sanctuary cities

Supporters of illegal-immigrant sanctuary policies are notorious for employing emotion over logic. Matt Reed's commentary ("Providing sanctuary in schools isn't enough," May 25) is a spot-on example.

Reed, a teacher at Beaverton School District's Westview High, relates the story of a student's father detained for a violation of immigration law "by a federal government increasingly hostile toward immigrants." (As do many sanctuary advocates, Reed refers to people here illegally merely as "immigrants," a semantic sleight of hand designed to conflate legal with illegal immigrants and thereby to cast immigration-law enforcement as an attack on all immigrants)

But Reed is wrong.  A "hostile" government is not responsible for the father's predicament. The father is. He knew the potential consequence of violating immigration law and took the chance to do so nonetheless. He himself -- not a government doing its duty in enforcing the law -- inflicted what Reed decries as an "immense emotional and mental toll" on his son.

"Our schools need to be . . . sanctuaries," Reed wrote. Wrong again. School districts are not sovereign entities unto themselves. As do all American institutions, they have responsibilities to the nation of which they are a part. One of those responsibilities is to inculcate in students respect for that nation's laws, and for the representative democracy by which Americans make those laws.

When schools adopt sanctuary policies, they do the opposite. They sow contempt for the United States' sovereignty and the laws that safeguard that sovereignty. They teach that one should have impunity to violate laws one opposes or finds inconvenient.  And they teach that open defiance of law is an acceptable way to seek change.

How will this help mold children into responsible adult citizens? How will this impact the safety and stability of the country our youths will grow up in and someday lead?

Like the father of Reed's student, my father too was born abroad -- in Mexico. But he went through the legal process to come to and remain in the U.S.  By doing so, he demonstrated respect for the sovereignty, law and citizens of his new country.  His noble example, and the lesson it taught me, has guided me throughout my life.  

In my nearly 14 years in the Oregon legislature, I have been at the forefront of efforts to compel our state government to respect and support U.S. immigration law. This year, I'm a chief sponsor of a campaign to place a measure on the November ballot to repeal Oregon Revised Statute 181A.820, the state's illegal-immigrant sanctuary law.  I urge registered voters to sign our petition.

Oregonians charge public schools with the education of their children. And, in regard to American laws, those schools need to set a responsible adult example. That is rejecting illegal-immigrant sanctuary policies and demonstrating instead support for the laws Americans have enacted to protect their nation.

Hundreds gathered last year at the State Capitol to support upholding Oregon's sanctuary law. Rep. Sal Esquivel writes that he's against the decades-old law and is currently working on ballot initiative to repeal it. (Anna Marum/2017)

-- Rep. Sal Esquivel, R-Medford, represents District 6 in the Oregon House of Representatives. His petition can be found at StopOregonSanctuaries.org.
  Read more about School sanctuary policies set poor example for students: Guest opinion

Information obtained from the Oregon Department of Corrections (DOC) indicated on April 1, 2018 that 173 of 970 foreign nationals (criminal aliens) in the state’s prison system were incarcerated for the crime of rape — 17.84 percent of the criminal alien prison population (Note: The number of criminal aliens incarcerated for rape in DOC prisons does not necessarily equal the number of Oregon residents victimized by the violent crime of rape).

Using DOC U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) immigration detainer numbers, the following table reveals the total number of criminal alien inmates along with the number and percentage of those alien inmates incarcerated on April 1st in the state’s prisons for the crime of rape.
 

Source: Research and Evaluation DOC Report ICE inmates list 01 April 18.

Significant numbers, the 173 criminal aliens in the DOC prison system incarcerated for rape were 17.84 percent of all inmates, domestic and foreign, in the state’s prisons for the crime of rape.

Using the DOC Inmate Population Profile and ICE immigration detainer numbers from April 1st, the following table reveals the total number inmates incarcerated for rape, the number of domestic and criminal alien inmates incarcerated for rape and the percentage rapes committed by criminal aliens.
 

Source: Research and Evaluation DOC Report ICE inmates list 01 April 18 and Inmate Population Profile 01 April 18.

Criminal aliens incarcerated in DOC prisons committed at least one crime of rape in 19 of 36 Oregon counties —52.78 percent of the counties in the state.

