society

What Saint Thomas Aquinas Says About Immigration

What Saint Thomas Aquinas Says About Immigration:

 

Woodburn School District discriminated against teacher candidate based on citizenship status, Justice Department finds

The Woodburn School District discriminated against an applicant who was the most qualified for a teaching job but was denied the position because of his citizenship status, the U.S. Department of Justice found.

The rejected candidate was a work-authorized, conditional permanent resident but not a U.S. citizen. He had applied for a Spanish teaching job at Woodburn Academy of Arts and Sciences.

In a settlement announced Tuesday, the school district must pay the candidate $5,774.81...

The Justice Department also found the district inappropriately prescreened the candidate by asking him for specific documentation to verify his citizenship status and work authorization...

The Immigration and Nationality Act prohibits employers from refusing to hire certain work-authorized, non-U.S. citizens because of their citizenship status...

The Woodburn School District "appreciates the Department of Justice’s investigation and guidance,'' according to a statement released by the district Tuesday.

"While the investigation involved a single incident that took place over a year ago, the District takes it seriously and will use it as a training opportunity to prevent future incidents,'' the statement said.

The Immigrant and Employee Rights section of the Justice’s Department’s Civil Rights Division received a complaint from the applicant on Aug. 20, 2018...

The Woodburn School District...must not discriminate against applicants or employees based on citizenship, immigration status or national origin, when recruiting, hiring or firing employees, the settlement says.

The district must ensure human resources staff, school supervisors and other staff are trained to comply with the law. New staff involved in recruitment or hiring decisions must view a Justice Department webinar on The Immigration and Nationality Act and document they’ve seen it within 60 days of their hiring or selection, the agreement says.

If any further violations are identified during the the three years of the agreement, Justice Department officials will give the school district 30 days to correct the problem without initiating a new investigation.

Woodburn School District Superintendent William Rhoades signed the agreement Oct. 10.

"The District is fully committed to compliance with the law and highly committed to supporting equity for our immigrant community,'' the district said in its statement. "We especially recognize the contributions of our immigrant staff, students and families and we continually seek to improve our practice.''


 

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

Immigration by undemocratic means

John Wahala

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 

Ann Coulter: How we became the world's suckers on immigration

Looking at our immigration policies compared to the rest of the world, you’d think America lost a bet.

The United States is one of only two developed countries in the world (the other is Canada, and even it has some restrictions we don’t have) with full “birthright citizenship,” meaning that any child born when his mother was physically present within the geographical borders of the U.S. automatically gets a U.S. birth certificate and a Social Security card.

That means legal immigrants, pregnant women sneaking in on tourist visas, travelers on a three-week vacation, cheap foreign workers on “temporary” visas and, in some cases, foreign diplomats.

There are laws on the books that say the kids born to diplomats don’t automatically become citizens simply by being born here but — like so many of our immigration laws — these are treated as mere suggestions.

And that’s not all.

We’re the only country but two that confers automatic citizenship on children born to illegal aliens, or “anchor babies.” This is not “birthright citizenship,” which refers to children born to legal immigrants. (There’s nothing vulgar, bigoted, racial or sexual about the term “anchor baby.” It’s a boating metaphor: A geographical U.S. birth “anchors” the child’s entire family in this country by virtue of the baby’s citizenship.)

The other two countries that grant citizenship to anchor babies are Canada and Tanzania. Canada doesn’t have Latin America on its border, of course — and Tanzania is reconsidering the policy.

Here’s a fun fact: Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman — the notorious Mexican drug lord, sentenced on July 17 to life plus 30 years for drug trafficking and multiple murder conspiracies — has two children who are American, born in sunny California to his wife, who’s an anchor baby herself.

Why would any country make the calculated decision to reward illegal immigration by granting the full privileges of citizenship to the children of illegals or foreign visitors who arrange to have the births take place on its soil?

As a matter of fact, “we” didn’t make such a decision.

The late Supreme Court Justice William Brennan invented the anchor-baby policy out of whole cloth and snuck it into a footnote of an opinion written in 1982. Yes, this ancient bedrock principle, this essence of “Who We Are,” dates all the way back to the Reagan administration.

The Brennan footnote was not part of the decision. It does not have the force of law. Yet, today, we act as if Brennan’s absurd dicta is the law of the land for no reason other than: a) sheer ignorance and b) a fear of being called “racist.”

No U.S. Congress or Supreme Court ever debated and then approved the idea that children born to mothers illegally present in the country should automatically become citizens. Consequently, any president or Congress could simply state that children born to illegal aliens are not citizens. If only we had a president or Congress that would do so.

