President

Corvallis Police: 'We're not in the business of immigration enforcement'

The Corvallis Police Department has decided what it will do about immigration and citizenship enforcement: Nothing.

In the three weeks following the presidential election, the department has received several questions from citizens concerned about immigration enforcement. Police Chief Jon Sassaman said it was time to clarify the department's policies.

Currently, Corvallis Police Department policy prohibits any form of discrimination, which includes discrimination based on a person’s citizenship status. Oregon law also prohibits law enforcement agencies from “detecting or apprehending persons whose only violation of law is that they are persons of foreign citizenship.”

Sassaman said the department would not participate in any immigration enforcement, even if Oregon law allowed for it.

“Not only do we not do it, we’re not going to do it,” Sassaman said Thursday. “We’re not in the business of immigration enforcement.”

While federal laws could change, Sassaman said he has no plans to change department policy....

“I don’t want people to be afraid,” Sassaman said...

“How people define sanctuary city might be different across the country,” Sassaman said. “So we wanted to reaffirm to the community that we’re not in the business of immigration enforcement and be as clear as possible.”

Some have speculated that cities or agencies who take exception to possible changes to federal immigration laws could jeopardize federal funding and grants. But Sassaman said he is not concerned the announcement will affect any future federal funding for the department.

“We will remain consistent with grant applications we apply for. And I guess we’ll know if we get denied,” he said. “We’ll cross that bridge when we get there.”

Rep. Steve King holds hard line against Obama DREAMers, despite Trump’s concession

The fate of the recipients of Obama’s “Deferred Action” program, referred to as DREAMers, is still up in the air as Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King made it very clear that he is opposed to any effort to keep the program in place.

In a CNN interview Thursday, King tried to explain how some of the illegal aliens granted “deferred status” by Obama could be dangerous criminals, much to the shock of the stunned CNN host.

The question of what should be done with Obama’s DREAMers arose after Trump seemed to signal that he might be open to extending their “deferral” status in an interview posted Wednesday. King rightly interjected in the interview that many of these DREAMers are no longer children but are adults after having been in the United States illegally for decades. King seemed to try to blame children for their parents bringing them illegally into the United States before deciding on blaming the parents instead.

On the same side of the aisle but on the opposite side of the issue stands South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who is preparing a bill to keep Obama’s DACA program in place and settle the issue. Trump himself has vacillated wildly between saying he would deport all illegal aliens beginning on the first day of his presidency and the far more moderate position of deporting “criminal” illegal aliens and possibly granting a form of amnesty after securing the border.

 

What is a sanctuary city and what does it mean in Portland?

The night Donald Trump was elected, the future of millions of residents nationwide was called into question. In Oregon, an estimated 130,000 people living in the state without proper authorization likely wondered what would happen next.

Trump called for the deportation of 11 million undocumented immigrants during his presidential campaign. He recently pivoted and said two to three million people would immediately be deported, which is how many were deported during Obama’s tenure.

The uncertainty of what Trump will do once he take office prompted hundreds of cities across the country to announce or re-affirm their status as sanctuary cities.

Sanctuary cities, however, may not provide the protection the word “sanctuary” suggests.

A sanctuary city does not mean the community has become a refuge for people who are not living there legally. It does not provide more homes for people, nor does it guarantee shelter. And some cities, like Portland, have declared themselves sanctuary cities without enacting any laws to back up that claim.

Still, for leaders to assert their city a sanctuary is a politically risky maneuver as Trump and his pick for Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, have threatened to cut federal funding to sanctuary cities.

So what does a “sanctuary city” mean?

There is no hard-and-fast definition and each sanctuary city is different. In Portland, it mainly means that local law enforcement has been asked not to work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to help deport undocumented immigrants.

“ICE would like local jails to hold folks who have immigration violations for an additional 48 hours, so ICE can process them,” said Michael Cox, spokesman for Portland’s mayor-elect Ted Wheeler. “Many cities feel like those actions impair their ability to police their own city.”