Five Oregon counties, Marion (49 rapes), Washington (43 rapes), Multnomah (26 rapes), Lane (14 rapes) and Clackamas (10 rapes) had 142of 173 criminal alien inmates incarcerated in DOC prisons for the crime of rape — 82.08 percent of the alien inmates incarcerated for rape.

Using DOC ICE immigration detainer numbers, the following table reveals the number and percentage of criminal alien inmates incarcerated on April 1st that were sent to prison from the state’s 36 counties for the crime of rape.
 

Source: Research and Evaluation DOC Report ICE inmates list 01 April 18.

Criminal aliens from 22 identified countries incarcerated in DOC prisons have raped Oregon residents.

Foreign nationals who declared their country or origin as being Mexico incarcerated in the DOC prison system committed 141 of 173 criminal alien rapes in Oregon — 81.50 percent of the alien rapes in the state.

Using DOC ICE immigration detainer numbers, the following table reveals the self-declared countries of origin of the 173 criminal alien inmates by number and percentage incarcerated on April 1st in the state’s prisons for the crime of rape.
 

Source: Research and Evaluation DOC Report ICE inmates list 01 April 18.

David Olen Cross of Salem, Oregon writes on immigration issues and foreign national crime. The preceding report is a service to Oregon state, county and city governmental officials to help them assess the impact of foreign national crime in the state. He can be reached at docfnc@yahoo.com. His past crime reports can be found at http://docfnc.wordpress.com/. Read more about Oregon Department of Corrections: Foreign National Rape Report April 2018

On March 1, 2018 Oregon’s Multnomah County had 196 of the 976 foreign nationals (criminal aliens) incarcerated in the Oregon Department of Corrections (DOC) prison system; the county was third in foreign national crime in the state with 20.08 percent of the criminal aliens in DOC prisons.

The following table reveals how Multnomah County residents were harmed or victimized by the 196 criminal aliens incarcerated on March 1st in the DOC prison system with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) ICE detainers.
 

Source: Research and Evaluation DOC Report ICE inmates list 01 March 18.

This table reveals, using the DOC ICE detainer numbers from March 1st, the total number of criminal alien inmates incarcerated in the DOC prison system by type of crime from all Oregon counties, the total number of criminal alien inmates from Multnomah County in DOC prisons by type of crime and the percentage of those alien inmates who were from the county by type of crime.

Source: Research and Evaluation DOC Report ICE inmates list 01 March 18.

The following table reveals the self-declared countries of origin of the majority of the 196 criminal aliens with ICE detainers who have harmed or victimized the residents Multnomah County in the DOC prison system.
 

Source: Research and Evaluation DOC Report ICE inmates list 01 March 18.

Criminal aliens from 33 different countries have harmed or victimized Multnomah County residents.

David Olen Cross of Salem, Oregon is crime researcher who writes on immigration issues and foreign national crime. The preceding report is a service to Oregon state, county and city governmental officials to help them assess the impact of foreign national crime in the state. He can be reached at docfnc@yahoo.com. His past crime reports can be found at http://docfnc.wordpress.com/.
Read more about Oregon’s Multnomah County Third in Foreign National Crime in March 2018

The Oregon Department of Corrections (DOC) March 1, 2018 Inmate Population Profile indicated there were 14,853 inmates incarcerated in the DOC’s 14 prisons.

Data obtained from the DOC indicated that on March 1st there were 976 foreign nationals (criminal aliens) incarcerated in the state’s prison system; criminal aliens were 6.57 percent of the total prison population.

Some background information, all the criminal aliens incarcerated in the DOC prison system were identified by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and have ICE detainers placed on them.

Using DOC Inmate Population Profiles and ICE detainer numbers, the following table reveals the total number inmates, the number of domestic and criminal alien inmates along with the percentage of inmates with ICE detainers incarcerated on March 1st in the state’s prisons.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

Source: Research and Evaluation DOC Report ICE inmates list 01 March 18 and Inmate Population Profile 01 March 18.

Using DOC ICE detainer numbers, the following table reveals the number and percentage of criminal alien prisoners incarcerated on March 1st that were sent to prison from the state’s 36 counties.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

Source: Research and Evaluation DOC Report ICE inmates list 01 March 18.

Here are the ways Oregon residents were victimized by the 976 criminal aliens.

Using DOC ICE detainer numbers, the following table reveals the number and percentage of criminal alien prisoners incarcerated on March 1st by type of crime.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

Source: Research and Evaluation DOC Report ICE inmates list 01 March 18.