Which reminds me: No other country fawns over illegal immigrants brought in as minors, day in and day out, calling them “Dreamers.”

The U.S. is one of the rare countries that makes citizens of people who can’t speak the language — along with the masochistic Swedes. (How did they terrorize the world 800 years ago?) The United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Australia, Norway and the Netherlands all have the crazy idea that citizens should be able to communicate with one another. We have a language requirement on the books but, it turns out, that too is merely a suggestion. 

No other country holds a “lottery” in which the prize is U.S. citizenship. Ireland has a lottery but, for whatever sick and twisted reason, the Irish give the winners money, not citizenship in their country.

We bring in 50,000 lucky lottery winners each year, literally for no reason at all. (Thanks, First President Bush!) To enter, you must be from a specified country, like the Congo, Nepal, Ethiopia or Uzbekistan. You submit your name to the State Department and, if your name is pulled out of a hat, WELCOME TO AMERICA!

This rigorous system for choosing our fellow citizens gave us, for example, Egyptian national Hesham Mohamed Ali Hedayet, who opened fire at the El Al Airlines ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport in 2002, murdering two people. His wife had won the lottery five years after he came here on a tourist visa.

It got us Sayfullo Saipov, the Uzbeki who plowed a rented truck into a crowd of bicyclists and pedestrians on Halloween 2017 in New York City, killing eight and injuring many more.

It bestowed upon us Akayed Ullah, the Bangladeshi national who got in as the nephew of a lottery winner. Ullah enriched us by detonating a bomb in New York City’s Port Authority in December 2017.

Speaking of nephews of Bangladeshi lottery winners trying to blow up the Port Authority, no other major country in the world issues a majority of its visas to people based on the fact that they have a relative already living here. 

We’re not talking about the spouses and minor children of immigrants we really want. These are adult siblings, nephews and nieces — who have their own adult children, elderly parents and mothers-in-law. Two-thirds of all legal immigrants to the U.S. come in on these “family reunification” visas. (We wouldn’t want our immigrants to be illiterate, poor and lonesome.)

Even the New York Times — despite its decidedly anti-MAGA bent — has described our “family reunification” system as wildly out of step with the rest of the world. 

We’re in a buyer’s market but, instead of taking the top draft picks, we aggressively recruit the desperately poor, the culturally deprived, the sick and the needy. All because American elites seem to believe that it’s unfair — even snooty — to try to bring in the best immigrants we can.

Ann Coulter is a lawyer, a syndicated columnist and conservative commentator, and the author of 13 New York Times bestsellers. The most recent, “Resistance Is Futile! How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind,” was published in 2018. Follow her on Twitter @AnnCoulter

http://www.oregonir.org/blog/ann-coulter-how-we-became-worlds-suckers-im...

The population explosion - cause and effect

A recent Gallup poll found that more than 750 million adults around the world say they would like to move to another country if they had the opportunity, and the U.S. is the most desired destination. 

Our country is already adding one international migrant (net) every 34 seconds, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Population Clock.  For some decades now, immigration levels here have been over 1 million annually.  SO … now people everywhere are complaining about traffic congestion, insufficient housing, overcrowded schools, etc. 

Consider that birth rates of native-born citizens have been at or below replacement level since the 1970’s.  It’s obvious that the true cause of the huge population growth is excessive immigration.  Social and business pressures have more or less silenced public discussion, but some intrepid souls continue to speak out.

Thanks to Jerry Ritter for writing and successfully getting this letter printed in the Eugene Register-Guard:

Sanctuary policy at the root of exploding class sizes, letter to the editor by Jerry Ritter, in the Register-Guard, Eugene OR, December 25, 2018.

There’s been a lot of ink lately on class sizes in Oregon.

Increased class sizes are primarily the result of population growth. Most of Oregon’s population growth is due to in-migration: domestic and foreign, legal and illegal.

Oregonians embraced continued encouragement of illegal immigration to our state by defeating Measure 105. So the welcome mat (sanctuary policy) stays out for people who have no right to be here. The Register-Guard’s editors proudly proclaimed on Nov. 27 that “Oregon has welcomed countless immigrants and refugees.”

I have no problem with legal immigrants, but I must ask sanctuary supporters, how does encouraging ILLEGAL immigration to Oregon help with class sizes? How does it reduce the gridlock on our roads? How does it lower our carbon footprint? How does it relieve the strain on social services (most immigrants receive some form of welfare)? How does it impact our housing crisis? Would they be willing to provide the funding to support one or more migrant families?