The ICE request has been criticized because it may make people less likely to report crimes.

Portland already had an informal commitment to deny ICE’s 48-hour hold requests when Mayor-elect Ted Wheeler reaffirmed Portland’s status as a sanctuary city in November.

But there are no laws that prohibit the city from at any point changing its mind.

That doesn’t sit well with many in Portland. On Nov. 21, hundreds of people, led by a group called Latino Milenios (translation: millennials), demonstrated in front of city hall and demanding legal action to back up the city’s sanctuary declaration.

“We’re in a very difficult moment here. There are Latino families that don’t even want to take their children to school,” said Francisco Lopez, political director for the immigrant-rights group Voz Hispana Cambio Comunitario. He says he’s received more than a dozen phone calls daily since the election from people worried about deportation.

Hate crimes have also increased nationwide, and Oregon has landed at the top of the list. Many crimes are targeted at immigrants and people of color.

Lopez and others want Portland to implement a bevy of protections, similar to other sanctuary cities such as San Francisco, which has dedicated millions to its immigrant protection efforts.

San Francisco has been criticized for being over-protective. President-elect Trump blasted the city after a woman was shot to death by a Mexican man with a criminal record who had been deported several times.

Most undocumented immigrants in the U.S. do not have criminal records. Two-thirds have lived in the country for more than a decade and 70 percent contribute to the workforce.

Lopez says many are part of families that include U.S. citizens and legal action is a necessary step to protect people in Trump’s America, which he calls “a very different world.”

Voz Hispana and Latino Milenios want Portland to provide legal services to immigrants who have been victims of racism or face deportation, formally declare the city will not cooperate with ICE or allow raids of immigrant families, lobby the state to create safeguards to protect immigrants, and launch a campaign against hate crimes.

“These laws will not prevent things from getting worse,” Lopez said. “We are talking about being prepared to protect and defend our undocumented immigrant families.”

He likens the idea to a Martin Luther King, Jr. quote: "It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me."

Mayor-elect Ted Wheeler’s office said he will consider the requests once he takes office.

“The phase we’re in now is analyzing the legal framework that exists and determining whether it’s adequate given the incoming administration,” said Wheeler’s spokesman, Michael Cox.

Wheeler’s office is adamant that protecting Portland's immigrants is paramount, even if that means losing federal funding.

“Our values as a community, when it comes to being a place that is safe and welcoming for all people, are more important than the federal funding that would be attached to violating them,” Cox said.

Portland received $48.9 million in federal grants last year. It’s unclear how much Trump would drain from sanctuary cities as punishment for not working with federal immigration officials.

“It’s unknown what that federal funding would be,” Cox said. “We don’t know what he’s talking about withholding. The president-elect has made many commitments during the campaign, some of which he’s backed off of already. It’s hard to say.”

Trump has indeed backed off his pledge to deport immigrants, to some extent. He has not yet backed off his threat to defund sanctuary cities.

Lopez says the uncertainty of what a Trump administration could do is all the more reason for Portland to act.

“We don’t know what’s going to happen. There are people who are afraid of being on the streets,” he said. “These human beings are part of the socioeconomic fabric of our community and we need to do something about it.”
 

OBAMA ENDS AIR WATCH ON DRUGS, ILLEGALS

If you had any lingering doubt that Obama was on-purpose trying to destroy America and Americans, and flood us with criminals, drugs, Jihadi, illegals, violence and death, then this new information could maybe tarnish the luster on your day.

“No Borders,” is a bad idea. That is, unless you’re a deranged liberal. The ones I’ve talked to seem to think these crimes on the border—of allowing illegal entry, catch, and release; or don’t even catch—are all just perfectly ducky. “I welcome all brothers and sisters,” they have said to me; whatever that means, I don’t know.

Whose brother? Whose sister? Oh, wait…I know, the 30 or 50 other family members each illegal could personally bring in. And then THEIR brothers and sisters.