Using the DOC Inmate Population Profile and ICE detainer numbers from March 1st, the following table reveals the total number inmates by crime type, the number of domestic and criminal alien prisoners incarcerated by type of crime and the percentage of those crimes committed by criminal aliens.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

Source: Research and Evaluation DOC Report ICE inmates list 01 March 18 and Inmate Population Profile 01 March 18.

Using DOC ICE detainer numbers, the following table reveals the self-declared countries of origin of the 976 criminal alien prisoners by number and percentage incarcerated on March 1st in the state’s prisons.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

Source: Research and Evaluation DOC Report ICE inmates list 01 March 18.

Beyond the DOC criminal alien incarceration numbers and incarceration percentages, per county and per crime type, or even country of origin, criminal aliens pose high economic cost on Oregonians.

An individual prisoner incarcerated in the DOC prison system costs the state approximately ($108.26) per day.

The DOC’s incarceration cost for its 976 criminal alien prison population is approximately ($105,661.76) per day, ($739,632.32) per week, and ($38,566,542.40) per year.

None of preceding cost estimates for the DOC to incarcerate the 976 criminal aliens includes the dollar amount for legal services (indigent defense), language interpreters, court costs, or victim assistance.

Bibliography

Oregon Department of Corrections Population Profile March 1, 2018:
http://www.oregon.gov/doc/RESRCH/docs/inmate_profile_201803.pdf

Oregon Department of Corrections Population Profile (unpublished MS Excel workbook) titled Incarcerated Criminal Aliens Report dated March 1, 2018.

Oregon Department of Corrections Issue Brief Quick Facts IB-53, February 1, 2017:
http://www.oregon.gov/doc/OC/docs/pdf/IB-53-Quick%20Facts.pdf

This report is a service to Oregon state, county and city governmental officials to help them assess the impact of foreign national crime in the state.

Current and past monthly DOC criminal alien reports are available at the following blog: https://docfnc.wordpress.com/ . Read more about Oregon Department of Corrections: Criminal Alien Report March 2018

SANTA ANA, Calif. (AP) — More local governments in California are resisting the state's efforts to resist the Trump administration's immigration crackdown, and political experts see politics at play as Republicans try to fire up voters in a state where the GOP has grown weak.

Since the Jeff Sessions-led Department of Justice sued California last month over its so-called "sanctuary state" law limiting police collaboration with immigration agents, at least a dozen local governments have voted to either join or support the lawsuit or for resolutions opposing the state's position. Those include the Board of Supervisors in Orange County, which has more than 3 million people.

More action is coming this week, with leaders in the Orange County city of Los Alamitos scheduled to vote Monday on a proposal for a local law to exempt the community of 12,000 from the state law. On Tuesday, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors is meeting to consider joining the Trump administration lawsuit.

Immigration has been a hot topic across the country since President Donald Trump campaigned in 2016 on promises of tougher enforcement and a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. It has been a lightning rod issue in California far longer....

"When the attorney general of the United States decides to take a firm position against it, I think that gave a signal to a lot of us that, 'Hey, California is on the wrong side of this thing,'" said Fred Whitaker, chairman of the Republican Party in Orange County...

"Politics is very much about emotions, especially in midterms," he said. "I think it was only a matter of time when people went back to the issue that actually hits the nerve in the Republican base these days more than any other."

Under Democratic leadership, California has enacted a series of laws in recent years aimed at helping immigrants, including issuing driver's licenses regardless of legal status and assisting with tuition at state universities. After Trump was elected, lawmakers passed the measure to limit police collaboration with federal immigration agents....

Most of the local governments siding with the Trump administration are in Orange County, an area once considered a GOP stronghold but that voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. But it's starting to spread.

Escondido in neighboring San Diego County has voted to support the federal lawsuit and last week the small city of Ripon in the state's Central Valley did the same.

In many cases, meetings on the issue have drawn boisterous crowds. Anti-illegal immigration activists have traveled from city to city to attend...

In response to the controversy, some local governments have taken the opposite approach. Leaders in Santa Ana, an Orange County city home to about 330,000 residents, voted to support California in the lawsuit.

Some of the supervisors pushing the issue in Orange and San Diego counties are Republicans running for Congress and they may see this as a way to generate needed enthusiasm, said Louis DeSipio, a political science professor at the University of California, Irvine.