With the critical shortage of affordable housing in California and a continuing flood of illegal immigrants into that state, what do you suppose that means for Oregon and Washington with their welcome mats out?

Jerry Ritter, Springfield


Roy Beck, of NumbersUSA, has written for years about the need to curtail overall immigration.  See his updated summary at:  https://www.numbersusa.com/blog/new-projections-warn-much-more-congested-future-if-immigration-policies-arent-changed

Statement of DHS Secretary Nielsen, 12/26/2018: "Our system has been pushed to a breaking point by those who seek open borders. …”  

Have time for a laugh? Read this

Matt O’Brien, of FAIR, does a great put-down on academic discussions of immigration, in PhDs Take 800 Words to Say Absolutely Nothing About Immigration.

Excerpts:

… a recent op-ed in the Washington Post, “Like it or Not, Immigrant Children Are Our Future,” reveals just how far off the rails twenty-first century academics have drifted.

The essay was authored by Marcelo M. Suárez-Orozco, the Dean of the Graduate School of Education at UCLA and Carola Suárez-Orozco, the co-director of the Institute for Immigration, Globalization and Education at UCLA. Both hold PhDs. And both have had lengthy careers in academia. Yet, even working as co-authors, neither seems to be able to say anything relevant about immigration.

They begin with this jargon-laden nonsense: “An entirely new cartography of immigration is unfolding in real time.” If you’re scratching your head, don’t beat yourself up. I have almost as many degrees as the Suárez-Orozcos – and two decades of practical experience dealing with immigration issues – and I have no idea what that means either.

And, over the course of roughly 800 words, it doesn’t become any clearer. According to the Professors Suárez-Orozcos, “there are a cluster of impediments to integration that are particular to the current era of globalization.” But fear not, “scholars, educators and practitioners are coming together in a global ‘network of networks,’ endeavoring to move the needle in supporting immigrant youth.”

So…what’s the actual conundrum being addressed? It appears to be some vague riff on the standard far-left narrative: Developing-world immigrants are somehow more motivated than the current populations of the nations they seek to enter, and therefore essential to the continued success of those countries. Citizens of receiving nations who believe in borders and sovereignty are racist, rather than merely patriotic or practical. It is malice that blinds the citizens of Western democracies to all of the benefits of “diversity” that come with unchecked mass migration. We need immigrants to “fix” Judeo-Christian culture and save it from itself. Ergo, any limits on immigration are “racist” or “xenophobic” rather than reasonable or practical.

That narrative is absurd on its face. And the lack of coherence behind the argument is exactly why it must be expressed using highfalutin gobbledygook, instead of clear, analytical prose. ...

Thus, we live in a world where average citizens regularly make substantive, useful observations about immigration policy in 280-character tweets but two PhDs drone on for 800 plus words and succeed only in saying absolutely nothing about the very same issues.

Open-borders immigration policies have consequences

Many of the calls for open borders and to abolish ICE come from people who don’t understand the consequences of such policies.  Unfortunately, some do understand – perhaps most of the leaders of this new movement not only understand, they deliberately seek the end of the U.S. as a nation.

How did we reach such a state of affairs? Negative Population Growth’s latest report explains what happened to cause immigration, human capital and economic development in the U.S. which thrived in the mid-20th century, to spin out of control in recent decades. 

They suggest what to do about it now.  See Immigration, Population and the Labor Market: Toward a Fair System for American Workers. The issue is urgent because “If global population trends unfold as forecast, hundreds of millions of persons from Africa and the Middle East are likely to try to enter the country as unlawful migrants or as refugees or asylum seekers.” 

The overcrowding, housing shortages, traffic congestion, environmental degradation, etc. which are already serious problems today, will become unlivable chaos for all, immigrants as well as citizens.

Instead of flinging accusations of racism and callousness to the sufferings of “immigrants,” we need to think about the old fable of killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.  The U.S. cannot continue to be a safe, law-abiding country with freedom of thought and speech, scientific and technological advancement, acceptable quality of life, unless we respect, observe, and strictly enforce reasonable laws limiting immigration.

The way to help the poor of other nations is through financial and technical assistance, a course we have followed for over 50 years, when the federal Agency for International Development began.  Besides governmental programs, we also have many philanthropic organizations which directly aid countries in need.

We cannot invite the world to come in without limits – that’s a suicidal policy for the nation and the people living here.

University Of Oregon Attacks OFIR

Alert date: 
May 17, 2018
Alert body: 

UNIVERSITY OF OREGON'S TRADEMARK-INFRINGEMENT LAWSUIT THREAT FRIVOLOUS, POSSIBLY POLITICALLY MOTIVATED,  ALLEGES OREGONIANS FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM

Oregonians for Immigration Reform, the state's largest group advocating for immigration reductions, today condemned the University of Oregon for threatening to sue the group for trademark infringement.

"Last week, the University of Oregon notified OFIR that it would sue if our group did not immediately stop using the letter 'O,' with a depiction of a fir tree inside it, as part of our logo," said Cynthia Kendoll, OFIR's president.  "Our 'O,' the university claims, too closely resembles the 'O' it uses as its own logo."  Images of both logos appear at the end of this release.

"This is ridiculous," continued Kendoll.  "The 'O' in our logo and in the university's are in different fonts.  Our 'O,' unlike the university's, features a graphic inside.

"How, on the mere basis of a capital 'O' in both our logos, could any reasonable person confuse OFIR with the University of Oregon -- or believe the institutions are affiliated?  Does the university really believe it has the right to trademark a letter of the alphabet?

"Most importantly, do Oregonians want the state's flagship institution of higher learning to use their hard-earned tax money to bully an all-volunteer citizens' group over such a trivial matter?"

OFIR communications director Jim Ludwick suggested that politics, not trademark infringement, may be the real reason the university issued its lawsuit threat.

"In its cease-and-desist letter to OFIR, the university mentioned as one reason for its action the Southern Poverty Law Center's recent classification of OFIR as a 'hate' group," said Ludwick.  "But if the university had conducted even a cursory examination of the SPLC's tactics, it would have found the outfit exists mainly to smear patriotic Americans as 'racists' and 'xenophobes.'  Even mainstream liberals agree the SPLC inhabits the left-wing fringe.  If the university's lawsuit threat was truly about trademark infringement, why would its letter to us have mentioned the SPLC?"

In 2014, Ludwick noted, OFIR activists referred a measure to the statewide ballot via which Oregonians rejected illegal-alien driving privileges by a two-to-one margin.  This year, he continued, the group is collecting voters' signatures in an effort to qualify yet another measure -- to repeal the state's illegal-alien sanctuary law -- for this November's ballot.  "Given our record of success fighting illegal immigration in the political realm," asked Ludwick, "might the real reason for the university's action be to distract OFIR's attention from its ballot-measure campaign -- and thereby to chill a volunteer group's effort to influence public policy via direct democracy?"

"If so," concluded Ludwick, "it won't work.  We'll continue our fight against illegal immigration.  We'll get our measure onto the ballot.  And we'll continue to use the logo we use today."

Oregonians for Immigration Reform, founded in 2000, undertakes public-policy action to cut the excessive levels of legal immigration and end illegal immigration.

Open borders Marxists resort to childish name calling

Remember how elementary school kids used name-calling as a bullying tactic? There wasn't much rationale behind it. It was intended to intimidate, ridicule, and diminish the victim. 

Name-calling is pretty serious for kids. It's pretty funny when those who are purportedly adults resort to name-calling as a tactic of attempted intimidation.

There are very good reasons to enforce immigration law, as noted in the article My Secret Plan to Destroy America, by Dick Lamm, former Governor of Colorado. Another is that mass immigration is driving America's population to double within the lifetimes of children born today.

Those who support immigration reduction and immigration law enforcement are accustomed to being called names such as racist, nativist, and white nationalist.* That's it? That's all that the open borders Marxists can come up with? No arguments of substance, no plethora of factual evidence to substantiate their point?

The joke's on them! Anyone with half a brain can see through the shallow, childish attacks. Especially when babbled repetitiously by the Marxist mouthpieces of mass immigration.

The Big Lie

The Big Lie is a formal debating strategy where a falsehood so colossal is told that no one would dare question it. Incessant repetition gels its undeniable existence. The Big Lie was coined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925 book, Mein Kampf.

One of the most common Big Lies we hear is that "We're a nation of immigrants." Really? I'm not. Are you?

America is a nation of American citizens. A very small fraction of Americans are legal immigrants, and a larger fraction are illegal aliens who evaded capture at our border. In our past, the vast open spaces of America were settled by American settlers, some of whom were immigrants. In perspective, of course, every nation is ultimately a nation of immigrants - there are no documented cases of people sprouting directly out of the soil.