Yeah. Right. Over the cold, dead body of America.

Oh. and talking to a liberal about ANYthing political is like talking to an inmate of a psychiatric center...

Forget it. Forget them. But here’s what I was going to tell you:

From Breitbart.com (Nov. 18, 2016):

“The new orders by the Obama Administration to release Haitians caught at the border will only exacerbate the current situation since Mexican cartels are now coaching illegal aliens on how to game the U.S. immigration system, Border Patrol agents said.

“As Breitbart Texas reported, the current administration is moving to release hundreds of Haitians being held in detection centers in Arizona and California.The result of that release will be a new marketing tool for Mexican cartels and human smuggling organizations, said Hector Garza, National Border Patrol Council Local 2455 President during an exclusive interview with Breitbart Texas.

‘They are being told that all they have to do is request asylum and claim to be in fear and they will be released,’ said Garza who is a U.S. Border Patrol agent but is able to talk to the media in his capacity as local union president.

“In the case of Haitians, Breitbart Texas has reported on how they arrive to Mexico claiming to be African to receive a 20-day permit to pass through the country northward. With that permit, they have been arriving at U.S. international bridges requesting asylum.

“The move continues to overwhelm U.S. authorities as the number of asylum seekers continues to rise, adding more work to the already overwhelmed agents who, according to NBPC officials, [on purpose deprived by Obama] lack manpower, equipment, and help from Washington.”

And there’s this, also from Breitbart.com (Nov. 20, 2016):

“DHS officials quietly shutdown the military aerial support program known as Operation Phalanx…The DHS, which has a history of lying to the public about the actual situation along the Mexican border, asserted that illegal crossing have declined along the Texas-Mexico border…Breitbart Texas has reported extensively throughout the year about the increasing numbers of border crossing apprehensions…In the months leading up to the election of President-Elect Donald Trump, immigrants began flooding across the border at record numbers…Operation Phalanx utilized Nation Guard UH-72 Lakota helicopters specially equipped with night vision and other surveillance equipment…The shutdown of Operation Phalanx comes as [Obama’s personal, know-nothing sock puppet] Secretary Jeh Johnson’s term of service is about to come to an end. He will be replaced in January by a DHS Secretary selected by President-Elect Trump who has promised more aggressive action in securing the nation’s southern border….”

Jeh Johnson and Obama gone? Free at last! Free at last! Thank Father God Almighty for Donald Trump, because we are free at last!

That is…if Obama actually allows Trump to assume power; if he is not nullified by Obama’s Masters; if he is not harmed by the Marxist, Islamist, foreign Trillionaires and Rulers of Earth who finance and run this violent, sickening, entirely Democrat caper.



Hidden Ipsos Poll: Public Strongly Backs Donald Trump’s Plan To ‘Pause’ Legal Immigration

Hidden Ipsos Poll: Public Strongly Backs Donald Trump’s Plan To ‘Pause’ Legal Immigration

immigration
AP/DAMIAN DOVARGANES

A just-released poll shows that Donald Trump’s campaign-trail immigration and labor policies have overwhelming public support, and strong opposition from just one-sixth of voters. 

The Ipsos poll shows that only about one-in-six Americans strongly oppose Trump’s policies towards immigrant labor, repatriations, sanctuary cities, Islamic migrants, employer oversight and his ground-breaking proposal to reduce legal immigration.

Trump’s labor and immigration policies are “strongly” backed by .... an average support of almost 60 percent, versus strong opposition of just 15 percent. Roughly 10 percent did not answer the questions.

Ipsos is a highly rated polling firm, but conducted the poll in September and hid the pro-Trump answers until Nov. 16, a week after the election....

Trump’s promise to start “immediately deporting” illegals who have committed crimes gets 75 percent strong and somewhat support, and only 7 percent strong opposition. That’s 10-to-one support.