"The mobilization that could come from introducing immigration debates into county political races may be a critical element in a year like 2018 when Democrats will likely be more mobilized than Republicans," he said. Read more about Opposition to immigrant sanctuary spreading in California

Introduction

Since the election of Donald J. Trump as President of the United States, hundreds of cities and municipalities across the country have declared themselves "sanctuary cities." A sanctuary city is a municipality, or other state/local subdivision, that, by law or policy, prohibits local officials from cooperating with federal immigration authorities.¹ In other words, it's a case of American cities blatantly violating federal statutes against harboring illegal aliens.²

Proponents of these policies claim that they do not interfere with federal law enforcement activities.³ Rather, they claim, such policies simply leave immigration enforcement to the federal government. But that is semantic hairsplitting. Sanctuary policies are nothing other than a deliberate attempt by state and local entities to impede the enforcement of federal immigration laws.⁴

State and local law enforcement officers are far more likely to encounter criminal aliens during routine job activities than are federal agents.⁵ As such, the ability of state and local law enforcement officers and government officials to freely cooperate and communicate with federal immigration authorities is not just important – but essential – to public safety.⁶

The Claim: Sanctuary Policies Enhance Information Sharing Between the "Immigrant" Community and Law Enforcement

The current model of policing management preferred by most law enforcement agencies is called “community policing.”⁷ It relies on the notion that police officers should be seen as part of the communities they serve and that they require the cooperation of victims and witnesses to solve crime and convict offenders.⁸

Sanctuary proponents claim that if state and local police officers are seen as “immigration agents,” then illegal aliens who are the victims of crime, or witnesses to crime, will not come forward to aid police.⁹ In effect, they are claiming that good immigration enforcement interferes with the ability of state and local law enforcement agencies to stop child predators, drug dealers, rapists or robbers.¹⁰

Why the Claim is False

1. There’s no proof. There is simply no documented evidence indicating that any illegal alien has ever been deported solely as a result of reporting a crime or volunteering information to the police.¹¹ As a practical matter, when police are offered information about a crime, they do not inquire about the immigration status of the person volunteering it; they do not “bite the hand that feeds them.” Moreover, prosecutors have no interest in removing the witnesses they need to successfully obtain convictions against criminals.

2. Like everyone else in the United States, illegal aliens can offer information that may be valuable to police investigations on various anonymous "tip-lines." Jurisdictions do not need sanctuary policies in order to acquire information this way.¹²

3. Sanctuary policies don’t provide illegal aliens with any permanent form of immigration relief. The administration of our immigration laws falls solely within the jurisdiction of the federal government. State and local authorities cannot provide illegal aliens with any type of immigration status.¹³ They can only harbor illegal aliens and help them evade U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement – both of which are serious violations of federal law.¹⁴

4. The federal government administers a number of programs that allow state and local police to seek lawful status for illegal aliens who aid in the prosecution of criminals. Illegal aliens who have valuable information that they do want to share with law enforcement, but who feel nervous about doing so, have no legitimate concerns about being deported. If illegals provide helpful information to police, they may qualify for a "S," "T," "U" or "VAWA" nonimmigrant visa, which, in-turn, would allow them to apply for permanent legal status in the U.S.¹⁵ Where those visas are not appropriate, the federal government may also provide cooperating victims and witnesses with deferred action or parole.¹⁶

5. Most illegal aliens don't cooperate with police, even in sanctuary cities. The vast majority of illegal aliens come from countries where law enforcement authorities are either corrupt or serve as a tool of state oppression.¹⁷ They don’t suddenly begin trusting American police officers because of sanctuary policies.

And gangs – which are inextricably tied to crime in illegal alien neighborhoods – often exact retribution from anyone who is viewed as collaborating with law enforcement.¹⁸ As a result, most illegal aliens have no interest in cooperating with policing authorities at all.¹⁹ In most cases, they will only speak with investigators if they are likely to receive some form of immigration status in return for their testimony.

6. Sanctuary policies diminish trust in the integrity of law enforcement and may actually inhibit information-sharing. Community policing strategies were developed from a study called Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in Our Communities.²⁰ The authors found communities that discourage all public safety violations, from low-level offenses such as vandalism to administrative building code violations, are most successful in reducing serious crimes because they promote a culture of compliance with the law.

