove the demographic transformation that has added 55 million people to the U.S. population since 1980. Given the magnitude of this transformation, it is curious that more has not been written on how and why it occurred. Here at the Center, Jerry Kammer and others have documented historic policy decisions that led to exponential increases in immigration. But such analysis is largely absent in the volumes of specialized immigration studies published each year by academia. Even in the popular press, narratives on what is behind this influx, which affects every aspect of American life, are surprisingly rare.

Michelle Malkin's provocative new book, Open Borders Inc.: Who's Funding America's Destruction? helps fill this void. The work is a grand conspiracy theory, which Malkin is the first to admit, but one that is built on a dizzying array of facts and figures, all of which indict powerful individuals and institutions who are working to dissolve American sovereignty. That may sound hyperbolic, but it is the stated goal of one of Malkin's chief antagonists, George Soros, who has openly declared that "sovereignty is an anachronistic concept originating in bygone times" and that "the critical issue of our time is how to overcome the obstacles posed by national sovereignty to the pursuit of the common interest." Soros has donated a considerable portion of his fortune through his network of Open Society Foundations, the world's "largest private funder of independent groups working for justice, democratic governance, and human rights", to those who are actively undermining American immigration law in various ways both here and abroad. These include activists on the ground assisting migrant caravans, community organizers, educational groups, and political operatives.

The long-term commitment that Soros has made to dissolving national sovereignty is staggering. But his resources fund only a piece of the effort to open the border that is being made by transnational organizations, corporations, churches, celebrities, and even officials within the U.S. government, all of which Malkin documents with hundreds of anecdotes. She is admittedly angry, having devoted her life's work to seeking "the safety and security of the United States" while witnessing this burgeoning coalition of lawlessness. She believes that countering this growing "immigration anarchy" is "the most central and existential issue of our time."

The push for open borders reveals the post-national political shift that has occurred among western elites, who exhibit far less concern for their fellow citizens than they once did. Transnationalism is growing on both the left and the right (in spite of populist uprisings like the Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump). But while the intent of ideologues like George Soros is clear, the intent of others in the open borders coalition is not as obvious. Does every Catholic priest who ministers to migrants or every social worker assisting refugees wish to remake the entire social and political order? Undoubtedly the answer is no. Many of these folks are apolitical actors who truly want to help the most vulnerable. Unfortunately their motive has gotten mixed up with billions of dollars in public funding that has clouded their judgment.

Malkin quotes Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who, in reference to Catholic Charities, foresaw the demise of private institutions back in 1980: "Private institutions really aren't private anymore ... many are primarily supplied by government funds. In time, there cannot be any outcome to that encroachment save governmental control." This is what has happened to Catholic groups and other organizations assisting immigrants and resettling refugees. A majority of their revenue comes from public sources and they are compensated by the volume, putting the emphasis on bringing ever increasing numbers of foreigners to the United States rather than prudently assessing the need for relocation, promoting integration, and considering the impact on local communities.

To make matters worse, resettlement is increasingly controlled by intergovernmental agencies within the United Nations that are awash in cash and rife with venality. Malkin quotes the Arabic language news site Al Monitor: "Aid organizations have become fountains of corruption, while 'humanitarian mafias' accrue massive sums." And she cites a UN internal audit that deemed every measure of financial controls over refugee relief funds "unsatisfactory". Bribery and sexual exploitation have been widely reported. This culture has infected scores of migration charities operating in the United States. Despite what good they still may do, they have become a major migration industry driven by profits and internationalist in outlook. Or as Malkin says, they have become "a colossal, profit-seeking venture cloaked in humanitarian virtue." By this assessment, they are similar to the industries that lobby for ever more foreign workers to drive down wages and increase profits.

The scope of this open-borders coalition is massive. And while it contains some who are unwitting participants, those driving the agenda are members of a diverse elite who know exactly what they are doing. And they are doing it, as Malkin says, with "unfettered contempt for actual popular sentiment." This includes much of the Hollywood elite, who, as Malkin details, seek to abolish the border while living behind "walls within walls within walls" in an "impenetrable bubble of protection", much like the officials in the Vatican.