Sixty-two percent support and 13 percent strongly oppose, “detaining or immediately deporting all people who enter the U.S. illegally.”

Sixty-seven percent of respondents support, and only 9 percent strongly oppose, the implementation of current laws that levy fines on employers who hired illegals instead of Americans...

The poll shows that Trump’s revised plans to minimize the danger of immigrant Islamic terrorism is backed by 59 percent, and strongly opposed by 12 percent. That result echoes the public’s strong opposition to Islamic doctrines.

The most significant result in the poll, however, is the strong support for reductions in legal immigration, which amounted in 2015 to roughly one new immigrant for every two Americans entering the workforce, or one immigrant for every two American births... 57 percent, back reductions in legal immigration, while 13 percent did not take a position.

On the campaign trail, Trump called for a two-year pause in legal immigration....

Any significant reduction in immigration would raise Americans’ salaries and wages, cut welfare spending, reduce housing costs and drop unemployment, according to recent studies by a Wall Street advisory group that backed Hillary Clinton, and by the National Academies of Sciences.

More importantly, a major reduction in immigration would force Democrats to give up their 20-year strategy of gaining political dominance by importing government-dependent poor workers and voters...

Screen Shot 2016-11-17 at 1.54.35 PM

 Many polls show that most Americans do like immigrants, and they want to be seen liking immigration — but they also want a reduction in the annual immigration of 1 million people, which cuts salaries for the 4 million Americans who enter the job market each year. ...

This same outspoken response is also visible in a pre-election poll of the midwesterners who gave Trump his election-winning state victories, and of Latinos, who mostly prioritize the economy over additional immigration of their ethnic group. On Nov 8, “actual election results from counties with large Latino populations suggests that Trump probably did no worse than [Gov Mitt] Romney among Latinos, and probably did better,” said Harry Enten, a data analyst at Fivethirtyeight.com.

These disparate views of Americans are highlighted in the IPSOS poll by unusually strong opposition to Trump’s campaign-trail promise to extend the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Overall, 42 percent strongly or somewhat supported building a wall, while 32 percent strongly opposed a wall, said the poll.

But this response from the 1,005 adult respondents is likely influenced by party solidarity because it was conducted Sept. 1 to Sept. 2, 2016, during the political campaign where Trump’s main theme was construction of a border wall...

Similarly, 23 percent of the poll’s respondents strongly opposed cancellation of the Obama’s 2012 quasi-amnesty for younger illegals, who are called ‘Dreamers” by Democratic advocates. When asked if they support or oppose “Ending the executive orders that protect people who were brought to the US illegally when they were children,” 23 percent said they were strongly opposed, and 23 percent said they “strongly” support the proposal. Overall, 43 percent of Americans support an end to the amnesty, while 45 percent somewhat or strongly oppose ending the amnesty.

But when the same question is asked without any reference to “children,” support for repatriations spikes and opposition crashes. Sixty-two percent support — and only 13 percent strongly oppose — “detaining or immediately deporting all people who enter the U.S. illegally.” That’s four-to-one support for enforcing immigration laws. 

The public’s conflicting answers may also be caused by the poll’s lack of information about the scale and economic impact of current immigration.

'Sanctuary Cities' Vs. National Security and Public Safety

Why 'sanctuary city' mayors should be given an MVP Award by ISIS and drug cartels.

The lunacy of the immigration executive orders and other actions of the Obama administration to block the enforcement of our immigration laws and immigration anarchy will be brought to a screeching halt on the day that Donald Trump replaces Mr. Obama in the Oval Office.

However the “Immigration All-Clear” will not be sounded across the United States in cities and states that have been declared “Sanctuaries” by the mayors and governors who have created a false and very dangerous narrative that equates immigration law enforcement with racism and bigotry.

This insidious false claim has been heartily embraced by the demonstrators who are rampaging across the United States...

This is the false narrative that has enabled mayors of so-called “Sanctuary Cities” to foist this lunacy on the residents of their cities...

The challenge for the Trump administration and for all Americans, is to eliminate these enclaves of lawlessness.

Sanctuary cities are highly attractive to illegal aliens and the criminals, fugitives and likely terrorists among them who entered the United States by evading the inspections process...

Sanctuary cities, however, certainly do not provide “sanctuary” for the residents of those cities who, all too often, fall victim to the crimes committed by these criminal aliens...

Terrorists would most likely seek to set up shop in sanctuary cities to evade detection and arrest.

They can use the security provided by such “leaders” as Chicago’s Rahm Emanuel and New York’s Bill de Blasio as a staging area for attacks...

While politicians from both parties often claim that the “Immigration system is broken” as a way of justifying their positions of advocacy for massive amnesty programs and the creation of these dangerous “sanctuaries” for criminals, fugitives and terrorists, in reality, this is “Immigration Failure -- By Design.”

America’s borders and immigration laws are our first line of defense and last line of defense against international terrorists, transnational criminals, fugitives from justice and those foreign nationals who would displace American workers...

A quick review of a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)- Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182 would quickly dispel the bogus claim that equates the enforcement of our immigration laws with racism.

That section of law enumerates the categories of aliens who are to be excluded. Among these classes of aliens who are to be prevented from entering the United States are aliens who suffer from dangerous communicable, diseases or extreme mental illness.

Additionally, convicted felons, human rights violators, war criminals, terrorists and spies are to be excluded as well as aliens who would seek unlawful employment...

It is vital to note that our immigration laws make absolutely no distinction in any way, shape of form as to the race, religion or ethnicity of any alien.

The Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) is a multi-agency federal task force that operates under the aegis of the FBI.  While, as might be expected, the FBI contributes the greatest number of enforcement personnel to that effort, the second largest contingent of agents assigned to the JTTF are special agents of  Immigration and Customs Enforcement / Homeland Security Investigations (ICE/HSI).

The majority of international terrorists also commit immigration law violations including visa fraud, immigration benefit fraud and a list of other crimes which include immigration law violations....

This quote from the official report, “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel” identifies the nexus between systemic failures of the immigration system and vulnerability to terror attacks in the United States.

Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. It would remain largely unknown, since no agency of the United States government analyzed terrorist travel patterns until after 9/11. This lack of attention meant that critical opportunities to disrupt terrorist travel and, therefore, deadly terrorist operations were missed.

That quote also underscores the importance of enforcing our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States and how failures of such efforts create deadly vulnerabilities for the United States.  This concern was the focus of my recent article, “Immigration and the Terrorist Threat: How our leaders are spawning catastrophe.”

Read the full article.

How Trump can ramp up deportations

Donald Trump says one of the first things he'll do when he becomes president is deport up to 3 million undocumented immigrants. It would be one of the largest such roundups in American history.

Here are answers to many questions about how he will accomplish that.

How many "criminal" undocumented immigrants are there?

In a post-election interview with CBS' 60 Minutes, Trump said he would deport 2 million to 3 million of the 11 million undocumented immigrants who are "criminal and have criminal records." The actual number depends on how one defines "criminal."...

The Department of Homeland Security puts the number of "removable criminal aliens" at 1.9 million...

Many are already in custody, making them the easiest to identify....

How will the government track down those undocumented immigrants?

Trump could ask Congress for more funding to increase the size of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), but a quicker solution would be redirecting the current 14,000 ICE officers, agents and special agents to concentrate on arrests.

But only 1,000-1,100 agents currently down fugitive undocumented immigrants who are criminals or gang members....    The rest work on detention operations, screening visa applicants in foreign countries, conducting immigration audits of U.S. businesses and investigating crimes that include money laundering, import and export fraud, and human trafficking.

Sandweg said several core functions must be maintained because of congressional mandates, but an ICE director could easily refocus more people to finding undocumented immigrants.

"There would be a lot of flexibility for an ICE director to re-calibrate the agency," said Sandweg, now an attorney with Frontier Solutions.

How quickly can undocumented immigrants be deported?

Before they can be deported to their home country, immigrants have the right to a hearing before an immigration judge. But the nation's immigration courts are already overburdened.

That has led to a huge backlog of 521,676 cases waiting nearly two years on average to be heard, ...

The only way to speed up those cases is to hire more immigration judges....

Yet, even if Trump filled all 374 posts and added 150 more judges over the next two years, they could not clear out all the currently pending immigration cases until 2023, according to a review by Human Rights First, a non-profit advocacy group.

Which undocumented immigrants will be targeted?

Trump's emphasis on criminals may leave millions of other undocumented immigrants in the clear.

One such group: the 740,000 young undocumented immigrants granted deportation protections under President Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA. To qualify, they had to register with the federal government, have a clean record and work or go to school.

Trump has vowed to end the program and rescind their deportation protections, leaving them fearful of being targeted.

Mexican nationals would be the most heavily targeted, because they account for 52% of undocumented immigrants, according to the Pew Research Center. Another 15% come from Central America, 13% are from Asia, and 6% come from South America.

Deported Mexicans are usually sent home by bus, while those from other countries are put on flights.

What will happen to those who remain?

As a candidate, Trump often hinted that some undocumented immigrants could remain in the U.S. During the 60 Minutes interview, he said that after the border is secured, his border wall is completed and "everything gets normalized," he would "make a determination" on how to handle those who remain.

Trump has not elaborated, but Republican proposals in recent years provide some possibilities....

Obama halts amnesty push in court, bows to incoming Trump administration

The administration has already taken the first step to accommodate President-elect Trump’s positions...

Judge Hanen had halted Mr. Obama’s expanded amnesty in February 2015.....ruling that the administration broke administrative law.   An appeals court twice upheld his injunction, as did the Supreme Court, in a 4-4 deadlock decision this summer....

“Given the change in Administration, the parties jointly submit that a brief stay of any further litigation in this Court ...

Judge Hanen would still have to consent to staying the proceedings.

The amnesty would apply to more than 4 million illegal immigrants who were either brought to the U.S. as children, or who were parents of American citizens or legal immigrants....

The amnesty was declared not be executive order, but rather by a series of memos from the Homeland Security secretary.

Judge Hanen ruled the amnesty violated the Administrative Procedure Act ...  The appeals court went further, ruling Mr. Obama broke immigration law, which never envisioned so broad a use of “deferred action” powers.

Read the full article.

A must read: Open Letter to the NY Times on Its Epic Failure in the Presidential Election

Open Letter to the NY Times on Its Epic Failure in the Presidential Election
 
By Jerry Kammer, November 17, 2016

I am writing in response to the epic failure of your coverage of the presidential election. I write as a former immigration reporter whose respect for the Times has long been diminished by the ideological bias that pervades much of your immigration coverage and commentary.

I believe that bias explains your inability to appreciate the public frustration with immigration that was a significant factor in the victory of Donald Trump. Your work on immigration exemplifies the liberal bias...

I point first to the banner headline across the top of page one on Wednesday, November 9, the day after the election. With a solipsistic slant more appropriate to a journal of social psychology, it declared: "DEMOCRATS, STUDENTS, AND FOREIGN ALLIES FACE THE REALITY OF A TRUMP PRESIDENCY". It was a headline that will live in journalism infamy.

Bloomberg editor Mark Halperin explained why. Said Halperin, "This is the day after a surprising, underdog, sweeping victory, and their headline is not 'Disaffected Americans have a champion going to the White House' or 'The country votes for fundamental change.' The headline is about how disappointed the friends of the people who run the New York Times are about what's happened." Halperin observed that the headline was like a self-parody of the clueless editorial elite. "I mean, it's amazing!" he exclaimed. "I mean, it's The Onion!"

The Times' reporting and editorializing on illegal immigration have long been marred by a lack of interest in how the story — especially the recent decades of mass illegal immigration — plays out in the lives of ordinary Americans....

Back then, the Times was attuned to the political complexity and moral ambiguity in which immigration policy is steeped. An editorial observed, "For reasons of vitality, humanity and history, America wants and needs immigrants. What it does not need is such an uncontrollable flood of illegal migrants..".

In recent years, led by publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., the paper has adopted an ideology of multiculturalism...

Said Sulzberger, "You weren't supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights, whether it's the rights of immigrants to start a new life; or the rights of gays to marry; or the rights of women to choose." Predicting that fateful decisions lay before the graduates, he said: "You will choose at each point whether to be bold or hesitant, inclusive or elitist, generous or stingy."

Inclusiveness has become the most sacred value at our country's most influential newspaper. The Times editorial board demands full inclusion for illegal immigrants, whom it embraces as "Americans in waiting"....

Consider your choice of the two reporters you have placed in Arizona since 2010, when the state replaced California as the epicenter of the national immigration debate. Both Marc Lacey and Fernanda Santos are talented journalists. But both were far more attuned to illegal immigrants' struggle for inclusion than to the insistence of most Arizonans that the federal government enforce immigration laws that, by definition, set standards for inclusion and prescribe penalties for those who defied the law.

Lacey, for example, had chronicled the struggle for gay rights in such countries as Cuba, Jamaica, Argentina, and Mexico. Santos, herself an immigrant from Brazil, co-authored "Latinos in the United States: A Resource Guide for Journalists". Neither reporter showed much interest in the anxieties of Arizonans like the woman who wrote this eloquent plea in a letter to the editor of the Mesa Tribune:

Why am I a racist because I am scared? The media say, "But they only want to work to feed their families." I also want to work to feed my family, but most important to me is that my family is safe. I think those who can make over $40,000 a year don't realize how much it affects the working poor. My husband is a construction worker. He goes to a job site to work and has to compete with a person who will accept $6 an hour. My husband now has to work two jobs. ... I am frustrated by the system and I know that the government at all levels (local and federal) has failed the American people. If I am a racist for feeling this way, then so be it, I'm a racist.

It was a passionate, defiant cry from the heart that is incomprehensible at the New York Times, whose reporters are committed to the Times' narrative that illegal immigrants are noble strivers opposed only by snarling nativists. Perhaps the most notorious example was longtime immigration reporter Nina Bernstein, whose monotone preoccupation with the migrants' side of the story prompted journalist Mickey Kaus to write in 2007 that Bernstein was "the most tendentious and biased reporter on the paper — that would be the famed liberal bias — and she's almost certain to weave a cocoon that will help restrict Times readers to utter marginal irrelevance as debate proceeds."

Now the Times' national immigration reporter is Julia Preston. While Preston's reporting is less tendentious than Bernstein's, she continues the tradition of inattention to immigration's effects on the job prospects of Americans at the lower end of our job markets. Preston has provided admirable coverage of the displacement of American tech workers. But she has done little to inform Times readers of the lesser-skilled workers who are displaced by illegal immigrants...

Finally, I point to a 2015 interview that Times reporter Liz Robbins conducted for C-SPAN with Dan-el Padilla Peralta, whose book Undocumented chronicled his journey from his native Dominican Republic.

Padilla Peralta's pages seethe with contempt for opponents of illegal immigration. He describes them as "anti-immigrant zealots who invoked the law as cover for their xenophobia", as "haters", racists, and "the chauvinistically minded few". He heaps scorn and ridicule on a former classmate Princeton, calling her an "immigrant-hater chick".

Robbins' interview was a protracted swoon, an all-in-for-inclusiveness abdication of the journalistic duty to conduct skeptical inquiry. As I watched on TV, I waited in vain for probing questions. Did Padilla Peralta see no justifiable reason for the United States to limit immigration? When did U.S. policy toward him and his family become reprehensible? Was it when his parents defied immigration law by overstaying their visas? Was it a few years later when his father had returned to the Dominican Republic and his mother was receiving government support for housing and food? Did Padilla Peralta understand why Americans are infuriated by his claim, asserted on behalf of immigrants whether legal or not, that, "We are in the ascendant. America is ours." What was this if not arrogant mockery of the democratic society that has allowed it to happen?

Robinson was so rapturous in Padilla Peralta's presence that she felt no need to ask him to explain the strutting, arrogant taunt at the very end of his book: "And so to the haters, a final word: Demography is a bitch. Holla at me if you want me to break it down for you."

What we heard on November 8 was a primal scream from tens of millions of Americans who feel betrayed by political, social, and journalistic elites whose post-national religion of inclusiveness demands the glorification of illegal immigration and the demonization of those who protest our government's failure to stop it.

You could start by directing your reporters to spend a few hours learning the views of Barbara Jordan, the late civil rights champion who in 1995 reported to Congress as chair of the federal Commission on Immigration Reform. Typical of Jordan's concern for her fellow Americans was her insistence that "it is both a right and a responsibility of a democratic society to manage immigration so that it serves the national interest."

Read the full article.

Trump deportations would hit Idaho ag, where a fourth of all workers are undocumented

What would happen to an industry that loses one-fourth or more of its employee base?

Idaho’s agriculture industry, and particularly its farming sector, might run head-on into that hypothetical question if President-elect Donald Trump follows through on a pledge to reverse his predecessor’s executive actions on immigration and deport undocumented immigrants en masse.

Agriculture represents about 4 percent of Idaho’s $65 billion annual gross domestic product, and about the same percentage of the state labor force..... - approximately 45,000...

But Pew’s analysis says Idaho’s undocumented workers dominate in the state’s agriculture industry....

The state’s agricultural industry employs more than 40 percent of Idaho’s undocumented immigrant population, and more than one-quarter of all state ag workers are undocumented. Idaho, Washington and Oregon are the only three states in the nation where agriculture is tops in both of those metrics, said Jeffrey Passel, senior demographer with Pew and one of the study’s authors.

The share of agriculture workers who are unauthorized “tends to be very high everywhere,” Passel said. But Idaho’s agriculture sector is “a little bit unusual” because it also employs the largest portion of the state’s unauthorized immigrants. Nationwide, construction and the leisure/hospitality industry, which includes hotel service workers, employ the most unauthorized immigrants.

“Just 4 percent of unauthorized workers are in agriculture” nationwide, Passel said.

IDAHO TOPS IN AMNESTY ELIGIBILITY

Idaho ranked first among states in the percentage of undocumented immigrants who could avoid deportation under President Obama’s executive action on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and related moves on pathways to citizenship — more than 60 percent, according to Pew. That’s because such a high percentage of Idaho’s undocumented population, nearly 9 out of 10, is Mexican. That population qualifies at a higher rate based on DACA’s criteria regarding longevity and family ties.

Trump has proposed immediately reversing Obama’s actions and deporting anyone in the U.S. illegally.

A measurable if imperfect proxy for undocumented population is foreign-born workers. .... Almost all are Hispanic, he said.

The state’s unemployment rate is tight at 3.8 percent. “We have been short of workers here for the last two or three years,” Troxel said.

‘DEPENDENT ON FOREIGN-BORN LABOR’

Troxel said that if workers are deported, “it will have impact.”

“If food prices go up because it can’t get harvested or processed by the existing workforce, then there’s going to be dramatic repercussions,” he said.

Like Troxel’s group, the Idaho Dairymen’s Association has supported and worked for immigration reform to address the status of undocumented workers. Dairy workers are needed year-round, not seasonally, so the industry has little use for H-2A visas granted to temporary agricultural workers.

“Any change in immigration policy that brings some certainty to what that policy is, is a positive...

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - President