voter registration

Who's REALLY in charge?

A recent letter sent to Causa supporters:

On behalf of all of us here at Causa Oregon, we want to thank you for all your work and support. While there are still some big fights to win this year, we have accomplished so much in the first three months of 2013.

With your help, we have forged new alliances with our sisters and brothers in the LGBT, labor, faith, business and education communities. Together, we've harnessed the political power to pass the ten-year-long struggle for tuition equity in Oregon and gained national recognition for our collaborative work in registering new Americans to vote. And, just this week it was announced that Causa, the Act Network and our allies were successful in forcing the Multnomah County Sheriff to end his policy of detaining undocumented immigrants for low-level crimes and non-violent misdemeanors.

It's only three months in to 2013 and together we're already making historyThank you for being a tireless ally in our mission to promote the rights of Latinos and immigrants in Oregon. Together, we are ensuring a healthy, vibrant American democracy.

In Solidarity,

Francisco Lopez
Executive Director

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

I would like to take a moment to address the "successes" listed in the letter:

1.) Causa appears to be a group whose mission is to cause the ruling bodies of our state to CAVE IN to their demands.

2.) Causa appears to be a group that, by hooking up with legitimate minorities with issues, they hope that the public won't notice that they are advocating for the RIGHTS(?) of those in our country illegally. 

3.) Illegal aliens perpetrate crimes in far greater numbers than their 'legal' peers.  Yet, they seem to feel they shouldn't be in jail and that they deserve special treatment from the Multnomah County Sheriff....and he obliged their demand.

4.) The last line was the worst:  Thank you for being a tireless ally in our mission to promote the rights of Latinos and immigrants in Oregon. Together, we are ensuring a healthy, vibrant American democracy.

First of all, Latino's and legal immigrants have rights.  Do Latino's have special rights?  Causa simply chooses to drop the word ILLEGAL from their immigrant vocabulary and hopes that no one will notice.  After all, who doesn't want to help an 'immigrant'?  And, to make matters worse, claiming they are ensuring a healthy, vibrant American democracy is just a LIE!  Here in Oregon, the cost of services to illegal aliens tipped the BILLION dollar mark.

Since when do any of us get to pick and choose which laws we obey and which laws we ignore?  People who come here illegally are breaking immigration laws.   If they work, they are breaking labor laws. If they steal, buy, or borrow a social security number, they are committing identity theft. But, shhhh...don't say anything about that....that's not nice.  They are bringing the culture of corruption from their homeland, right to our front door.

But, all that aside, the thing that bothers me the most, are the lawmakers that are bending over backwards to work with groups like Causa.  That's the most disappointing of all!  Elections are a great opportunity to clear the decks!

71% Favor Proof of Citizenship Before Allowing Voter Registration

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Monday on the federal government’s challenge of an Arizona law that requires proof of citizenship before allowing someone to register to vote. But most voters think everyone should have to prove their citizenship before being allowed to sign up for voting and don’t believe such a requirement is discriminatory.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 71% of Likely U.S. Voters believe everyone should be required to prove his or her U.S. citizenship before being allowed to register to vote. Twenty-one percent (21%) disagree and oppose such a requirement. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Senators aim to reach bipartisan immigration deal next week

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Eight senators aim to cap months of talks next week with a comprehensive deal to overhaul the U.S. immigration system, a member of the bipartisan group said on Thursday.

Democratic Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, a longtime reform advocate, said once the agreement is done, aides will draw up legislation that could be considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee in April.

"That's our goal," Menendez told Reuters. "We hope to agree on all of the major issues, hopefully, by the end of next week. But it could slip a bit," he said, perhaps by a couple of days or so.

"I'm not rigid about anything other than getting it right," Menendez said.

The timetable Menendez spelled out mirrored one that the group suggested earlier this year. It said it aimed to have a bill in March and a vote by the full Democratic-led Senate in June or July.

The eight senators - four Democrats and four Republicans - announced a "framework for comprehensive immigration reform" in January and have been working to flesh it out.

There are an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, many of them living in the shadows while seeking work and trying to avoid detection.

The eight senators have tried to draft a plan that would include a pathway toward U.S. citizenship for undocumented immigrants while strengthening border security.

They also want to create a more effective system to guard against U.S. employers hiring undocumented immigrants, and develop a program to better forecast and meet future U.S. workforce needs in a bid to curb illegal immigration.

The eight senators came together shortly after the November 2012 election results reflected the growing power of Hispanic voters and their pleas for immigration reform.

"There have been hard and tough negotiations, but it has been done all in the spirit of achieving the goal, in which compromise has been made on both sides," Menendez said.

The senators have worked with the encouragement of the White House and reached out to members of the Republican-led House of Representatives.

This week Obama met separately with Republican and Democratic lawmakers, mainly to talk about budget deficit concerns. But immigration reform also was discussed.

On Wednesday, Obama told a closed-door meeting of Senate Democrats that immigration was "'something that we can get done,'" Democratic Senator Benjamin Cardin of Maryland said.

On Thursday, Republican Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, a member of the group of eight, said he thanked Obama for "playing a role that's behind the scenes."

Flake said the issue of future immigration to the United States is a sticking point for Democrats, and that Obama could build support for that part of the pending immigration bill.
 

Investors Business Daily publishes OFIR VP article

Once again, OFIR's Vice President Rick LaMountain has written an exceptional article.  An overview of the GOP's folly of a plan to woo the Hispanic vote, 'Illegal-Alien Amnesty Gives Democrats 7 Million New Voters'  dissects and breaks down the plan with indisputable facts.

Is support for an illegal-alien amnesty the key to GOP salvation?

OFIR Vice President Rick LaMountain explains the folly of the GOP chasing the Hispanic vote by way of an amnesty.  Read Rick's article in Wednesday's Investor's Business Daily.


 

Dropping out is not an alternative

Dropping out is an appealing escape route, and many good men and women have already taken that path. But true patriots will resist and overcome that temptation.

I'm certain you have all noticed how the media handles the stories of the day.  But it's our job to point out to them that we see it and don't like it.  We must insist on honest, fair and complete reporting without the media bias we have become so accustomed to.  It's shameful!

Read Tom Tancredo's excellent article and you decide if it's time to speak up.


 

Why Hispanics Don’t Vote for Republicans

The call for Republicans to discard their opposition to immigration amnesty will grow deafening in the wake of President Obama’s victory. Hispanics supported Obama by a margin of nearly 75 percent to 25 percent, and may have provided important margins in some swing states. If only Republicans relented on their Neanderthal views regarding the immigration rule of law, the message will run, they would release the inner Republican waiting to emerge in the Hispanic population.

If Republicans want to change their stance on immigration, they should do so on the merits, not out of a belief that only immigration policy stands between them and a Republican Hispanic majority. It is not immigration policy that creates the strong bond between Hispanics and the Democratic party, but the core Democratic principles of a more generous safety net, strong government intervention in the economy, and progressive taxation. Hispanics will prove to be even more decisive in the victory of Governor Jerry Brown’s Proposition 30, which raised upper-income taxes and the sales tax, than in the Obama election.

And California is the wave of the future. A March 2011 poll by Moore Information found that Republican economic policies were a stronger turn-off for Hispanic voters in California than Republican positions on illegal immigration. Twenty-nine percent of Hispanic voters were suspicious of the Republican party on class-warfare grounds — “it favors only the rich”; “Republicans are selfish and out for themselves”; “Republicans don’t represent the average person”– compared with 7 percent who objected to Republican immigration stances.

I spoke last year with John Echeveste, founder of the oldest Latino marketing firm in southern California, about Hispanic politics. “What Republicans mean by ‘family values’ and what Hispanics mean are two completely different things,” he said. “We are a very compassionate people, we care about other people and understand that government has a role to play in helping people.”

And a strong reason for that support for big government is that so many Hispanics use government programs. U.S.-born Hispanic households in California use welfare programs at twice the rate of native-born non-Hispanic households. And that is because nearly one-quarter of all Hispanics are poor in California, compared to a little over one-tenth of non-Hispanics. Nearly seven in ten poor children in the state are Hispanic, and one in three Hispanic children is poor, compared to less than one in six non-Hispanic children. One can see that disparity in classrooms across the state, which are chock full of social workers and teachers’ aides trying to boost Hispanic educational performance.

The idea of the “social issues” Hispanic voter is also a mirage. A majority of Hispanics now support gay marriage, a Pew Research Center poll from last month found. The Hispanic out-of-wedlock birth rate is 53 percent, about twice that of whites.

The demographic changes set into motion by official and de facto immigration policy favoring low-skilled over high-skilled immigrants mean that a Republican party that purports to stand for small government and free markets faces an uncertain future.

Driver licenses for illegal aliens create bigger problems

Governor Kitzhaber has stated, in no uncertain terms, that he wants to restore driving privileges to illegal aliens living and working in our state.  Perhaps he should take look at what Washington State is dealing with due to their "welcome mat" approach to illegal aliens.  Read more here.

Oregon does not require proof of citizenship to vote in state or local elections

OFIR often receives e-mails and phone calls from members asking if the state of Oregon requires proof of citizenship when registering to vote. While one must be a citizen to vote in federal elections, unfortunately Oregon does not require proof of citizenship in order to vote in state or local elections.

Representative Kim Thatcher (R-Keizer) has tried to pass legislation that would bring Oregon voter registration in line with federal law, thereby allowing only U.S. citizens to vote in state and local elections.

In a September 7th statement Representative Thatcher wrote:

“I’ve been working hard on legislation to bring Oregon in line with federal standards for providing identification when registering to vote for the first time. Let me explain. Under the national Help America Votes Act one has to provide identification in order to register to vote in federal elections. However, in Oregon there are no ID requirements for voting in state and local elections. None.”

Thatcher went on to write: “Current state law doesn’t spell out what kind of identification first time voters are required to provide when they register to vote in Oregon. We need to add more accountability to state and local elections and apply the same standards already used by officials across the state when deciding who can vote in federal elections.”

“Yes, the Oregon Constitution says “every citizen” is “entitled to vote” basically as long as they meet eligibility standards. That part of the document is called “Qualifications of electors.” Shouldn’t we be more careful to ensure voters meet constitutional qualifications to vote on the important issues and races facing Oregonians?”

OFIR agrees with Representative Thatcher. Only U.S. citizens should be able to vote.

In 2004 Arizona voters approved an initiative requiring proof of citizenship to vote in Arizona. The League of Women Voters and other pro-illegal alien groups sued to stop its implementation. Fortunately the U.S. Supreme Court has just agreed to hear an appeal by the state of Arizona Arizona’s law provides options for meeting the proof-of-citizenship requirement. Acceptable documents include a driver’s license or other state-issued ID, a birth certificate, a passport and naturalization papers.  Read more here.

Voter Proof-of-Citizenship Law Gets Supreme Court Review

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide whether states can demand proof of citizenship from people registering to vote, taking up an Arizona case with racial overtones and nationwide implications.

The case, which the court won’t consider until after the Nov. 6 election, tests states’ power to impose requirements that go beyond the registration procedures set out by federal law. A U.S. appeals court invalidated Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship law.

That ruling would “interfere with the states’ ability to protect the integrity of their elections,” Arizona argued in court papers. It is one of at least four states -- along with Alabama, Kansas and Georgia that require would-be voters to show evidence of citizenship.

The case presents legal issues different from those in the voter-identification battles that have garnered headlines leading up to the November election. The new high court case doesn’t directly involve allegations of racial discrimination. Instead, it centers on the constitutional roles of the state and national governments in overseeing elections and on a 1993 federal law designed to increase voter registration.

The court will hear arguments early next year and rule by June.

Arizona’s law, approved by the state’s voters in 2004, provides options for meeting the proof-of-citizenship requirement. Acceptable documents include a driver’s license or other state-issued ID, a birth certificate, a passport and naturalization papers.

Leading Role

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 9-2 to strike down the Arizona law, saying the Constitution’s elections clause gives Congress the leading role to set the rules for federal voting.

“The states are obligated to conform to and carry out whatever procedures Congress requires,” Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta wrote.

The 9th Circuit said the 1993 law bars the Arizona registration requirements. The federal measure establishes a national voter application and requires every state to “accept and use” it.

The law “does not give states room to add their own requirements” to the federal application, Ikuta wrote.

The 1993 law was informally known as the Motor Voter Law because of a separate provision that requires states to let residents register to vote when applying for a driver’s license.

Voter Advocacy Groups

The Arizona law was challenged by minority and voter-advocacy groups, including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the League of Women Voters of Arizona and the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona. The Obama administration backed the lawsuits at the lower court level.

The 9th Circuit upheld other parts of the Arizona law, including its requirement that voters show identification at the polls.

The Supreme Court hasn’t considered an elections clause case since 1997, when it struck down Louisiana’s system of holding a nonpartisan congressional primary in October, followed by a runoff in November if no candidate received a majority.

The Supreme Court said that system violated the federal law that requires all congressional and presidential elections to be held on a single November day.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - voter registration