Conversely, cities that ignore and promote illegal immigration – usually for political gain – erode civic trust in law enforcement. They send a clear message that law enforcement agencies in sanctuary jurisdictions are willing to tolerate a certain level of lawlessness.²¹ The result is a chilling effect; fewer residents may be willing to approach police if they believe that officers are only willing to enforce certain laws against certain law-breakers under certain conditions. Uniformly enforcing all laws for all residents of a particular jurisdiction demonstrates integrity and fairness and fosters open dialogue.

7. Sanctuary policies increase criminal activity by illegal aliens. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, about 68 percent of released prisoners wind up being arrested for another criminal offense within three years and 76.6 percent end up being re-arrested within five years.²² Sanctuary policies shield illegal alien criminals from arrest and removal by ICE when they are released from local jails and state prisons. As a result, illegal alien criminals return to American communities, where they regularly commit new crimes.²³ Many criminal illegal aliens seek out sanctuary jurisdictions because they know living in one significantly reduces the chance that they will be deported if arrested by local police.²⁴ On the other hand, cooperating with ICE to identify and remove criminal aliens results in their removal from the United States, protecting Americans and lawfully present immigrants from further victimization.

How Many Criminal Aliens Are Allowed Back Onto Our Streets by Sanctuary Policies?

According to ICE estimates, roughly 2.1 million criminal aliens are currently living in the United States, over 1.9 million of whom are subject to deportation.²⁵ It’s tough to determine how many of those criminal aliens have evaded capture by immigration authorities because of sanctuary policies.

Most correctional institutions distinguish only between American-born and foreign-born inmates. The foreign-born category includes illegal aliens, nonimmigrant visa holders, lawful permanent residents and naturalized U.S. citizens. Virtually none of the policing and corrections agencies in the United States keep clear statistics on how many illegal aliens they process each year.

Here’s what we do know:

• The San Francisco County Jail houses roughly 15,000 inmates during a typical year.²⁶

• According to the Public Policy Institute of California, roughly 17 percent of inmates in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) are foreign-born.²⁷

• Assuming only half of those inmates are aliens (as opposed to naturalized citizens), and that only half of those aliens are unlawfully present, the CDCR illegal alien population would be roughly 4 percent.

• If the San Francisco County Jail population breaks down in a similar fashion that would mean that the County of San Francisco releases approximately 600 illegal alien criminals back into the community each year, without informing ICE.

• The actual number of criminal aliens turned loose is probably much higher.

Consider that, in addition to San Francisco, a number of huge American cities like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles have also declared themselves to be sanctuary cities.²⁸ That means that state and local governments are actively harboring thousands of illegal aliens each year and then releasing them into American communities, without so much as a nod to ICE.

Conclusion

Sanctuary policies don’t encourage information sharing between immigrant communities and local police. That’s because they don’t offer illegal aliens a path to any form of lawful status in exchange for their cooperation. State and local governments have no authority to confer any type of immigration status.

As such sanctuary policies just result in state and local agencies aiding and abetting illegal aliens as they continue to violate our immigration laws. And illegal aliens know this, that’s why they flock to sanctuary jurisdictions.

Accordingly, there is no reliable evidence that sanctuary policies have ever encouraged a single illegal alien to cooperate with local law enforcement authorities. But there are numerous examples of law abiding citizens who have become the victims of illegal alien crimes in sanctuary jurisdictions throughout the United States.

So – apart from buying into the sanctuary myth – what can a city do to foster information sharing and keep communities with large immigrant populations safe?

Recognize that many immigrants, both legal and illegal, are generally hesitant to provide information to police. This may be the result of experiences in their home country or a desire not to be perceived as a "snitch."

Ensure that local policing agencies engage regularly with immigrant communities and consistently demonstrate that American police officers uniformly enforce all laws for all residents of their jurisdictions.

Educate community members and law enforcement officers so they understand that, in certain circumstances, DHS may provide illegal alien crime witnesses or victims some form of relief from removal with an "S," "T," "U" or "VAWV" visa.

Abolish sanctuary policies and let ICE do its job. If the governments in sanctuary jurisdictions were really concerned about fighting crime, they would cooperate with ICE to permanently remove illegal alien criminals from their communities. Doing so would ultimately increase the number of resources available to deter crime because every dollar ICE spends removing a criminal alien from the United States is one that local communities don’t have to expend on criminal justice costs.

Although the federal government is responsible for regulating immigration, state and local law enforcement play an important role in helping to ensure that immigration law is effectively enforced. Illegal and unconstitutional sanctuary city policies undermine the rule of law and prevent local, state and federal law enforcement agencies from working in conjunction with each other as they should.

They put law-abiding members of our communities at risk. Kate Steinle was murdered by an illegal alien who was deported five times and had a lengthy felony record. Ms. Steinle is only the most recognizable of hundreds of Americans who have been killed by illegal aliens with extensive criminal records who should have been removed from the United States after their first conviction.

Tolerating illegal immigration and providing a "safe haven" for illegal aliens is unfair to immigrants who respect our nation's laws. In addition to waiting months or years to come here, legal immigrants abide by the entry, employment, health, and processing laws and regulations set by our government. Besides giving future prospective immigrants little incentive to follow the law, sanctuary policies are an affront to those who do it the right way.

Footnotes and endnotes

¹Federation for American Immigration Reform, “State Sanctuary Policies,” https://fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/state-sanctuary-policies
²Offices of the United States Attorneys, “1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses,” U.S. Attorney’s Manual, https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1907-title-8-usc-1... and “1913. 8 U.S.C. 1327 – Aiding Entry of Certain Criminal or Subversive Aliens,” https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1913-8-usc-1327-ai...
³Editorial Board, “When Cities Refuse to Enforce Immigration Laws: Is Chicago a Sanctuary for Nullification,” Chicago Tribune, March 29, 2017, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-sanctuary-citie...
⁴Federation for American Immigration Reform, “Sanctuary Cities: Obstructing Immigration Enforcement,” October 2, 2015, https://fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Sanctuary_Cities-Obstruct...
⁵Joel Gehrke, “Report: U.S. Spent $1.87 Billion to Incarcerate Illegal Immigrant Criminals in 2014,” July 28, 2015, https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/07/nearly-2-billion-spent-jailing-il...
⁶Federation for American Immigration Reform, “The Role of State and Local Law Enforcement in Immigration Matters and Reasons to Resist Sanctuary Policies,” January 2016, https://fairus.org/issue/illegal-immigration/role-state-local-law-enforc...
⁷U.S. Department of Justice, “Community Policing Defined,” Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Revised Edition 2014, https://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-p157-pub.pdf
⁸James Q. Wilson, George L. Kelling, “Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety,” The Atlantic, March 1982, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/03/broken-windows/304465/
⁹Chuck Wexler, “Police Chiefs Across the Country Support Sanctuary Cities Because they Keep Crime Down,” Los Angeles Times, March 06, 2017, http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-wexler-sanctuary-cities-immig... and Debra A. Hoffmaster, Gerard Murphy, Shannon McFadden, Molly Griswold, “Police and Immigration: How Chiefs Are Leading Their Communities Through the Challenges,” Police Executive Research Forum, 2010, http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Free_Online_Documents/Immigration...
¹⁰Tanvi Misra, “Harsh Policing of Immigrants Is Bad for Everyone,” CityLab, January 26, 2016, https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/01/immigration-policing-enforcement-...
¹¹Heather MacDonald, “Crime and the Illegal Alien,” Center for Immigration Studies, June 1, 2004, https://cis.org/Crime-Illegal-Alien
¹²Cynthia Lum, PhD, “Tip Line Technologies: Intelligence Gathering and Analysis Systems,” National Institute of Justice, July 1, 2005, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/211677.pdf
¹³Todd Shepherd, “Term ‘Sanctuary City’ Is Misleading to Illegal Immigrants,” Washington Examiner, April 2, 2017, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/term-sanctuary-city-is-misleading-to-...
¹⁴Federation for American Immigration Reform, “The Law Against Hiring or Harboring Illegal Aliens,” December 1999, https://fairus.org/issue/illegal-immigration/law-against-hiring-or-harbo...
¹⁵Karma Ester, “Immigration: S Visas for Criminal and Terrorist Informants,” Congressional Research Service, July 19, 2005, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RS21043.pdf; Chelsea Phua, “Obscure Visa Helps Illegal Immigrants Who Witness Crimes,” Sacramento Bee, July 8, 2010, http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/immigration/obscure-visa-helps-...; U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “U and T Visa Law Enforcement Resource Guide,” https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/PM_15-4344%20U%20an...; American Immigration Council, “Fact Sheet: Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Provides Protections for Immigrant Women and Victims of Crime,” May 7, 2012, https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/violence-against-wom...
¹⁶U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Tool Kit for Prosecutors,” April 2011, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/osltc/pdf/tool-kit-for-prosecut...
¹⁷Police Executive Research Forum, “Refugee Outreach and Engagement Programs for Police Agencies,” May 2017, http://www.policeforum.org/assets/refugeeoutreach.pdf
¹⁸Peter Finn, Kerry Murphy Healey, “Preventing Gang- and Drug-Related Witness Intimidation,” National Institute of Justice, November 1996, http://www.popcenter.org/problems/witness_intimidation/PDFs/Finn&Healey_...
¹⁹Kelly Dedel, “Guide No. 42- Witness Intimidation,” Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, 2006, http://www.popcenter.org/problems/witness_intimidation/
²⁰George L. Kelling, Catherine M. Coles, Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in Our Communities, Free Press, 1998, https://www.manhattan-institute.org/fixingbrokenwindows
²¹Jen Kerns, “Sanctuary City Policies Are Ruining California – Here’s Why I Left,” The Hill, December 2, 2017, http://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/362940-sanctuary-city-polici...
²²Bureau of Justice Statistics, “3 in 4 Former Prisoners in 30 States Arrested Within 5 Years of Release,” April 22, 2014, https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rprts05p0510pr.cfm and, Matthew R. Durose, Alexia D. Cooper, PhD, Howard N. Snyder, PhD, “Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005-2010 – Update,” Bureau of Justice Statistics, April 22, 2014, https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4986
²³Pete Hutchinson, “Dangerous ‘Collateral Consequences’ in Santa Clara County, California,” National Review, May 17, 2017, https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/05/immigrant-criminals-plea-bargains...
²⁴John M. Morganelli, “Here’s Why ‘Sanctuary Cities’ Are Bad Public Policy,” Penn Live, July 14, 2015, http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2015/07/heres_why_sanctuary_cities_are.html
²⁵Federation for American Immigration Reform, “Criminal Aliens,” May 2016, https://fairus.org/issue/societal-impact/criminal-aliens
²⁶City and County of San Francisco, “City Performance Score Cards – County Jail Population,” http://sfgov.org/scorecards/public-safety/county-jail-population
²⁷Public Policy Institute of California, “Just the Facts: Immigrants and Crime,” June 2008, http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_ImmigrantsCrimeJTF.pdf
²⁸Bryan Griffith, Jessica M. Vaughan, “Maps: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States,” November 26, 2017, https://cis.org/Map-Sanctuary-Cities-Counties-and-States Read more about The Dangerous Myth That Sanctuary City Policies Encourage Victims and Witnesses to Cooperate with Local Law Enforcement

On February 1, 2018 Oregon’s Marion County had 235 of the 975 foreign nationals (criminal aliens) incarcerated in the Oregon Department of Corrections (DOC) prison system; the county was first in foreign national crime in the state with 24.10 percent of the criminal aliens in DOC prisons.

The following table reveals how Marion County residents were harmed or victimized by the 235 criminal aliens incarcerated on February 1st in the DOC prison system with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) ICE detainers.
 

Source: Research and Evaluation DOC Report ICE inmates list 01 February 18.

This table reveals, using the DOC ICE detainer numbers from February 1st, the total number of criminal alien inmates incarcerated in the DOC prison system by type of crime from all Oregon counties, the total number of criminal alien inmates from Marion County in DOC prisons by type of crime and the percentage of those alien inmates who were from the county by type of crime.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

Source: Research and Evaluation DOC Report ICE inmates list 01 February 18.

The following table reveals the self-declared countries of origin of the majority of the 235 criminal aliens with ICE detainers who have harmed or victimized the residents of Marion County in the DOC prison system.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

Source: Research and Evaluation DOC Report ICE inmates list 01 February 18.

Criminal aliens from 19 different countries have harmed or victimized the residents of Marion County.

David Olen Cross of Salem, Oregon is crime researcher who writes on immigration issues and foreign national crime. The preceding report is a service to Oregon state, county and city governmental officials to help them assess the impact of foreign national crime in the state. He can be reached at docfnc@yahoo.com. His past crime reports can be found at http://docfnc.wordpress.com/. Read more about Oregon’s Marion County First in Foreign National Crime in February 2018