population

Forget California, Oregon Is The Foremost ‘Sanctuary State’ In The US

California frequently comes to mind when people think of the one state pushing back hardest against the Trump administration’s immigration agenda.

With its massive Hispanic immigrant population, outspoken big-city mayors, and Democratic-dominated government, it attracts the lion’s share of media attention as an exemplar of a sanctuary state. But for all of its pro-immigration, anti-Trump bona fides, California still falls short of its neighbor to the north.

No state has done more than Oregon to position itself as the most ardent — detractors would say say extreme — sanctuary state of all. As the Trump administration moves to crack down on jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration agents, arch-progressive, first-term Gov. Kate Brown remains defiant, advancing laws that build on Oregon’s long history of shielding illegal immigrants from the federal government.

30 years of sanctuary

The “sanctuary” term, whether referring to cities, counties or states, has become a convenient shorthand to describe any jurisdiction that refuses to assist the federal government in enforcing immigration law....

Opponents of sanctuary cities, like Attorney General Jeff Sessions, use it as an epithet to describe local governments who put politics over the safety of their citizens, while supporters like Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel wear it as a badge of honor in defiance of an overreaching federal government.

Oregon was a sanctuary state before anybody used the word to describe how states work, or refuse to work, with the federal government on immigration enforcement. In 1987, the Oregon legislature overwhelmingly passed a law ...

“No law enforcement agency of the State of Oregon or of any political subdivision of the state shall use agency moneys, equipment or personnel for the purpose of detecting or apprehending persons whose only violation of law is that they are persons of foreign citizenship present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws,” the law states.

The blanket prohibition prevents police from arresting illegal aliens unless they have broken certain immigration-related sections of the federal criminal code or are the subject of a warrant signed by a federal judge or magistrate. Most of Oregon’s police agencies also interpret that law to mean that they cannot agree to requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to hold criminal aliens in local jails beyond their release dates.

The Multnomah County Sheriffs Office, which covers the city of Portland, clarified its position in a September 2016 memo, saying that both state law and a U.S. district court decision prevent jail officials from honoring ICE detainers. Like many similarly situated sheriffs overseeing liberal counties, Multnomah County Sheriff Mike Reese has painted the sanctuary policy as a benefit to public safety.

“The Sheriff’s Office is not responsible for enforcing federal immigration policy. We are primarily responsible for local law enforcement,” Reese wrote in the memo. “In this role, it is vital community members feel comfortable calling 911 to report crimes and to participate as witnesses and victims in our local system, without fear of that information being shared with ICE.”

In effect, Oregon has for many years enforced policies that states including California and Massachusetts are now trying to put in place with their own sanctuary state legislation.

A political opportunity

Though Oregon was a sanctuary state in name and practice long before Trump became president, the state’s Democratic leaders have redoubled their efforts to protect illegal immigrants since Inauguration Day.

As soon as Trump took office and began issuing executive orders on tougher immigration enforcement, local and state authorities countered with immigration directives of their own. Particularly in Multnomah County — a bastion of West Coast progressivism where Hillary Clinton won 76 percent of the vote — opposition to the administration’s immigration policies became one of the surest ways to win political favor with liberal constituents.

The Multnomah County Board of Commissioners issued a resolution declaring the county a sanctuary jurisdiction and affirming that residents would continue to have access to all county services regardless of immigration status. The commissioners said the resolution was necessary due to “recent political events” that “have continued to spur and build a climate of hatred, bigotry, and discrimination toward many in our communities.”

At the state level, Brown followed up with a February executive order that applied the immigration-related restrictions on police to all state agencies. Much like the Multnomah County resolution, Brown’s order also prevented public agencies from making immigration status a condition of receiving public services.

Oregon’s lawmakers have also gotten in on the act with a proposal that would prohibit all “public bodies” in the state from sharing or inquiring about a person’s immigration status except in cases required by federal or state law. Democratic backers of House Bill 3464, which passed both chambers of the Oregon legislature in July, cast the measure as strengthening privacy protections for state residents....

Brown has until Aug. 11 to decide whether sign the bill into law, issue a veto or simply do nothing, which would allow the legislation to take effect automatically. The governor, a progressive darling lauded as one of the most prominent state-level opponents of the Trump administration, has previously expressed support for the bill and is unlikely to send it back to the legislature.

Oregon Democrats remain undeterred in their push to bolster the state’s sanctuary laws, even after an illegal immigrant allegedly raped a 65-year-old Portland woman in late July. The suspect, Mexican national Sergio Jose Martinez, had been deported more than a dozen times and was the subject of an ICE detainer, but Multnomah county jail officials released him from custody in December 2016 without notifying immigration agents. (RELATED: Man Who Allegedly Raped Oregon Woman Had Previous ICE Detainer, 13 Deportations)

While neither Brown nor Portland’s Democratic Mayor Ted Wheeler have publicly commented on the case, Republican state Sen. Kim Thatcher said it was a consequence of the sanctuary policies state Democrats have enacted.

“Kate Brown is sacrificing innocent Oregonians’ safety on her election altar and I think Oregonians are starting to wake up and realize the sanctuary state Kool-aid she’s forcing on all of us is horrifically toxic,” Lockwood wrote TheDCNF in an email.

Interesting guest of Tucker Carlson

 
Recently Tucker Carlson dove into a subject pretty much verboten in present-day political discussion – How Many Is Too Many? That’s the title of his guest’s book, by Philip Cafaro, a professor of philosophy at Colorado State University.
 
Cafaro’s book, subtitled The progressive argument for reducing immigration into the United States, was published in 2015, but thanks to Tucker and some emerging enlightenment elsewhere, it’s now beginning to be discussed more publicly.
 
The chapter headings in Cafaro’s book indicate the framework of his argument:  Good people, hard choices, and an inescapable question.- Immigration by the numbers.-The wages of mass immigration.-Winners and losers.-Growth, or what is an economy for?- Population matters.-Environmentalists’ retreat from demography.-Defusing America’s population bomb—or cooking the earth.
 
Discussion of these subjects is very welcome, because most newspapers and other media today as well as many education groups and even some trade unions perpetuate the idea that all immigration is wonderful, without limits, endlessly enriching life in the U.S.  And they try to enforce that thinking by shaming questioners as unspeakable bigots.
 
Cafaro asks:  “Why are immigration debates frequently so angry?  People on one side often seem to assume it is just because people on the other are stupid, or immoral.  I disagree.  Immigration is contentious because vital interests are at stake and no one set of policies can fully accommodate all of them.”
 
He details in his book “how current immigration levels—the highest in American history—undermine attempts to achieve progressive economic, environmental, and social goals.”
 
Anyone who’s ever looked at the Census Bureau’s Population Clock should understand that thesis.  As of July 10, 2017 the clock ticks like this:  One birth every 8 seconds; one death every 12 seconds; one international migrant (net) every 33 seconds, net gain of one person every 12 seconds.  Our population is now over 325 million, and only quite recently it was 300 million; the rate of growth is enormous, and at present there’s no end in sight.
 
The 300 million mark was reached on Oct. 17, 2006, not quite 11 years ago.  Will there be another 25 ½ million people in 11 years?  If you’re feeling the increasing pressure of population density now, what will the quality of life be in the U.S. then?
 
Cafaro proposes sensible steps to restore controls over immigration and our future.  The first step he suggests is a temporary moratorium on all non-emergency immigration.  Amen to that!
 
The Carlson-Cafaro interview can be seen in the second segment of this YouTube video.  Cafaro has written an article summarizing the content of his book which is posted online here.
 
Note:  NumbersUSA, formed in 1996, brings together “moderates, conservatives & liberals working for immigration numbers that serve America's finest goals.”  It now has over 8 million supporters.  For those who care about a livable environment, here’s a good organization to join.
 

Trump scraps Obama policy that protected immigrant parents from deportation

An Obama-era immigration program intended to protect parents of U.S. citizens and legal residents from deportation has been formally cancelled, fulfilling a key campaign promise from President Trump, the Homeland Security Department announced late Thursday.

Homeland Security John Kelly formally revoked a policy memo that created the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program...

The program to protect parents was announced by President Obama in November 2014 but was never fully launched because it was blocked by a federal court, according to Reuters.

It was intended to keep the immigrant parents safe from deportation and provide them with a renewable work permit good for two years, but it was blocked by a federal judge in Texas...

Republicans decried the effort as “backdoor amnesty” and argued that Obama overstepped his authority...

The protection program for parents, like the one for young immigrants, was created with a policy memo during the Obama administration...

Revoking the memo and ending the stalled program fulfill a key campaign promise by Trump....

...As of March 31, about 787,000 young immigrants have been approved for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, according to government data.

Arrests of immigrants in the interior of the country have increased under the Trump administration, but deportations are slightly down as fewer people have been caught crossing the Mexican border into the United States illegally.

Trump has made immigration enforcement a top priority and has vowed to continue a crackdown...

Reuters reported that Trump previously said that his administration was considering different options.

“They shouldn’t be very worried,” Trump told ABC News in January, referring to DACA recipients. “I do have a big heart. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report

Some thoughts for Earth Day, 2017

 

Earth Day, celebrated annually on April 22, is supposed to inspire appreciation for our natural environment and action to preserve it in a healthful condition, recognizing that all life depends on air, water and soil.
 
Too many environmental organizations have lost their way and morphed into political groups that will not face the topmost threat to the environment – overpopulation, caused in the U.S. by excessive immigration.   See Ann Coulter’s analysis of what happened to the Sierra Club here.
 
Also, Joe Guzzardi, a long-time writer on immigration and the environment, presents this concise summary of the problem, with his recommendations for remedy. The article below was published in the Greeneville Sun, Greeneville TN.
 
 
 
Apr 20, 2017
 
As a Californians for Population Stabilization Senior Writing Fellow, each Earth Day and on many other days during the year I address the key words that my organization strives for — population stabilization.
 
Environmentalists have written volumes about the importance of achieving sustainable population. On Earth Day, politicians pay token attention to how overpopulation contributes to the environment’s fragile condition. Yet the only change since the first 1970 Earth Day is that more people have been added. Today, global population is 7.5 billion, more than three times what many consider a sustainable total, and U.S. population is 325 million, more than twice what some scientists agree is the optimum number of humans.
 
In the U.S., population growth is less an individual family choice than the direct result of conscious congressional decisions to expand immigration that date back to 1965. During the Senate hearing about the effect the 1965 Immigration Act might have on population, New York Senator Robert Kennedy, responding to North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin’s questions, acknowledged that the legislation would eventually double U.S. population, and that mass immigration to America couldn’t and wouldn’t solve global overpopulation. Senators Ervin and Kennedy were right in their analysis, but wrong in their votes to pass the legislation. Both sides of the aisle overwhelmingly voted for the 1965 Immigration Act.
 
The Pew Research Center, in its retrospective on the 1965 Immigration Act, found that since its passage and through 2015, new immigrants, their children and grandchildren added 72 million people to the U.S., which accounted for 55 percent of the nation’s population growth.
 
The modern immigration wave vastly exceeds previous migration flows: between 1840 and 1889, 14.3 million immigrants came to the U.S., and between 1890 and 1919, an additional 18.2 million arrived.
 
Assuming continued decline in native fertility rates and a modest decline in net immigration, the Census Bureau calculates that in 2051 the U.S. population will hit 400 million.
 
But the Census Bureau is a government entity, politically motivated to calculate conservatively. Other independent studies, namely Pew and Decision Demographics, estimate that by mid-decade U.S. population will increase to more than 435 million. The same researchers concluded that if immigration were cut in half, population would grow only 70 million; if eliminated, only 31 million.
 
More than half a century has passed since the 1965 Immigration Act was enacted. Millions more live in our overcrowded nation. The question that Congress must answer is how many immigrants should be admitted annually to guarantee the best quality of life for future generations. Arguments to reduce immigration should not be confused as anti-immigrant, but rather pro-environment. Congress has numerous options that could establish sensible immigration that would help immigrants and native-born alike.
 
They include:
 
- A sharp reduction in employment-based visas for all but the truly exceptional. Visa holders’ U.S.-born children are automatically granted citizenship which helps permanently anchor their parents in the U.S. Students, tourists and family visitors must return home when their temporary visas expire. Congress passed an entry-exit plan 30 years ago that hasn’t yet been implemented.
 
- Pass mandatory E-Verify, which would ensure that only citizens and legal immigrants are employed. E-Verify eliminates the jobs magnet that lures illegal immigrants.
 
- End the visa lottery, and promote refugee resettlement near their home nations.
 
- Pass Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton’s RAISE Act that would cut legal immigration from more than 1 million annually to 500,000. Less immigration creates tighter labor markets and puts upward pressure on long-stagnant wages.
 
The U.S. has no population policy, and therefore no understanding of the limits to growth.
 
Congress must act to reject the political correctness, which has made the mere mention of population stabilization taboo, and act quickly to create an improved quality of life for all.
 

Feds: 275,000 born to illegals in one year, would fill city the size of Orlando

Moms in the United States illegally gave birth to 275,000 babies in 2014, enough birthright U.S. citizens to fill a city the size of Orlando, Florida, according to an analysis of data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

The data showed that newborns to illegals accounted for 7 percent of all births in 2014, according to the analysis from the Pew Research Center.

"In 2014, about 275,000 babies were born to unauthorized-immigrant parents in the U.S., accounting for about 7 percent of all U.S. births, and 32 percent of all U.S. births to foreign-born mothers," said Pew's newly released report.

The report reviews births to unmarried foreign-born and American born women....

"A third of all births to foreign-born mothers were to unmarried women...

The analysis also found that the growth in the birthrate of America is entirely driven by immigrants.

Tribute to Dr. John Tanton

John H. Tanton, M.D. - retired ophthalmologist and eye surgeon is recognized as the founder of the modern immigration immigration reform movement.  A video tribute to John H. Tanton, M.D. is now available.  Tanton is also publisher and former editor of The Social Contract.

As a strong conservationist and leading advocate for the environment, Dr. John Tanton founded the Petoskey, Michigan regional Audubon Society. He has been active in a number of environmental organizations, both locally and nationally. Dr. Tanton recognized that continued human population growth is a significant contributor to environmental problems and he therefore became involved with the Sierra Club Population Committee and became President and board member of Zero Population Growth.

As immigration became the driving force behind unending U.S. population growth, John Tanton founded FAIR - the Federation for American Immigration Reform. John Tanton is pro-immigrant and pro-legal immigration, but at reduced, sustainable numbers. He states:

"The stresses caused by population growth cannot be solved by international migration. They must be confronted by and within each individual nation. Fundamental to the concept of national rights and responsibilities is the duty of each nation to match its population with its political, social, and environmental resources, in both the short and the long term. No nation should exceed what the biologists call its 'carrying capacity.'"

This video is a tribute to the life and accomplishments of Dr. John Tanton. For more information, see:

The John Tanton website
http://johntanton.org/

The Social Contract
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/

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

 

Backsliding on communicable diseases brought to the US by illegal aliens

Rick Oltman has described, in no uncertain terms, the threats brought right into our nation's living room by the utter disregard for the well being of the citizens of this great country.

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

A Weapon of Mass Destruction – A Weapon of Cultural Destruction?

By Rick Oltman, February 29, 2016

Back as early as the mid-1990s, parents of grade schoolers in California were learning that diseases that were once believed to have been eliminated were back in the public schools.  Head lice was epidemic in many schools.  Products, once discontinued, were brought back to market to deal with the disgusting infection.

Measles and whooping cough were spreading rapidly.  To many Californians, the cause was obvious:   illegal alien students were bringing these infections back into the schools...

Scarlet fever also reappeared.

A polio-like disease caused partial paralysis in California children.

Remember H1N1, aka “swine flu,” from a few years ago?...

We seemed to have escaped widespread infection from Ebola.  Will it be the same with the Zika virus?

More recently, as a result of the massive influx of (not only) illegal alien children from Central America who were not being medically screened, the U.S. has had outbreaks of other illnesses that were once eradicated; TB:  Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Chickenpox and Smallpox.

MDR – TB, multiple drug resistant tuberculosis, rampant in South East Asia, has been coming across the southern border for years.

Multiple drug resistant diseases are the result of improper use and overuse of antibiotics.  Evolution and natural selection can produce organisms that we cannot defeat.  And, in an environment where diseases can travel halfway around the world in a single day, the possibility of an outbreak of a deadly epidemic is as real as your worse science fiction nightmare.

However, just this week, Health and Human Services has announced that in a month, on March 28th, three sexually transmitted infections will no longer bar you from entering our country....

What is a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD)?

WMD is often referred to by the collection of modalities that make up the set of weapons:  chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive.

WMD is defined in U.S. law (18 USC §2332a) as “Any weapon involving a disease organism.” ...

Now, ask yourself, “What possible benefit to America is there in allowing people infected with communicable diseases to come into our country, legally or illegally?  What possible explanation can there be for a government to be so irresponsible as to expose our populace to any disease like those listed above?”

Read the full article at USInc.com

1,019 refugees received in Oregon in 2014

The Federation for Immigration Reform has issued a new 2-part report on distribution of refugees in each state in the U.S. from Oct. 1, 2013 through Sept. 30, 2014.

The report is based on statistics from federal sources. FAIR prepared charts showing the distribution in each state 

Below is FAIR’s chart of the 1,019 refugees admitted to Oregon, showing the country of originClick here to see the chart.

The page about Oregon is shown on page 29 of the 50 pages in FAIR’s summary. Because Delaware, Montana, and Wyoming have not yet received any refugees, they are not included in the list.

According to this chart, the percentage distribution of refugees by country of origin that were received in Oregon from Oct. 1 2013 to Sept. 30, 2014 are as follows:

Iraq - 28%

Somalia - 21%

Burma – 19%

Bhutan - 10%

Dem Rep Congo - 7%

Iran - 4%

Ukraine - 2%

Afghanistan - 2%

Other - 7%  (includes Cuba, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Moldova, Sudan, Russia, Vietnam, Belarus, China, and Kazakhstan)

For more detailed information about issues related to refugee resettlement in the United States and our national security,  please visit the CAIRCO website

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 - population