What is confounding about all of this is how indifferent the coalition seems to the harm caused by open borders. As Malkin succinctly puts it, those undermining our immigration laws are "enabling human trafficking, violent crime, and exploitation of cheap, illegal alien labor." She includes stories of illegal-alien criminals, refugee terrorists, and overwhelmed communities unable to stop the constant flow of resettlement. There is a high social and fiscal cost to unregulated immigration that somehow never fits into the calculus of those advocating more of it. While they presume to have the moral high ground, an unprecedented level of immigration is detrimental to everyone. Malkin includes a heterodox quote from Father Andrew McNair, chaplain for the Office of Black Catholic Ministry of the Diocese of Providence, "The right to immigrate is not absolute ... the common good of any nation consists of three principles: respect for the person, social well-being and development, and peace ... lax immigration policy walks over these principles ... enforcing the law and asking people to obey the law isn't mean or heartless, but charity in its truest sense."

Unfortunately, "respect for the person" has been replaced by incivility on immigration. It was not all that long ago when those who wanted high levels of immigration would debate those who favored lower levels. Both sides would acknowledge a certain number of facts, like socioeconomic data from the Census Bureau, and calmly and respectfully discuss normative outcomes based on those facts. Sharing any common ground is now rare. Even government statistics are rejected as illegitimate and those favoring lower levels of immigration, or those simply favoring enforcement of the laws on the books, are dismissed as racist. In much of the media and academia, and even in some congressional hearings, a rational basis for discussion no longer exists.

The current environment of slander and censorship is fostered by groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center, a self-proclaimed arbiter of hate speech that uses its influence to shut down its political opponents. (The Center for Immigration Studies has filed a lawsuit against the SPLC under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.) Mark Potok, a former principal of the now disgraced group, which has been called out for its own internal racial, sexual, and financial injustices, explained the organization's intent, "I want to say plainly that our aim in life is to destroy these groups, to completely destroy them." Co-founder Morris Dees has concurred: "We see this political struggle, right? So you know, I mean, we're not trying to change anybody's mind. We're trying to wreck the groups, and we are very clear in our head: we are trying to destroy them."

For years that is what the SPLC sought to do to dozens of groups with whom they disagreed. Their efforts ruined the reputations of many good people and resulted in violence and attempted murder. CIS did our own expose on them and Malkin devotes a chapter to the impact they have had persuading public and private institutions to cripple groups and individuals while raking in millions from gullible celebrities like George Clooney.

The refusal to debate marks an erosion of liberal democratic ideals and a descent into ignorance and violence. Malkin provides anecdotes of individuals who have been blacklisted by Twitter and Facebook and declined business by financial institutions. She quotes conservative David Horowitz on this communist tactic: "The censorship powers of Social Media are awesome and historically unprecedented. When they are amplified by the arbitrary financial power of corporations such as Mastercard and Visa, the result is a leviathan willing and able to crush out basic freedoms and constitutional guarantees without a moment's remorse." Malkin also provides details on terrorist organizations like Antifa, which have dropped pretense and taken to the street to commit violence, ironically in the name of fighting fascism.

To say the current political climate is troubling would be a grievous understatement. At the forefront of this disturbing development are those who are undemocratically pushing for open borders. Michelle Malkin does a service to everyone who is interested in returning to a calm and reasoned debate by chronicling their antics.


 

The importance of the Electoral College

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 


Related

2016 U.S. Presidential Electoral votes by county:

2016 electoral votes by county

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Interactive 2020 electoral college map - 270 to win

 

 

Books:

 

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


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

 

The myth of the otherwise innocent illegal alien

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

Excerpts:  (read the entire article here)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sanctuary Nation - The Fraying of America

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

Here are direct links to the articles:

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

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

Attorney General Jeff Sessions: a true Immigration Reformer

In a recent newsletter, NumbersUSA lists all the steps that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has taken to turn our muddled immigration system around and make it work again for the best interests of U.S. citizens.

Of course, a lot remains to be done, and any progress at all depends on elected officials in Congress and The White House.  President Trump criticizes his AG at times, but looking at what Jeff Sessions has accomplished, Sessions deserves citizens’ praise and encouragement.  Let’s hope Mr. Sessions gets strong support from the public, the Department of Justice, and elsewhere in government.

From the NumbersUSA Newsletter of September 21, 2018:

No person in the Administration has done more to advance Pres. Trump's immigration agenda than Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Here's an overview of some of the areas in which AG Sessions has taken bold action over the last 21 months.

END DACA -- AG Sessions authored the legal defense for the Trump Administration's decision to end the illegal DACA executive amnesty. The Department of Justice has also defended the decision to end DACA in a number of legal challenges filed by several states and pro-amnesty groups.

END SANCTUARY CITIES -- AG Sessions has taken several actions to discourage states and local jurisdictions from providing sanctuary to illegal aliens. He's blocked Department of Justice grants for sanctuary jurisdictions and sued the state of California over the state's passage and implementation of laws that block both law enforcement and employers from working with federal immigration officers. AG Sessions has also supported a Texas state lawsuit that seeks to eliminate sanctuary jurisdictions in the Lone Star state.

REDUCE ASYLUM FRAUD -- Earlier this year, AG Sessions took action to reduce the growing number of illegal border crossers who exploit the asylum system to avoid prosecution for illegal entry. He strengthened the credible fear standard by clarifying that the law does not allow individuals to receive asylum for fear of gang violence or domestic abuse perpetrated by non-governmental actors. He ruled that credible fear claims should only be approved when the alien has a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country because of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. This single action should help reverse the dramatic rise of defensive asylum claims entered by illegal aliens over the last decade.

INCREASE IMMIGRATION JUDGES -- AG Sessions has taken steps to eliminate the enormous backlog of cases that are bogging down the immigration courts. Just last week, AG Sessions announced that the DOJ would be increasing the number of immigration judges by 50% to help deal with the more than 746,000 immigration cases that await a ruling. This major new expansion would be on top of the additional judges AG Sessions sent to the Southern border region earlier this year to help deal with the ongoing border surge. He's also issued new guidelines to immigration judges to ensure the fair and expeditious treatment of cases and placed limits on judges' ability to postpone hearings that allow illegal aliens to live and work in the United States.

ZERO-TOLERANCE POLICY -- AG Sessions issued a zero-tolerance policy for illegal border crossers, ordering the prosecution of all foreign nationals apprehended crossing the border illegally. The policy also covers illegal aliens who enter a defensive claim for asylum -- approximately 80% of illegal border crossers from Central America who claim asylum have their claims eventually denied.

In his State of the Union speech earlier this year, Pres. Trump said "Struggling communities, especially immigrant communities, will be helped by immigration policies that focus on the best interests of American workers and American families."

It's clear that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has done more to implement those policies than any other individual in the Trump Administration.

We encourage you to call the White House comments line at (202) 456-1111 and tell Pres. Trump that you stand with Attorney General Sessions and support the actions he's taken to return America's immigration system back to one that serves the national interest.

Sanctuary Law Repeal Committee Submits Signatures to Secretary of State

Today, the Repeal Oregon Sanctuary Law Committee announces that it has submitted to the Oregon Secretary of State the signatures needed to likely qualify Initiative Petition 22 as a measure on the November 2018 statewide ballot.  The measure will give voters the opportunity to overturn Oregon Revised Statute 181A.820, the state's illegal-immigrant de facto sanctuary law.

Oregon State Representatives Esquivel, Barreto and Nearman are Chief Petitioners of the initiative and Cynthia Kendoll is authorized agent and President of Oregonians for Immigration Reform, which spearheaded the signature-gathering effort.

"This afternoon, our committee took a huge step toward repealing Oregon's sanctuary statute and thereby freeing our police and sheriffs to cooperate more easily with federal immigration authorities enforcing U.S. immigration law," said Kendoll.

"Today was the culmination of a year-long volunteer effort.  Across the state, hundreds of grassroots Oregonians worked to garner the signatures of tens of thousands of voters.  All are eager to end Oregon's sanctuary policies that shield people, even criminal aliens, in our country illegally and to see their state do its part to combat illegal immigration."

"Lately, a tiny, but loud, minority of open-borders radicals have grabbed the media's attention with unruly, disruptive street demonstrations," added OFIR Communications Director Jim Ludwick.  "This November, Oregonians who support the rule of law will demonstrate too -- not with noise, disruptions and threats, but with their votes, via Oregon's fair, orderly system of direct democracy.  And we're confident they'll choose to repeal the state's dangerous sanctuary law."

Oregonians for Immigration Reform, founded in 2000, engages voters and representatives at all levels of government for immigration policies that serve the interests of U.S. citizens, including an end to illegal immigration and reductions in legal immigration to more sustainable levels.   In 2014, the group spearheaded Ballot Measure 88 through which Oregon voters rejected illegal-immigrant driving privileges. 
 
This Friday, July 6, (8 am to noon), OFIR will have a signature drop-off site on the steps of the State Capitol building in Salem, to allow persons who haven’t already sent in their signature sheets to get them in.   Look for the American flags honoring all those who have collected signatures.

When IP 22 is qualified for the November ballot, Oregon will be the only state to have the opportunity to end their state’s sanctuary policies that shield criminal aliens. 

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

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


OFIR booth

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 


 

Related

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

CBS News YouGov 2018 Battleground Tracker

YouGov has conducted an estensive survey on opinions of immigration, political parties, and other issues. View the YouGov survey.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - political