OFIR Blog

Welcome to the new OFIR blog!

OFIR invites you to pop in regularly and find out what's new, what's pressing and needing action and what other concerned citizens are doing in the fight to stop illegal immigration.

Sanctuary policies are not compassionate

Mayors and governors of “sanctuary” jurisdictions are actually “partners in crime” with human traffickers and exploitive employers, says Michael Cutler, a veteran of the INS who knows immigration issues from the inside out after 30 years’ experience in immigration law enforcement. 

Besides “mayors and governors” we might add to the “partners in crime”:  newspapers and other media plus the various organizations and lobbies which, while touting “compassion,” vilify skeptics and misrepresent facts about the downside of unlimited immigration.  Advocates for unlimited immigration ignore the consequences to citizens and the dangerous loss of national sovereignty.

Cutler isn’t fooled by the “compassion” facade of the open borders advocates.

Sanctuary Cities Protect Crooked Employers and Human Traffickers; Exploitation of the vulnerable is anything but “compassionate.”

By Michael Cutler, in FrontPage Magazine, May 1, 2018

We have all heard the bogus claim that “Sanctuary Cities” and “Sanctuary States” protect the “immigrants” from ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents and that the mayors of sanctuary cities are being compassionate.

There is no compassion to be found in exploitation.

In reality, politicians who create and support sanctuary policies are every bit as disgusting and exploitative of illegal aliens as are human traffickers and unscrupulous employers who intentionally hire illegal aliens and benefit by sanctuary policies and, indeed those human traffickers and employers of illegal aliens are being provided with “sanctuary” and are being shielded from detection by ICE.

Mayors and governors of “sanctuary” jurisdictions are actually “partners in crime” with human traffickers and exploitive employers.

Before we go further, however, it is imperative to lay waste to that the false claim that mayors of sanctuary cities protect immigrants from immigration law enforcement agents.

Lies about sanctuary policies being motivated by “compassion” creates a hostile environment and antipathy for ICE agents and Border Patrol agents that impedes them from locating and arresting aliens who violate our immigration laws, but also makes it far more difficult for ICE and Border Patrol agents to engage with the public to develop actionable intelligence. 

This hostility also endangers their safety (reportedly physical attacks on immigration law enforcement personnel have more than doubled in the past couple of years).

Let’s be clear, Immigrants need no protection from immigration law enforcement authorities. …

However, aliens who evade the inspections process conducted at ports of entry enter the United States without inspection should be fearful of detection, arrest and deportation (removal).

In point of fact, the fundamental law that underlies the decisions made by CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors at ports of entry as to whether or not to admit a foreign visitors into the United States is Title 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens.

That section of law is contained within the Immigration and Nationality Act and enumerates the grounds for excluding aliens from the United States and includes aliens infected with dangerous communicable diseases, suffer from extreme mental illness and are prone to violence, aliens who are criminals, human rights violators, war criminals, spies or terrorists.

Finally that list also includes aliens who would likely become public charges or provide unfair competition for American workers and would either displace American workers or cause suppression of wages and have a deleterious impact on working conditions.  

Nothing in that statute makes any distinctions about the race, religion or ethnicity of aliens.

… In the past I have written about how Sanctuary Cities Betray America and Americans and that by shielding illegal aliens from detection by ICE agents prevents those agents from discovering the human traffickers and other criminals who enabled those aliens to gain entry into the United States and perhaps, in the parlance of the 9/11 Commission, embed themselves in communities around the United States.

Sanctuary jurisdictions attract large number of illegal aliens including transnational gang members, international terrorists or fugitives from other countries because they know that local police, in those jurisdictions, will not report them to immigration law enforcement authorities even if they are arrested for committing crimes in those jurisdictions.

…  Sanctuary Cities provide a veritable “army” of readily exploitable illegal alien workers who are sought after by unscrupulous employers who eagerly hire alien workers they can exploit, paying them substandard wages under substandard, indeed, dangerous conditions that lawful immigrants and American workers would never tolerate.

… Clearly sanctuary policies attract huge numbers of illegal aliens who entered the U.S. without inspection and often with the assistance of human traffickers- at great risk and expense, to seek illegal employment. 

Employers who intentionally hire illegal aliens do so, not out of compassion, but out of greed. 

Such unscrupulous employers hire illegal aliens because they know that these aliens will work for significantly substandard wages under substandard, indeed, often illegally hazardous working conditions.  Exploitation is not a demonstration of compassion.  …


Read the full article here.

A lesson not learned - try again

The majority party in the Oregon Legislature is failing to heed the clear will of the people in regards to Measure 88. 

Will the party in charge fail to listen yet again?  The results of the upcoming primary election are critical if Oregon is to remain the beautiful, livable state it once was.  What can be done to stop Oregon's decline?

Go to www.StopOregonSanctuaries.org and sign the petition.  Share the website with your friends, family and on social media.
 

Battle over a Census question is more important than you might think

Should illegal aliens have a major influence on who gets elected to Congress?  Most citizens would probably say No.

But illegal alien advocates and open-borders enthusiasts say Yes.

Population figures reported in the decennial Censuses determine apportionment of seats in Congress.  Too, each state’s electoral vote in presidential elections is tied to the number of seats it has in the House of Representatives.  So accurate figures on the number of citizens are very important.

Pres. Trump’s Secretary of Commerce, the agency which directs the Census Bureau, proposes to reinstate a question in the 2020 Census asking whether respondents are U.S. citizens.   Prior decennial census surveys of the U.S. consistently asked citizenship questions up until 1950.  

The 2020 Census would ask: “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”

Oregon’s Attorney General Rosenbaum joined a lawsuit by several states to block inclusion of the question. The lawsuit was announced soon after California had also sued to block inclusion of the question, and needless to say, Rosenbaum did not ask Oregon citizens what they think.

Kansas’ Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a lawyer with expertise in immigration matters, sheds light on the subject in an interesting Breitbart article posted recently.  Two excerpts:

“Counting illegal aliens allows a state with millions of illegal aliens to unfairly inflate the number of congressional seats and electoral votes it has. Indeed, if the leadership of the state has little regard for the rule of law – as is the case in California – it creates a perverse incentive for the lawless state to invite more illegal aliens to come in. …

“ … California’s arguments are weak, and the lawsuit is a loser. The federal government will prevail, if not in the district court, then on appeal. But the ferocity of the backlash from the Left demonstrates just how important the citizenship question is. America’s willful ignorance concerning the number of citizens and the number of aliens in the country must end.”

Border Patrol Agent tells it like it is

What’s it like at the border now?  One of the busiest entry points is the Rio Grande Valley in Texas.  In this interview with a BP agent there, we hear some of the grimy details --and this is before the large caravan coming through Mexico from Guatemala reaches the border.

South Texas Border Patrol Agents Overwhelmed by Illegal Border Crossers, Says Agent

by Bob Price, Breitbart.com, 3 Apr 2018

Border Patrol agents in the Rio Grande Valley Sector continue to be overwhelmed by the numbers of illegal border crossers, they say. The sector continues to lead the nation in Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC), Family Unit Aliens (FMUA), and total apprehensions.

“A wall for this sector is necessary and needs to happen now,” Border Patrol Agent Chris Cabrera told Breitbart Texas in an interview. Cabrera spoke to Breitbart Texas in his capacity as vice president of the National Border Patrol Council Local 3307. “Walls will take time to build but there are things we need to do now, in the interim, to improve border security in this sector.”

During the first six months of this fiscal year (which began on October 1, 2017), CBP reports indicate that RGV Sector agents apprehended more than 52,000 illegal immigrants. Of those, agents arrested more than 7,000 UACs and at least 20,000 FMUAs.

“We have the buildings to handle the influx of these people,” Cabrera explained, “but we don’t have the manpower. The influx is causing agents to be taken off the front line to assist with processing the families and unaccompanied minors. This leads to gaps in security and not enough agents to back each other up in the field.”  ...

Cabrera said most of the migrants arrested after crossing the border from Mexico come from Central America. CBP statistics show that Guatemala heads up the list this fiscal year with 8,814 UACs and 16,421 FMUAs. This is followed by migrants from Honduras, Mexico, and El Salvador.

Cabrera said they also see large numbers of Chinese nationals apprehended along the border and at inland checkpoints.

Read the full article here.

Congress muddles on H-1B reform to the detriment of US workers

Take a moment to read this insightful article about excessive immigration in a way we don't often acknowledge. 

Dale L. Wilcox is executive director and general counsel at the Immigration Reform Law Institute, a public interest law firm working to defend the rights and interests of the American people from the negative effects of mass migration.

http://www.irli.org/single-post/2018/03/26/Congress-muddles-on-H-1B-refo...

 

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

A good bill went awry in the Legislature; consequences follow

You can trace the course of HB 4111 in the just-closed session of the Oregon Legislature and learn a lot about how political ball is being played there now to serve entrenched interests.

A perfectly good bill relating to Department of Transportation documents, which described “fees required when person is applying to replace or renew current driver license with Real ID compliant driver license or is applying for new original driver license that is Real ID compliant” was hi-jacked by means of an amendment and converted into yet another benefit — official driver licenses — for a group of illegal aliens.  This benefit can reverberate in future elections also unless voter registration processes are tightened.

The bill was Pre-Session filed, and originally sponsored by several Democrats and one Republican, Rep. Carl Wilson, of Grants Pass.  After the hi-jacking into a benefit for illegal aliens, Rep. Wilson removed his name from sponsorship and spoke against HB 4111.  As passed on March 3, HB 4111 was sponsored by these legislators, all Democrats:  Reps. Witt, Hernandez, Alonso Leon, Greenlick, Keny-Guyer, Salinas, Sanchez, Sollman, Williamson, and Senators Gelser and Manning. 

The maneuver to change the bill was accomplished through a Senate amendment referred to as Dash-10 in legislative lingo.  Then the bill incorporating “Dash-10” was put before the House for a final vote on Saturday afternoon, March 3, in the waning hours of the session

The claim is that “Dash-10” applies only to persons enrolled in the DACA and TPS programs, but those programs are not mentioned in the bill, and the bill contains other provisions that appear to weaken requirements for verification of applications.

OFIR President Cynthia Kendoll watched the action:   “… they introduced the amendment as Dash -2, with Rep. Hernandez as the sponsor - and then pulled it – and then, re-introduced it as Dash-10 - with the Senate Transportation Committee as the sponsor, then pulled it again ‘for negotiations,’ then, submitted the bill to the Senate with the amendment ‘engrossed’ in the bill.  It seems at every turn, and with virtually NO notice, the effort was made to obscure the fact that forces were at work behind the scenes to ADD driver cards for illegal aliens to HB4111.  Several people told me they went to OLIS and saw no amendment - so, ultimately did not submit comments - or call in about it.  Would we call that a slight of hand?”

Originally, the bill was introduced in the House on February 5.  The House considered the bill and passed it, without changing the text.  Then it went to the Senate where advocates for benefits to illegal aliens succeeded through “Dash-10” in turning the bill into a tool to suit their purposes.  It passed the Senate by a vote of 20-8, with 2 members not voting.  All Democrats present voted Yes, along with 4 Republicans, Senators DeBoer, Hansell, Thompson, and Winters.

Because the Senate amendment had changed the bill, it had to go back to the House for a final vote, 36-22.  Again, all Democrats voted Yes.  One Republican voted Yes, Rep. Richard Vial, who represents Sherwood, Wilsonville and Gaston.  All other Republicans present voted No.

OFIR President Cynthia Kendoll submitted testimony to the Senate Committee on Business and Transportation hearing on Feb. 26.  Her statement to the Committee can be read here.

OFIR Board member Mark Callahan gave oral testimony which can viewed in the Legislative video recording of Committee proceedings at: http://oregon.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=24705.  He appears at about 6:35 in the video, speaking for approximately 2 minutes.  He entered into the Committee record a colorful chart  showing M88 vote results statewide; see it here

OFIR Board member Janice Dysinger submitted testimony also.  For some time, Ms. Dysinger, has been involved in research on the conduct of state elections and is active in Oregonians for Fair Elections, a citizen group working to protect the integrity of our state’s elections.  Her detailed statement to the Senate Committee on Business and Transportation on Feb. 26, raised many good questions about voter registration in Oregon and how it would be impacted by HB 4111.  See her statement here.

The only person who submitted testimony in favor of HB 4111 was Andrea Williams, Executive Director, Causa Oregon.   She wrote a letter that was entered into the record.

While Secretary of State Richardson recently gave Oregon’s voting system a clean bill of health, it’s clear that the registration processes can easily be corrupted and probably are, to an extent far beyond what the public is led to believe. There’s a high probability that HB 4111 would make the problem of illegal voting worse.

WHAT CAN WE DO TO GET OREGON ON THE RIGHT TRACK?

To OFIR members who feel discouraged after the passage of HB 4111 – remember – that is not the final move in immigration policy.  The route to change is open to us, in election of legislators who understand the importance of immigration controls and will put the interests of U.S. citizens first. 
 
Already through an informed and civic-minded citizenry, the U.S. has elected a President who believes in vigorous immigration law enforcement.  Other states are cooperating in the effort, and Oregon has shown broad support in the 2014 vote on Measure 88. 

Primary elections are coming up soon -- in May.  With members’ help, OFIR will provide information on the immigration positions of candidates, and members will have the opportunity to support good candidates and work to get them elected. The next session of the Legislature will convene in February 2019, after the November 2018 elections. 

You can view the candidate information that  OFIR posted on its website for the 2014 and 2016 elections here.  Many 2018 candidates for the Legislature and statewide offices have already replied to the 2018 Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project questionnaire which includes questions on immigration policy.

Already candidates are speaking publicly and discussing issues; many have websites online.

In their candidacy websites, some candidates make their positions on immigration issues quite clear.  OFIR hopes to post all relevant information on its website for as many races as possible.   Three candidates for Governor who have good positions on immigration spoke at the February OFIR meeting. 

Bravo to new CIS mission statement

No longer will non-citizens coming into the U.S. from other countries be officially classified as “customers” who must be catered to.  Welcome to the return of realism and truth.  Here’s the revised mission statement of the U.S. Customs and Immigration Services agency:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services administers the nation’s lawful immigration system, safeguarding its integrity and promise by efficiently and fairly adjudicating requests for immigration benefits while protecting Americans, securing the homeland, and honoring our values.

Contrast this with the former open-borders slant that prevailed for far too long:

USCIS secures America’s promise as a nation of immigrants by providing accurate and useful information to our customers, granting immigration and citizenship benefits, promoting an awareness and understanding of citizenship, and ensuring the integrity of our immigration system.

Explaining deletion of the “customer” reference from the Mission statement, USCIS’s Director L. Francis Cissna (appointed by President Trump) said:

What we do at USCIS is so important to our nation, so meaningful to the applicants and petitioners, and the nature of the work is often so complicated, that we should never allow our work to be regarded as a mere production line or even described in business or commercial terms. In particular, referring to applicants and petitioners for immigration benefits, and the beneficiaries of such applications and petitions, as "customers" promotes an institutional culture that emphasizes the ultimate satisfaction of applicants and petitioners, rather than the correct adjudication of such applications and petitions according to the law. Use of the term leads to the erroneous belief that applicants and petitioners, rather than the American people, are whom we ultimately serve. All applicants and petitioners should, of course, always be treated with the greatest respect and courtesy, but we can't forget that we serve the American people.

Right on, Mr. Cissna!  Thank you.

News media get F on immigration reporting

How trustworthy are the major newspapers and news media in this country?  Judging from recent reports, not very.  Critical information about the amnesty bills before Congress was omitted by major media.  Here’s proof:

Media Fail: June 30th, 2018 provision goes unreported

By Jeremy Beck, NumbersUSA, Friday, Feb. 16, 2018

Excerpts:

54 Senators voted yesterday in support of an immigration proposal put forward by Senators Senators Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Mike Rounds (D-S.D.), and Angus King (I-Maine), the self-described "Common Sense Caucus". Did they know what they were voting for?

The proposal's language was still being tweaked on Wednesday but by Thursday morning, Stephen Dinan of the Washington Times had the scoop on some extraordinary details:

Not only would the bill enshrine Obama-era deportation rules, protecting most of the current 11 million illegal immigrants from fear of removal, but it extends those same protections to any illegal immigrants who can jump the border between now and June 30....

.... The key language is on the last page of the amendment which Mr. Schumer introduced last Wednesday.

The bill reads: "In carrying out immigration enforcement activities, the secretary shall prioritize available immigration enforcement resources to aliens who arrived in the United States after June 30, 2018."  …

The "Obama-era deportation rules" effectively exempted 87 percent of unauthorized aliens from immigration law by requiring enforcement agencies to only prioritize convicted felons, gang members national security threats and "recent" border crossers.

The "Common Sense Caucus" attempted to reinstate the Obama rules legislatively, but changed the "we-promise-to-get-serious-now" date from January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2018. Doing so would ensure that people who entered the country illegally after January 1, 2014 wouldn't be held accountable for the Obama administration's failure to keep its promise and (inexplicably) extend that assurance to people who successfully enter the country illegally at any point over the next four months. …

If American voters had asked Congress to devise a plan to cause another border surge, they could not have asked for much more than what the "Common Sense Caucus" came up with.

Rosemary Jenks, Director of Government Relations for NumbersUSA, has read more immigration legislation than anyone on Capitol Hill and she told the Washington Times that she had never seen anything like the June 30th provision. …

… in the hours leading up to the Senate vote...

The New York Times did not report the June 30, 2018 provision.

The Washington Post did not report the June 30, 2018 provision.

The Associated Press did not report the June 30, 2018 provision.

The Wall Street Journal did not report the June 30, 2018 provision.

Reuters did not report the June 30, 2018 provision.

McClatchy did not report the June 30, 2018 provision.

USA Today did not report the June 30, 2018 provision.

The Los Angeles Times did not report the June 30, 2018 provision.

We've seen this kind of epic fail before. In 2013, the Senate voted on - and passed - the "Gang of Eight" bill that included what would have set off the largest immigration increase in United States history, yet in the months leading up to the votes, none of the above newspapers reported the size and historical nature of that provision. The focus back then - as it was this week - was on the legalization provision. The proposed increases in immigration were deeply unpopular with the public and one would imagine the June 30th provision would be as well. By keeping those details out of news reports, the media helped the sponsors of both proposals present their ideas in the best possible light without having to defend the deeply unpopular aspects. …

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

Read the entire article here.

'Dreamer' amnesty now but an end to chain migration in 15 years? No, thanks.

Why Cutting Chain Migration Must Be Part of an Immigration Deal

Immediate relief for ‘Dreamers’ but an end to chain migration in 15 years? No, thanks.

By Jessica Vaughan, Center for Immigration Studies, February 1, 2018

Excerpt:

...  Trump's proposal is to offer immediate legalization to 1.8 million Dreamers, some 700,000 of whom currently have work permits issued, unconstitutionally, under President Obama, and more than a million others who also arrived as children but did not qualify for DACA because of age or failure to complete high school, or some other reason.

To offset these numbers, the Trump plan would cut off sponsorship of adult relatives outside the nuclear family, including parents, and end the visa lottery. Those changes would reduce legal immigration by about 33 percent from today's levels.

Unfortunately, in an effort to mollify high-immigration fans from both parties in Congress, the chain-migration cuts under the Trump plan would not go into effect until the entire waiting list of family chain-migration applicants is cleared. This would take at least 10 years. Then it would take another five years or so before the future chain-migration cuts could offset the 1.8 million new green cards for the Dreamers.

So, if the proposal becomes law, the Dreamers will obtain relief from deportation immediately upon passage of the bill, but Americans will have to wait 15 years for relief from chain migration.

Even more concerning, a proposal now being hammered out by Senate Republicans reportedly would create a new form of residency visa for parents of naturalized citizens, including the parents of the Dreamers. In this scenario, there would be very little decrease in immigration to offset the amnesty, which could then cover about six million people.

No one thought that reaching a deal for the Dreamers would be easy, but it's not urgent, either. Now that a federal judge in California has ordered the government to resume renewing DACA work permits for the foreseeable future, there is no deadline on DACA. Given that Trump's initial offer of a deal has gone over like a lead balloon with Democrats, and that squishy Senate Republicans are likely to take his proposal and dilute it beyond recognition or value, Trump should step back from the table. Making a deal for the sake of a deal will be a bad deal for Americans. Take a break and let the Democrats (and GOP amnesty-pushers) ponder their choice: permanent status for the Dreamers, or preserving future chain migration? Americans won't tolerate both.

Is Oregon's Congressional Delegation a shameful representation of America's values?

Illegal Aliens at SOTU Reveal Amnesty, Not American Interests, is Priority for Many on One Side of the Aisle

by Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) Executive Director Bob Dane

(January 30, 2018, Washington, D.C.) — Dozens of illegal aliens will attend the State of the Union address, invited as distinguished guests by Democrat lawmakers.

“This annual stunt is deeply offensive to Americans who know that the rule of law is the bedrock of our democracy. The United States Capitol is the revered building where those laws are made by the world’s greatest deliberative body; it is not an unruly theatre for flouting lawlessness. By granting VIP access to dozens of illegal aliens who consciously and proudly violate our laws, the Democrat members of Congress who invited them have clearly revealed their contempt for the rule of law as well.

“Those members have also revealed their real agenda; massive amnesty, unlimited immigration and disregard for any reforms that serve the American public’s interest. The message that will be sent by tonight’s presence of so-called ‘Dreamers’ is crystal clear and one-sided: violating our immigration laws is an inconsequential act and the public just needs to get used to it. We’re here, we’re unapologetic, we’re not going anywhere, we’re going to sit and stand anywhere we want – including the United States Capitol – and we demand to be rewarded with citizenship.  

“These tactics only serve to alienate many Americans and set back the debate. Americans have long needed – and have been promised – secure borders, robust interior enforcement, and a reduction in legal immigration levels while moving to a modern, merit-based system. None of it has happened, and tonight’s antics are an infuriating reminder of that, while also confirming who is responsible for the immigration reform stalemate.

“’Dreamers’ should consider whether they are just being used as political props by some Democrats who continue to oppose any and all reasonable immigration proposals. ‘Dreamers’ are certainly not advancing their cause with these defiant tactics that offend many Americans who might otherwise be interested in an earnest bipartisan solution, but only if it offers them what they want too.”
 

The most effective tool of all: E-VERIFY

Why is E-Verify seldom mentioned in the immigration conversation?

Rosemary Jenks, of NumbersUSA, a lawyer and long-time activist for reduced immigration, gives the reasons here, plainly, for all to see.  Citizens and voters had better pay attention.

 

E-Verify Ignored in DACA Negotiations Because ‘Members of Congress Know It Will Work’

By Robert Kraychik, Breitbart.com, 23 Jan 2018

Members of Congress broadly oppose a legislative nationwide E-Verify mandate for employers because “they know it will work,” said NumbersUSA’s Rosemary Jenks, explaining why E-Verify is not being pushed in congressional negotiations for an amnesty deal for recipients of the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Jenks further noted that both parties are beholden to special interests supportive of “mass migration.”

Jenks offered her analysis during a Monday interview on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight with Breitbart News’s Senior Editors-at-Large Rebecca Mansour and Joel Pollak. …

 “I think [E-Verify] is not being pushed precisely because members of Congress know it will work,” said Jenks. “I think that is exactly the reason it’s not being pushed. Democrats, for sure, don’t want mandatory E-Verify because they know it will discourage illegal immigration, which will discourage the push for the next amnesty. And, let’s face it, the establishment Republicans don’t want it because they know it will be effective and eliminate their cheap labor pools.”

Special interests, including “big business,” “organized religion,” and “ethnic advocacy groups,” subvert popular American will via their funding and political agitation, said Jenks, adding, “It’s about the donors and about the Democrat Party wanting mass immigration. Those are the two factors that rule every immigration debate. It’s always the big business donors, organized religion, the ethnic advocacy groups. All of the money is behind mass immigration, and then, there’s the American people on the other side. That’s the problem we have had. That’s why we haven’t controlled immigration in the last five decades.”

Legislating a national mandate for E-Verify use by employers is more important than construction of a southern border wall, argued Jenks. “In our view, mandatory E-Verify is more important than a wall. So that is the one place where we’re hoping that we can move the administration to saying E-Verify is a must-have.”

Approximately half of “the illegal population” is composed of foreigners who lawfully entered the homeland and overstay their visas, said Jenks. An E-Verify mandate on employers, she added, would “mostly shut down” the lure of employment for illegal aliens. …

Read the entire article here.  Read more about E-Verify here and here.

Pages