Another Big Lie is that the Statue of Liberty is a tribute to mass immigration. It's not. See the articles listed below to learn more about the third-rate poem that happened to win a fundraising contest.

The ad hominem attack

An ad hominem attack is a formal debating tactic of attacking your opponent's character as opposed to answering their argument. It is a de facto admission of the inability to win the debate on the merits of one's argument alone. 

Accusation of racism is a form of an ad hominem attack. Name-calling - that is, the ad hominem attack - is a popular tool of cultural Marxists, mainly because that's all they've got.

More attacks

More formal debating strategies - also knows as logical fallacies - are summarized in Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate and Master List of Logical Fallacies.

Other methods of attacking ideas and specific opponents prevail. Most notable are those delineated in Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. In particular, Rule 13 has been applied with vigor by the open borders leftists:

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions."

For example, open borders Marxists have repeatedly attacked John Tanton, who single-handedly fostered huge advances in the environmental and immigration sanity realms. See A Case Study in Disinformation - Attacking John Tanton. Other examples are noted in these articles: Alinsky Does Amnesty and the Political Persecution of Dinesh D’Souza.

The joke's on them

When you come across a racist attack levied against an immigration patriot - that is, a repetitious rehash of contorted material previously contrived, ask yourself:

What are they trying to prove? Is this the best argument they can come up with? It's gotta be a joke, right? Nobody could deliberately want to look that childish, inept, and stupid.

 


 

Related

Crazy SPLC smears black woman as white nationalist, by Fred Elbel, CAIRCO, November 5, 2015:

"As a black American, I am outraged at the lengths the hate-mongering left goes to smear advocates for sanity and control regarding immigration....

So if you subscribe to the SPLC and IMAGINE 2050 because you think they are fighting for minority Americans, you’ve been scammed, duped and used. They lie about anyone who doesn’t fall in line and with their anti-American ideology. Just as they lied about me, Ms. Espinoza, U.S. Inc. and everyone who attended the educational event in Washington...."

- Inger Eberhart, MBA, MA, Advisory Board member: The Dustin Inman Society, Writer: The Social Contract Press, Californians for Population Stabilization

 

The Practice of Ritual Defamation - How Values, Opinions, and Beliefs Are Controlled in Democratic Societies, by Laird Wilcox, The Social Contract, Spring 2010:

An important rule in ritual defamation is to avoid engaging in any kind of debate over the truthfulness or reasonableness of what has been expressed, only condemn it. To debate opens the issue up for examination and discussion of its merits, and consideration of the evidence that may support it, which is just what the ritual defamer is trying to avoid. The primary goal of a ritual defamation is censorship and repression....

It is not used to persuade, but to punish. Although it may have cognitive elements, its thrust is primarily emotional. Ritual defamation is used to hurt, to intimidate, to destroy, and to persecute, and to avoid the dialogue, debate, and discussion upon which a free society depends. On those grounds it must be opposed no matter who tries to justify its use.

Learn more about the widely discredited SPLC hate group

 

Time to Remove Socialist “Huddled Masses” Plaque from Statue of Liberty, by Selwyn Duke, Canada Free Press, February 2, 2018

Statue of Liberty - Liberty Enlightening the World

The Statue of Liberty stands firm on liberty, not a poem, enlightening the world

Oregon immigrant rights groups respond to Trump's order for 200,000 Salvadorans to leave U.S.

The Trump administration will end temporary legal immigration status for 200,000 Salvadorans who have been living in the U.S. for nearly two decades, the Department of Homeland Security announced Monday.

The decision means that Salvadorans who currently have Temporary Protected Status (TPS) must return to their homeland by September 2019 or become undocumented immigrants if they choose to remain without legal protections.

Salvadorans were first granted TPS in 2001 following a pair of devastating earthquakes that killed nearly 1,000 people and destroyed more than 100,000 homes in the Central American country.

There are roughly 4,784 foreign-born Salvadorans living in Oregon, according to a 2016 Migration Policy Institute report. Roughly 1.2 percent of Oregon Salvadorans were born in the United States. It's unclear how many TPS holders are affected in Oregon.

The decision comes two months after the Department of Homeland Security announced plans to end temporary residency permit programs granting 5,000 citizens from Nicaragua and 60,000 Haitians to live and work in the United States for roughly 20 years and eight years, respectively. In November, the Trump administration postponed a decision until July regarding a similar program granting refuge for 86,000 residents from Honduras.

Oregon immigrant rights and human rights organizations called the decision inhumane.

"The biggest issue is that these folks have put roots in Oregon, they have jobs, they have children born here," said Levi Herrera-Lopez. "Just like the issue of DACA, people are deciding if their families are going to have to split up."

The Salvadoran Embassy in Washington estimates that 97 percent of Salvadorans in the program over the age of 24 are employed and paying taxes, and more than half own their own homes. Salvadorans on TPS have also given birth to 192,000 children, all U.S. citizens, according to a report from the Center for Migration Studies.

For Carlos Garcia, 58, of El Salvador, he said his days are now numbered.

He fled his home country with his two sons, who are both now Dreamers awaiting their own looming deadline, roughly 17 years ago.

Garcia works as a detailer for an auto dealership and works parttime installing windshields in vehicles.

"What am I going to do now? I’ve been a tax paying resident of this country and I don’t have any idea what I’m going to do," Garcia said.

Garcia said he's known tightening immigration reform has been one of Trump's sole focuses since his campaign, but the reality of returning to El Salvador's "corrupt" government and its "organized crime" is a concern.

"How can anyone live under these circumstances of not knowing what's going to happen this month, or this year?" Garcia said. "The main problem here is the mental health of 200,000 Salvadorans who don't know what the outcome will be."

He said his American dream has become the "American nightmare." Garcia hopes Congress will step in and pressure Trump to reverse the action.

Herrera-Lopez, executive director of Mano a Mano Family Center, a Latino-led community organization offering immigration assistance and youth development services, said Trump's decision falls in line with his campaign promise of deporting millions of undocumented immigrants. 

"I understand that these people were offered temporary status, but El Salvador's challenges have not been stabilized," Herrera-Lopez said. "That may be true from the natural disaster standpoint, but not of the social stability of the country."

He points to the country's struggle with Mara Salvatrucha, an international gang commonly known as MS13, in addition to other local crimes that may put tens of thousands of returned Salvadorans at a disadvantage.

"Their economy may not be stable enough to absorb 200,000 people," Herrera-Lopez said. "For many, they are going to a country that is foreign to them, that has changed over the past 20 years, and that is completely disconnected."

An Oregon anti-illegal immigration organization supports the president's action.

Jim Ludwick, communications director for Oregonians for Immigration Reform, said decision demonstrate's Trump's understanding that every nation has a sovereign right to establish immigration policies.

"They were brought in because of the earthquake and were supposed to be here on a temporary basis, but some people have a different definition of 'temporary,'" Ludwick said. "El Salvador has the right to regulate who goes into their country, just like we have the right to regulate who comes into ours."

He said he doesn't understand why people oppose the action, saying families don't have to be torn apart during their return to El Salvador. Hypothetically, he said, if he had children in another country, and his visa ran out, he wouldn't leave his family there.

"Trump isn't breaking up families," Ludwick said. "If someone breaks up their families, they're doing it themselves."

Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste, translated as Northwest Treeplanters and Farmworkers United, plans on coordinating with other Oregon immigrant rights organizations like Mano a Mano to localize efforts and rally support from elected officials and business leaders, but they are thinking nationally as well.

PCUN's secretary-treasurer Jaime Arredondo said they are organizing along with their partner Fair Immigration Reform Movement, a national coalition of grassroots immigrant rights organizations.

"This is something we saw coming, so we're seeing if we can do anything on a national level to delay it or to make sure it's done away with,"Arredondo said.

Mat dos Santos, the legal director of the ACLU of Oregon, said President Trump's focus on targeted immigration operations, including rescinding DACA and ending other TPS programs, will tear Oregon families apart.

"This is another reminder from the Trump administration that new Americans are seen as a threat and not contributors to our country," dos Santos said.

He said he and his ACLU colleagues are expecting to get calls from Salvadorans who are impacted by the program's cut.

Kayse Jama, executive director of immigrant and refugee rights organization Unite Oregon, said the move demonstrates the systematic dismantling of immigration in the United States.

Jama, of Somalia, said President Trump's ban on travel from Muslim-majority countries has prevented him from returning to his home country, and that this recent program cut is only sustaining the president's "anti-immigrant" rhetoric still looming from his campaign.

"These community members are dishwashers, they working in nursing homes, they have their own businesses," Jama said. "This will have huge implications for the Salvadoran community but also our economy."

USA TODAY contributed to this story.

Email Lauren Hernandez at lehernande@statesmanjournal.com, call 503-399-6743 or follow on Twitter @LaurenPorFavor

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - society