2014 General Election

This section focuses on the 2014 primary election.

The following document is the official directive to enforcement sections of the DHS outlining policies they are to follow.  President Obama has not issued an Executive Order, although he has made it clear this directive reflects his position on "individuals [immigrants] who came to the United States as children."

Secretary

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC 20528

June 15, 2012

MEMORANDUM FOR:

David V. Aguilar, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Alejandro Mayorkas, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

John Morton, Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

FROM:   Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security

SUBJECT: Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children

By this memorandum,  I am setting forth how, in the exercise of our prosecutorial discretion, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should enforce the Nation's immigration laws against certain young people who were brought to this country as children and know only this country as home.  As a general matter, these individuals lacked the intent to violate the law and our ongoing review of pending removal cases is already offering administrative closure to many of them. However, additional measures are necessary to ensure that our enforcement resources are not expended on these low priority cases but are instead appropriately focused on people who meet our enforcement priorities.

The following criteria should be satisfied before an individual is considered for an exercise of prosecutorial discretion pursuant to this memorandum:

• came to the United States under the age of sixteen;
• has continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and is present in the United States on the date of this memorandum;
• is currently in school, has graduated from high school, has obtained a general education development certificate, or is an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States;
• has not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise poses a threat to national security or public safety; and
• is not above the age of thirty.

Our Nation's  immigration laws must be enforced in a strong and sensible manner.  They are not designed to be blindly enforced without consideration given to the individual circumstances of each case. Nor are they designed to remove productive young people to countries where they may not have lived or even speak the language.  Indeed, many of these young people have already contributed to our country in significant ways.  Prosecutorial discretion, which is used in so many other areas, is especially justified here.

As part of this exercise of prosecutorial discretion, the above criteria are to be considered whether or not an individual is already in removal proceedings or subject to a final order of removal.  No individual should receive deferred action under this memorandum unless they first pass a background check and requests for relief pursuant to this memorandum are to be decided on a case by case basis.  DHS cannot provide any assurance that relief will be granted in all cases.

1.  With respect to individuals who are encountered by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration  Services (USCIS):

• With respect to individuals who meet the above criteria, ICE and CBP should immediately exercise their discretion, on an individual basis, in order to prevent low priority individuals from being placed into removal proceedings or removed from the United States.
• USCIS is instructed to implement this memorandum consistent with its existing guidance regarding the issuance of notices to appear.

2.  With respect to individuals who are  in removal proceedings but not yet subject to a final order of removal, and who meet the above criteria:

• ICE should exercise prosecutorial discretion, on an individual basis, for individuals who meet the above criteria by deferring action for a period of two years, subject to renewal, in order to prevent low priority individuals from being removed from the United States.
• ICE is instructed to use its Office of the Public Advocate to permit individuals who believe they meet the above criteria to identify themselves through a clear and efficient process.
• ICE is directed to begin implementing this process within 60 days of the date of this memorandum.
• ICE is also instructed to immediately begin the process of deferring action against individuals who meet the above criteria whose cases have already been identified through the ongoing review of pending cases before the Executive Office for Immigration Review.

3.  With respect to the individuals who are not currently in removal proceedings and meet the above criteria, and pass a background check:

• USCIS should establish a clear and efficient process for exercising prosecutorial discretion, on an individual basis, by deferring action against individuals who meet the above criteria and are at least 15 years old, for a period of two years, subject to renewal, in order to prevent low priority individuals from being placed into removal proceedings or removed from the United States.
• The USCIS process shall also be available to individuals subject to a final order of removal regardless of their age.
• USCIS is directed to begin implementing this process within 60 days of the date of this memorandum.

For individuals who are granted deferred action by either ICE or USCIS, USCIS shall accept applications to determine whether these individuals qualify for work authorization during this period of deferred action.

This memorandum confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship. Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights. It remains for the executive branch, however, to set forth policy for the exercise of discretion within the framework of the existing law. I have done so here.

From FAIR:

Amnesty 2013 resources. http://www.fairus.org/legislation/amnesty/s-744-bill-resources

Data Shows Border Security Metric in S.744 Subject to Political Manipulation. By Julie Kirchner, June 19, 2013. http://immigrationreform.com/2013/06/19/data-shows-border-security-metric-in-s-744-subject-to-political-manipulation/

Gang of Eight: Broken Promises & Special Deals; Did the Gang of Eight live up to all of their promises to make this bill tougher on border security than any previous legislation? What special interests benefit from the bill? What opportunities has the Senate rejected to strengthen it? http://www.fairus.org/legislation/amnesty/broken_promises

Amnesty issue briefs. http://www.fairus.org/issues/amnesty-issue-briefs

Legislation in the 113th Congress: H.R. 1417: Border Security Results Act of 2013. Bill comparison – H.R. 1417 and S.744.   http://www.fairus.org/_blog/Legislation_in_the_113th_Congress/post/hr-1417-border-security-results-act-of-2013/ [Click on "Download PDF"]

Top 40 reasons to oppose the Gang of Eight Amnesty bill (S.744). June 5, 2013.  http://www.fairus.org/_blog/amnesty_updates/post/top-40-reasons-to-oppose-the-gang-of-eight-amnesty-bill---s-744/. [Click on "Click here to view in a new page" and see PDF document.]

Real immigration enforcement; S.744 doesn't do the job.  Sept. 2013.     http://www.fairus.org/publications/real-immigration-enforcement-and-how-s-744-doesn-t-do-the-job        Click on "in PDF format" to see the full report.

From Center for Immigration Studies:

Must-Read Articles on the Schumer-Rubio Bill; Highlighting the Flaws of S.744. By CIS June 2013 http://cis.org/Must-Read-Articles-Schumer-Rubio-s744-Amnesty

Hoeven-Corker Amendment – Long on Amnesty, Short on Everything Else. By Ronald W. Mortensen, June 24, 2013.  http://cis.org/mortensen/hoeven-corker-amendment-long-amnesty-short-everything-else

Foreign-Born Share Would Hit Historic High in Seven Years Under S.744; One in Seven U.S. Residents Would Be Immigrants by 2020. By Steven A. Camarota June 2013.    http://cis.org/Foreign-born-historic-high-by-2020

Five Myths about Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants in Senate Bill. By Jon Feere, May 15, 2013.    http://cis.org/feere/5-myths-about-amnesty-illegal-immigrants-senate-bill

Questions for Lawmakers on Immigration. By Jon Feere August 2013. http://cis.org/questions-for-lawmakers-on-immigration

Widening Existing Vulnerabilities; National Security Implications of S.744, Part 1. By Janice Kephart, July 8, 2013. http://cis.org/kephart/widening-existing-vulnerabilities-national-security-implications-s744-part-1

From NumbersUSA:

The FACTS on S.744.   This webpage includes live links to the following topics, all very useful in learning about the bill.  One must scroll far down on the page to see these topics.  The links listed below are not active but must be accessed through the NumbersUSA webpage at:  https://www.numbersusa.com/solutions/stop-amnesty

33 Million Green Cards in First Decade

S.744- Bad for America

S.744 -- 4 Big Problems

Heritage: Amnesty will cost taxpayers $6.3 trillion

National poll finds little support of Gang of Eight

FAIR: Top Reasons to Oppose S.744

12 Reasons to Oppose S.744

Marco Rubio: "First comes the Legalization"

Gang of Eight opposes Enforcement First

CIS: S.744 doubles guest-worker flows

USCCR Commissioner Peter Kirsanow op-ed: S.744 hurts low-skilled workers

S.744: More than 400 waivers and exemptions

S.744: Gang of Eight's Broken Promises

State-by-state U-6 unemployment rates. For 2013 updates, see http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm

Opposition to S.744

S.744 Dear Colleague Letter

Congressional Opposition to the Gang of Eight's bill

Letter to Congress Opposing Gang of Eight Amnesty bill

USCIS Union opposes S.744

Law Enforcement Organizations Opposed to Gang of Eight's bill

Conservative Coalition Opposes Gang of Eight's bill

National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers statement on Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment

USCISLetter of opposition to Corker-Hoeven amendment    

Letter of opposition from Evangelicals for Biblical Immigration

The individual testimonies are posted online as pdf documents. They can be accessed through this webpage: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Committees/SBT/2013-04-11-15-00/SB833/Details, which lists the testifiers in alphabetical order, or through this page,  https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Measures/Exhibits/SB833,which doesn’t alphabetize those listed but includes 2 names not in the other list.

Following is a list of persons who gave opposition testimony either in person or by written documents sent to the Committee. To read these testimonies, click on the links below, or visit the webpages linked above and click on the icon in left column beside the individual entry.

Crino, Art, Exhibit 17

Cross, David, Salem, Exhibit 9, Exhibit 10, Exhibit 11

Dane, Peter, Salem, Exhibit 19

DeCourcey, David & Christy, Bend, Exhibit 33

Dysinger, Janice, Exhibit 34

Edwards, K., Oregon Citizens Lobby, Exhibit 49

Eidem, Mike, Aloha, Exhibit 16

Fox, Todd, Exhibit 36

Hallgrimson, Daryl and Brenda, Exhibit 21

Hubbard, Jim, Wallowa County, Exhibit 3

Johnson, Dale, Salem, Exhibit 15

Kendoll, Cynthia, Salem, Exhibit 6

Ludwick, Jim, McMinnville, Exhibit 8

Mawhinney, Amber, student at OSU, Exhibit 22

Morgan, Catherine, NOLA Neighborhood Association, Exhibit 45

Morrise, Judy, Exhibit 60

Morrongiello, Gabriella, student at OSU, Exhibit 7

Nash, Don, Lake Oswego, Exhibit 18

O’Brien, Lois, Portland, Exhibit 27

Oregon State Sheriffs Association, by Darrell Fuller (testimony is neutral but points out weaknesses in the bill) – Exhibit 37

Poole, Don, Salem, Exhibit 25

Rowe, Kim, Corvallis, Exhibit 4

Teuscher, Sheryl, Rainier, Exhibit 55

Torres, Maureen, Exhibit 56

Van Staaveren, Elizabeth, McMinnville, Exhibit 58

Cocaine Incorporated;

How the World’s Most Powerful Drug Traffickers Run Their Business

By Patrick Radden Keefe

in The New York Times Magazine,  June 15, 2012

[Following is the first part of a lengthy, detailed description of how Mexican drug cartels operate.  To read the entire shocking account, see illustration and map, view the article on the New York Times website.]

One afternoon last August, at a hospital on the outskirts of Los Angeles, a former beauty queen named Emma Coronel gave birth to a pair of heiresses. The twins, who were delivered at 3:50 and 3:51, respectively, stand to inherit some share of a fortune that Forbes estimates is worth a billion dollars. Coronel’s husband, who was not present for the birth, is a legendary tycoon who overcame a penurious rural childhood to establish a wildly successful multinational business. If Coronel elected to leave the entry for “Father” on the birth certificates blank, it was not because of any dispute over patrimony. More likely, she was just skittish about the fact that her husband, Joaquín Guzmán, is the C.E.O. of Mexico’s Sinaloa cartel, a man the Treasury Department recently described as the world’s most powerful drug trafficker. Guzmán’s organization is responsible for as much as half of the illegal narcotics imported into the United States from Mexico each year; he may well be the most-wanted criminal in this post-Bin Laden world. But his bride is a U.S. citizen with no charges against her. So authorities could only watch as she bundled up her daughters and slipped back across the border to introduce them to their dad.

Known as El Chapo for his short, stocky frame, Guzmán is 55, which in narco-years is about 150. He is a quasi-mythical figure in Mexico, the subject of countless ballads, who has outlived enemies and accomplices alike, defying the implicit bargain of a life in the drug trade: that careers are glittering but brief and always terminate in prison or the grave. When Pablo Escobar was Chapo’s age, he had been dead for more than a decade. In fact, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Chapo sells more drugs today than Escobar did at the height of his career. To some extent, this success is easily explained: as Hillary Clinton acknowledged several years ago, America’s “insatiable demand for illegal drugs” is what drives the clandestine industry. It’s no accident that the world’s biggest supplier of narcotics and the world’s biggest consumer of narcotics just happen to be neighbors. “Poor Mexico,” its former president Porfirio Díaz is said to have remarked. “So far from God and so close to the United States.”

The Sinaloa cartel can buy a kilo of cocaine in the highlands of Colombia or Peru for around $2,000, then watch it accrue value as it makes its way to market. In Mexico, that kilo fetches more than $10,000. Jump the border to the United States, and it could sell wholesale for $30,000. Break it down into grams to distribute retail, and that same kilo sells for upward of $100,000 — more than its weight in gold. And that’s just cocaine. Alone among the Mexican cartels, Sinaloa is both diversified and vertically integrated, producing and exporting marijuana, heroin and methamphetamine as well.

Estimating the precise scale of Chapo’s empire is tricky, however. Statistics on underground economies are inherently speculative: cartels don’t make annual disclosures, and no auditor examines their books. Instead, we’re left with back-of-the-envelope extrapolations based on conjectural data, much of it supplied by government agencies that may have bureaucratic incentives to overplay the problem.

So in a spirit of empirical humility, we shouldn’t accept as gospel the estimate, from the Justice Department, that Colombian and Mexican cartels reap $18 billion to $39 billion from drug sales in the United States each year. (That range alone should give you pause.) Still, even if you take the lowest available numbers, Sinaloa emerges as a titanic player in the global black market. In the sober reckoning of the RAND Corporation, for instance, the gross revenue that all Mexican cartels derive from exporting drugs to the United States amounts to only $6.6 billion. By most estimates, though, Sinaloa has achieved a market share of at least 40 percent and perhaps as much as 60 percent, which means that Chapo Guzmán’s organization would appear to enjoy annual revenues of some $3 billion — comparable in terms of earnings to Netflix or, for that matter, to Facebook.

The drug war in Mexico has claimed more than 50,000 lives since 2006. But what tends to get lost amid coverage of this epic bloodletting is just how effective the drug business has become. A close study of the Sinaloa cartel, based on thousands of pages of trial records and dozens of interviews with convicted drug traffickers and current and former officials in Mexico and the United States, reveals an operation that is global (it is active in more than a dozen countries) yet also very nimble and, above all, staggeringly complex. Sinaloa didn’t merely survive the recession — it has thrived in recent years. And after prevailing in some recent mass-casualty clashes, it now controls more territory along the border than ever.

…

Read the rest of the article here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/magazine/how-a-mexican-drug-cartel-makes-its-billions.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

E-Verify is a voluntary, free federal internet program that allows employers to verify the work eligibility of new hires. Because E-Verify is successful in identifying illegal aliens seeking jobs, some local and national proponents of cheap foreign labor try to prevent its application by misrepresenting the program.

A common, unsubstantiated charge is that legally eligible workers are harmed by it because the program is so inaccurate.

Suzanne Bonamici, running for election to Oregon’s Congressional District 1, called E-Verify “notoriously unreliable,”  in a candidate debate sponsored by the Portland  League of Women Voters and the American Association of University Women, on Dec. 6, 2011.[1]

Here are some facts about E-Verify.

“Rosemary Jenks, the lawyer who heads up NumbersUSA's Capitol Hill Team, has repeatedly and publicly issued a challenge to the media and open-borders advocates to produce even one example of an American losing a job because the E-Verify system wrongly ordered it.

“If it turned out that of millions of transactions a year, there were 10 or 20 mistakes, we would be concerned but also find that to be an understandably tiny problem.

“But, to date, opponents have NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND an example of even ONE AMERICAN who lost a job due to problems with E-Verify.”

The Biggest 2 Lies About E-Verify (arguments opponents use to keep hiring illegal aliens), by Roy Beck, Jan. 31, 2009.

E-Verify is regularly updated and enhanced to improve its accuracy and usability.  For a description of E-Verify program improvements, see the E-Verify History and Milestones webpage.

In February 2012,  E-Verify added a service called Self Check, which enables citizens to test their Social Security number in the E-Verify program to confirm accuracy.  Thus anyone can make certain in advance that one’s standing as a legal worker is intact.   Self Check is also available in Spanish.

In December 2011, E-Verify reached a new record for that time:  it was in use at more than one million worksites.[2]  As of June 2014, about half a million more worksites had been added.

Customer satisfaction survey – E-Verify

Key Findings of the 2013 E-Verify User Survey

June 2014

More than 520,000 employers at over 1.5 million hiring sites nationwide are using E-Verify to help them confirm whether their newly hired employees are eligible to work in the United States. In 2013, the research firm Westat conducted an in-depth survey of nearly 3000 randomly sampled E-Verify employers to assess their satisfaction with the program, shed light on how they are using E-Verify, and suggest recommendation for further improvements. The following are [some] key findings from the survey.

Employer Confidence and Satisfaction with E-Verify

1. Most E-Verify employers believe that E-Verify is effective (92 percent) and perceive it as highly accurate (89 percent).

2. Overall, 97 percent of E-Verify employers agree that the system is user friendly. They continue to express high levels of satisfaction with E-Verify’s features and processes, including enrollment and start-up, system navigation, system reliability, program resources, and technical help.

3. Most E-Verify employers agree that the mandatory tutorial adequately prepared them to use E-Verify (93 percent), that the tutorial was easy to understand (91 percent), and that it answered all of their questions (87 percent).

4. Among employers who participate in E-Verify because of federal, state, or local government requirements, 70 percent say that they would be “likely” or “very likely” to continue with the program even if they were not required to do so.

[To view remainder of summary, click here.]

Do some illegal workers escape detection?

Linda Chavez in a column of Dec. 30. 2011,[3] asserted that the failure rate for identifying illegal workers under E-Verify is almost 50 percent, arguing this disqualifies the program for mandatory use.  Other open-borders advocates also cite similar criticisms.

Jack Martin, FAIR Special Projects Director, answers the criticism succinctly:[4]

“It is clear that some illegal alien workers escape detection by the E-Verify system, but no one knows how many. The false confirmation percentage cited in the GAO [Government Accountability Office] report was an estimate by a government contractor. Since that GAO report was issued, Richard Stana, the GAO director for homeland security and justice, reported to Congress in February 2011, ‘USCIS has reduced the incidence of ... E-Verify's vulnerability to fraud.’ And further progress in reducing false confirmations will be made when E-Verify is made a national mandatory system for all employers because the proposed legislation requires SSA to report evidence of false use of SSNs.

“The irony in the claim of unreliability of the E-Verify system is that it is not being made as an argument for improving the system. It is cynically being made by defenders of illegal aliens in an effort to prevent E-Verify from being expanded nationwide. They are trying to preserve job opportunities for illegal workers.”

References

[1] http://blip.tv/community-media-videos/league-of-women-voters-oregon-dist-1-congressional-candidate-forum-5799173

[2] http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Verification/E-Verify/E-Verify_Native_Documents/Everify%20Studies/Key-Findings_of_E-Verify_User_Survey_2013.pdf

[3] http://www.creators.com/opinion/linda-chavez/coulter-s-self-fulfilling-prophecy-11-12-30.html

[4] http://www.steinreport.com/archives/unreliability_of_e-verify.html

Here is a current list of E-verify employers in Oregon as of January 1, 2017.

Charges are made by opponents of E-Verify that the program cannot handle the large volume of work necessary for mandatory nationwide use. These charges are refuted in statements from some of the leading officials of the Department of Homeland Security’s Citizenship and Immigration Services, cited below.

1. Debunking the E-Verify Capacity Problem, by Stewart Baker, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Department of Homeland Security. May 21, 2008. (Second in a series on E-Verify issued in the DHS Leadership Journal)

"Based on a recent load testing, the system has the capacity to handle 240 million queries a year. That’s three to four times the number of people who are usually hired in a given year."

2. The following is quoted from Congressional testimony on June 10, 2008 by Jonathan R. Scharfen, Deputy Director, USCIS:

"The E-Verify program infrastructure is capable of handling the volume of queries that would be necessary for a nationwide mandatory employment verification system.

"DHS and SSA conducted cooperative end-to-end load testing of the Verification Information System (VIS), which is the database that supports E-Verify, in September of 2007. The results of the testing showed that E-Verify has the capacity to handle up to 60 million queries per year. This capacity is in line with the projected 60 million new hire queries per year that would result from mandatory E-Verify legislation applicable to all U.S. employers. DHS will continue to work with SSA to update the current pilot architecture to ensure that DHS and SSA can provide the most stable environment possible to the employer community and to create an independent environment for E-Verify queries, separate from SSA’s other processing needs."

3. Later Congressional testimony on Feb. 10, 2011 by Theresa Bertucci, Associate Director, Enterprise Services Directorate, USCIS, confirmed the capacity of the E-Verify program:

"Ensuring Future Capacity to Administer Increased Use of E-Verify.

"The E-Verify program is well-equipped to handle continued expansion. E-Verify currently has the capacity to receive at least 60 million electronic queries annually if all new hires were run through the E-Verify program. USCIS has invested in a dedicated information technology environment to transfer data from E-Verify to SSA to handle increased growth in query volume. To further help ensure continuous service in the future, USCIS expects to execute a service-level agreement with SSA in the near term. The service-level agreement will define the requirements for SSA to establish and maintain the capacity and availability of its system to support E-Verify."

4. E-Verify job-check system has room to grow, agency says, by Stephen Dinan, in The Washington Times, March 15, 2012.

" ‘We have the capacity currently to process far more queries than we currently handle. And so we can right now handle the expansion of E-Verify to additional states. But if it was mandated across the country, it would take us some time to ramp up for that exponentially greater volume,’ said Alejandro Mayorkas, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that handles legal-immigration benefits.

"An aide on the Judiciary panel said Mr. Smith's legislation [H.R. 2885] phases in the checks, which would give E-Verify a chance to ramp up. It also gives the Homeland Security secretary a waiver power to delay implementation for six months.

"As for additional resources, the aide said, the administration could submit any new needs to the Appropriations Committee. …"

House Bill 2787 – Instate Tuition Benefits for students illegally in the United States

It doesn’t matter which side of the immigration debate you’re on. 

In order for a law to be good, it has to be specific, actionable, and deliver what it promises. 

HB 2787 fails that test.

Section 18 d. stipulates that to be eligible for the benefits of this bill, a person has to “intend” to become a citizen.  This overlooks two key facts:

First, the State of Oregon has no standing to determine this intent.   Any attempt to do so would amount to guesswork. 

Second, in order for illegal aliens to pursue citizenship, they must return to their country of origin and  reside there while following the process legally.  This would preclude any student from obeying the provisions of the bill. Even the DACA program does not convey citizenship.

The only way that this bill could become broadly applicable is with the passage of a mass amnesty at a Federal level, as many pundits and politicians have suggested is “inevitable.”

However, we must consider that several major amnesties have come before Congress in the past twenty years, under presidents from both parties, and not a single one has become law.  The current amnesty push that is being foisted on the American people is already beginning to come apart at the seams.

Wouldn't it make more sense to wait until the Federal immigration issue is resolved before rushing to pass state laws that could contradict Federal law?

Clearly, banking on a Federal amnesty to make enforceable the provisions of this bill is reckless and shortsighted. 

This bill is bad for several reasons, but one reason should concern advocates from both sides of the debate:  The fact that HB 2787 still promises far more than it can deliver.

Thank you.

Cynthia Kendoll, Salem, OR

TESTIMONY FOR THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION,

ON HOUSE BILL 2787, FEBRUARY 13, 2013

by Elizabeth Van Staaveren, McMinnville OR

Chair Dembrow, Members of the Committee:

I oppose HB 2787 for many reasons.

First of all, I think legislators should be looking for ways to reduce illegal immigration, rather than rewarding and encouraging it.  Immigration control is not solely a federal responsibility.  There are many things states can do to help the federal government enforce immigration laws.  I am including paragraphs on that subject at the end of my testimony.

Citizens are having a very hard time now, and legislators’ responsibility is to them, not to the citizens of other countries.  Legislators should be working to pass mandatory E-Verify, which could help citizens enormously.  The E-Verify program is accurate and ready for expansion.  There are no truly valid reasons to oppose it.  Those who do, we can assume, want illegal immigration to continue.

Some legislators claim that giving in-state tuition won’t cost anybody anything.  The university officials who stated that the cost of giving in-state tuition to illegal aliens actually brings an increase to the university’s funds are unbelievable.  Tuition costs at state colleges are subsidized by taxpayers, and the size of the student body is closely linked to the overall cost of maintaining a college. 

The costs of maintaining colleges and educating citizen students will be much greater if large numbers of illegal aliens are given in-state tuition.  Nobody knows how many will apply. The bill does not mention any numerical limits, and there is no ending date.  Citizen students could easily lose places in college if in competition with illegal aliens and that is extremely unjust, no matter what the circumstances of the illegal alien are.  Citizenship and the rule of law must mean something, or our country is in deep trouble. 

Legislators, please think of all the unemployed and underemployed citizens, many of whom have been out of work for long periods, are hungry and sleeping in parks and on the streets.  This is mostly because they can’t get jobs; illegal aliens are preferred because they can be paid under the table and at lower wages than would apply if our immigration laws were honestly enforced.  Illegal labor has taken over the construction industry, many hotel and restaurant jobs, and illegal aliens are found in professional occupations also.

It is the illegal alien parents of illegal students who are to blame for their illegal alien children’s situation.  The whole family including parents and children should be deported.  They will not need to “live in the shadows” there, and the children, educated at U.S. citizens’ expense, can contribute their knowledge and talents to the country where they are legally entitled to live.

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

OREGON CAN HELP STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

by Elizabeth Van Staaveren

It's unreasonable to say or imply that only the federal government can deal with immigration issues, as some Oregon legislators have claimed.  Many states have already passed effective laws that reduce illegal immigration within the state. 

Instead of spending time devising benefits for illegal aliens, Oregon legislators could and should do much more to discourage illegal immigration.  Benefits to illegal aliens such as in-state tuition and driving privileges legitimize illegal immigration and entice more of it.  This is very harmful to citizens who must compete with illegal aliens for education and jobs at a time of widespread unemployment.  Also our country is overcrowded already, and the message to the world that we do not enforce our immigration laws will quickly overwhelm this nation.

A plethora of state action against illegal immigration is possible.  Rep. Kim Thatcher (House District 25, Salem) is a member of the national group, State Legislators for Legal Immigration (http://www.statelegislatorsforlegalimmigration.com/), formed in 2007, now including members in 41 states.  Their mission statement:  “to provide a network of state legislators who are committed to working together in demanding full cooperation among our federal, state and local governments in eliminating all economic attractions and incentives (including, but not limited to: public benefits, welfare, education and employment opportunities) for illegal aliens, as well as securing our borders against unlawful invasion.”

In 2009, Rep. Thatcher introduced a number of bills in the Legislature dealing with immigration, none of which moved forward because of the lack of support from other legislators, in particular the Democratic Party leadership.  Rep. Thatcher's news release of 3/19/09 listed her proposed bills.  The number and range of the bills show how much a motivated legislature could do to stop illegal immigration. 

ORS 181.850 now actually hinders and restricts cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration agents.  The Legislature should untie the hands of local police and allow them unimpeded cooperation.  Mr. David Cross has devoted many hours to tracking crimes by illegal aliens.  His monthly reports on criminal aliens in the Oregon State prison system give shocking statistics on the large numbers of foreign nationals convicted of serious crimes who have ICE holds placed on them, meaning they will be turned over the immigration authorities at the ends of their sentences.   Mr. Cross also reports on the hundreds of criminal aliens incarcerated in town and county jails as well as in the state prisons. 

The National Conference of State Legislatures, in the Issues & Research section of its website, has a section on immigration, including semi-annual reports on state laws related to immigrants and immigration.  The report for Jan. 1-June 30, 2012 is at http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/immig/2012-immigration-related-laws-and-resolutions.aspx.  It shows that many states are passing laws to help control illegal immigration.

The website of the Immigration Reform Law Institute (http://www.irli.org/index.html) has a section on State Cooperative Enforcement. Throughout the site there are references to various state actions related to immigration enforcement.  IRLI is affiliated with the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

More references on state laws related to immigration:

States can address the negative impacts of illegal immigration using tools they already have, by Ronald W. Mortensen.  Center for Immigration Studies, July 5, 2012.  http://cis.org/mortensen/states-can-address-negative-impacts-illegal-immigration-using-tools-they-already-have

Immigration isn’t just a federal matter; [interview with Kris Kobach on state vs. federal authority in immigration matters] by Terry Baynes, Thomson Reuters News and Insight, April 16, 2012.  http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2012/04_-_April/Kris_Kobach__Immigration_isn_t_just_a_federal_matter/

An overview of E-Verify policies at the state level, by Jon Feere, Center for Immigration Studies, July 2012.    http://www.cis.org/e-verify-at-the-state-level

Controlling illegal immigration; state and local governments must do more, by Matt A. Mayer, August 24, 2009.   29 p.    (Heritage Foundation Special Report)    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/08/controlling-illegal-immigration-state-and-local-governments-must-do-more

Congressional Research Service.  Authority of state and local police to enforce federal immigration law, by Michael John Garcia and Kate M. Manuel, September 10, 2012    (CRS report for Congress 7-5700, R41423)   198059.pdf

Federation for American Immigration Reform.   Legislation in the States.

• States with Laws or Executive Orders Requiring the Use of E-Verify
• States with Laws Prohibiting or Permitting In-State Tuition for Illegal Aliens
• States with Omnibus Immigration Measures

To the Members of the Committee of Higher Education and Workforce Development

No one wants to punish illegal alien students because of the actions of their parents, but I wonder if HB 2787 will punish taxpayers instead.

Each in-state American college student represents about $20,000 in deficit spending for each $7,000 annual tuition he pays. Yet, Rep. Denbrow’s office claims that undocumented Oregonians won’t create the same $20,000 deficit, just pure profit. The Effect on Expenditure Report says so

.A staffer from Rep. Denbrow’s office told me that each “undocumented Oregonian’s” tuition money would enrich a college that wouldn’t have had it otherwise, meaning he’s a money-maker, as long as the college doesn’t need more classrooms or teachers. How do American students create a deficit while illegally present students represent pure profit? You can’t have it both ways. But as a business person, I’m unimpressed with the creative explanations of the Legislative Fiscal Office. Also, I don’t trust the claims from politicians who can raise my taxes or my kid’s tuition to cover debt they create, intentional or not. I don’t even know if you will examine the tax records of the parents to see if they’ve paid into our system.

If you’re going to pass HB 2787, what will you do for citizens in return to stop luring illegal aliens to Oregon in the first place? You have refused almost every opportunity to end magnets in the past, with the exception of stopping drivers licenses.

The state never passed an E-Verify bill or stopped employers from deducting illegal labor as a business expense, a practice that undercuts honest employers. Oregon didn’t even pass the bill that would have sent non-violent criminal aliens home early, thus cutting prison costs.

Instead, you have protected illegal immigration as if it’s the role of citizens to tolerate corruption and lawlessness, and to ignore our representational dilution. For instance, supporters of HB 2787 were given unlimited time to speak while opponents were given only a token opportunity of twenty minutes at the hearing.

If taxpayers must assume liability for this bill I want assurance that you will resurrect the other bills that will prevent more of the same problems in the future. Representative Dembrow claims that ending magnets is strictly a federal responsibility, but Oregon’s failure to stop magnets at the state level when it could have mirrors federal failure. The state’s habit of placating illegal aliens and their employers but not citizens, indicates highly selective compassion. You can’t reward lawlessness indefinitely without our rule of law or our taxpayers collapsing. I urge you to bring back the state E-Verify bill, end labor write-offs, and pass the early removal bill as a sign that you want to protect the value of citizenship while assisting the students.

Sincerely,

Lyneil Vandermolen, Tualatin OR

Testimony of Richard F. LaMountain

House Bill 2787, Higher Education and Workforce Development Committee

Oregon House of Representatives, February 13, 2013

Gentlemen, thank you for the chance to testify.  My name is Richard LaMountain.   I  live in Washington County.

Please oppose House Bill2787.   "Tuition equity" is a misnomer.   Granting in-state tuition to young people here illegally would give them chances not equal, but in many cases superior, to those of American citizens seeking the same educational and professional opportunities.

In this debate, few have raised the issue of affirmative action.  Most of the illegal immigrants this bill favors would qualify as federal "protected minorities" -- and, thereby, for affirmative-action preferences over those who do not qualify as such, including the majority of American citizens.  These preferences would enable illegal immigrants who were helped into an Oregon university by in-state tuition to compete with and, in many cases, to beat American citizens for positions in post-graduate academic and professional programs over the course of their entire lives.

Affirmative action originally was intended to assure that black American citizens, after decades of suppression, would have access to educational and occupational opportunities.  It would pervert that intent to give foreign citizens, especially those here illegally, the in-state tuition that would enable the vast majority of them to access, in turn, the affirmative-action preferences that would give them a competitive edge over American citizens long into the future.

Please remember: Whatever the circumstances of an illegal immigrant's arrival in this country, our nation's foremost responsibility is to its own people -- its own citizens. House Bill 2787 would violate that responsibility.

Gentlemen, the session is barely into its second week, yet you've scheduled a work session on the bill for this Friday.  I urge you: on Friday, do not vote to send this bill to the House floor.  This early in the session very few Oregonians are yet tuned in, and most don't even know this bill has been introduced.  Many of them ultimately may wish to weigh in with you on this issue, and they have a right to do so.  So out of respect for your constituents, for the democratic process, and for your own deliberative responsibilities, please vote on this bill not this Friday but later in the session.

                  Thank  you.

Richard F. LaMountain, Portland OR

These additional testimonies can be viewed on the website of the House Committee on Higher Education:  https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Measures/Exhibits/HB2787.

Atkinson, Marcia - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/2671

Biglor, Gladys - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/1728

Bills, James - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/1982

Cooper, Rosemary - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/2676

Girod, Clifford - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/2724

Hallgrimson, Daryl and Brenda - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/2672

Innes, Mary - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/2679

Kolbo, Neal - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/2680

Morrongiello, Gabriella - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/2665

Nash, Don - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/1652

Poole, Don - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/2681

Scott, Rosemary - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/2682

David Olen Cross  -- https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/9397

Mike Eidem -- https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/10034

Clifford Girod –  https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/10034

Daryl, Brenda, and Bailey Hallgrimson  -- https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/10068

Cynthia Kendoll -- https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/10037

Jim Ludwick -- https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/10047

Carol Mohr -- https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/10067

Rep. Julie Parrish – [She voted for HB 2787 in the House, but at the Senate Hearing, she spoke for equal consideration for veterans.] https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/9521

Rebecca Roth -- https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/9770

Elizabeth Van Staaveren -- https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/8077

Additional opponents testified orally and did not submit written materials for the record.  Some opponents submitted written testimony only and did not speak at the Hearing.

June 22, 2013

National Polls

1. Poll finds little support for GOP who favor S. 744 bill to increase immigrant workers and give work permits to illegal aliens. June 21, 2013. [Pulse Opinion Research survey of 1,000 likely voters, conducted on June 17, 2013]

2. CNN Poll: 62% Say Border Security Needs to be First Priority in Immigration Policy.  June 18, 2013. [Poll conducted June 11-13, 2013]

3. Washington Post/ABC poll: Only 18 percent support Gang of Eight approach to illegal immigration.   Friday, May 24, 2013. [Poll conducted May 16-19, 2013]

4.Rasmussen Poll of March 20-21, 2013.   64% of immigration reform supporters put border control first.

5. Fox News poll:  Most support strengthening borders before other immigration reform. [Poll conducted Feb. 25-27, 2013]

A Fox News poll finds that 84% favor strengthening border security to prevent illegal aliens from entering the country. while only 13% oppose it.

6. National Survey of 1000 Likely Voters, conducted February 6, 2013.   By Pulse Opinion Research for the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

7. [many additional polls at: https://www.numbersusa.com/content/polls.html and http://www.fairus.org/facts/illegal-immigration-and-amnesty-polls]

OREGON POLLS

Three polls on driver cards for illegal aliens

1. Statesman Journal poll, March 27, 2013. Should the Oregon Legislature reinstate driver's licenses for those who cannot prove legal presence in the United States? No - 91%. http://www.statesmanjournal.com/poll/2013-03-27/6994676/results

2. Survey by Rep. Dennis Richardson, linked from his Newsletter of May 2, 2013.

http://www.leg.state.or.us/richardson/newsletter/newsletters_2013/newsletter_050213.html

(May be necessary to access through his newsletter. The URL for the survey is:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=rK1awoL_2bSgxfkfC2HlWgqrCN30mxqd_2bj8aNwrKneb6Y_3d)

Do you support or oppose Senate Bill 833, which creates a limited use Oregon Drivers’ Card for Oregon residents who cannot qualify for a standard Drivers’ License?

Answered question, 8,463 . Skipped question, 85.

I SUPPORT SB 833 - 44.2% 3,744. I OPPOSE SB 833 - 55.8% 4,719

3. Statesman Journal poll, May 1, 2013. Will you or someone you know benefit from four-year driver’s cards issued to those who don't have the required paperwork to obtain a driver's license?

No – 93%. http://www.statesmanjournal.com/poll/2013-05-01/7073579/results

Two Polls on in-state tuition in Oregon

1. Should illegal immigrants be allowed to pay in-state tuition to Oregon universities, if they graduated from Oregon high schools? In The World, Coos Bay OR, Feb. 21, 2013. No 819; Yes 264, Not Yet 72.

http://theworldlink.com/news/local/should-illegal-immigrants-be-allowed-to-pay-in-state-tuition/poll_6f15cb7e-7c53-11e2-929c-0019bb2963f4.html

2. Statesman Journal poll, Feb. 23, 2013: The House passed a bill allowing in-state tuition rates for undocumented immigrant students. If it becomes law, do you believe it will be beneficial for Oregon? Yes – 13%; No – 84%; Don’t know – 1%

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/poll/2013-02-23/6915637/results

General poll on state enforcement of immigration laws

Oregon Poll Data from Rasmussen Poll: Arizona Law SB 1070. July 2010.

Suppose the new Arizona immigration law was being considered for your state. Would you favor or oppose passage of that law in your state? Favor, 59%

Do you agree or disagree with the decision to challenge the legality of Arizona’s new immigration law? Disagree, 55%.
http://www.fairus.org/facts/states/poll_OR

2018

Remarks by President Trump at Law Enforcement Roundtable on Sanctuary Cities, issued on: March 20, 2018

Sanctuary Cities Undermine Law Enforcement and Endanger Our Communities; White House Fact Sheet, March 20, 2018. Lists steps taken to restore law and order to the immigration system, including reversal of sanctuary city policies.

What You Need to Know About Sanctuary Cities; White House statement, March 13 2018.

Criminal Aliens Set Free By Sanctuary Cities; White House article, February 13, 2018.

The Dangerous Myth That Sanctuary City Policies Encourage Victims and Witnesses to Cooperate with Local Law Enforcement. FAIR Issue Brief written by Matt O'Brien | March 30, 2018. Contents - The Claim: Sanctuary Policies Enhance Information Sharing Between the "Immigrant" Community and Law Enforcement.- Why the Claim is False.- How Many Criminal Aliens Are Allowed Back Onto Our Streets by Sanctuary Policies? - Conclusion. View as a pdf: https://fairus.org/sites/default/files/2018-03/IssueBrief_Sanctuary-Cities-and-Alien-Cooperation.pdf. 8 p., of which p.7-8 consist of footnotes which begin at bottom of p.6.

Sanctuary Jurisdictions Nearly Double Since President Trump Promised to Enforce Our Immigration Laws. Federation for American Immigration Reform, May 2018. 154 p. This report is a pdf document including links to 564 sanctuary policies currently in operation. Arrangement is by state. https://fairus.org/sites/default/files/2018-05/Sanctuary-Report-FINAL-2018.pdf

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.

2017

Fact Sheet: Donald J. Trump and Attorney General Sessions Stand Up Against Lawless Sanctuary Cities. White House press release, August 16, 2017.

U.S. Department of Justice. Attorney General Jeff Sessions Delivers Remarks on Sanctuary Jurisdictions, Washington DC, Monday, March 27, 2017. (Press release)
For a brief summary, see: AG Sessions says they will withhold federal funding from sanctuary jurisdictions, on NumbersUSA’s website, March 28, 2017.

______________. Department of Justice Sends Letter to Nine Jurisdictions Requiring Proof of Compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373. (Press release issued Friday, April 21, 2017) Copies of the letters sent can be viewed by clicking the link at end of Press release.

_____________. Attorney General Jeff Sessions Issues Memorandum on Implementation of Executive Order 13768, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” Washington DC, Monday, May 22, 2017. (Press release) The press release listing does not describe the memo; it links to text of the memo which is displayed here. These news articles summarize the content of the memo, giving background and details: What Is a ‘Sanctuary City?’ Sessions Memo Clarifies DOJ Position, by Ian Mason, 22 May 2017; Sessions Readies Crackdown on ‘Sanctuary’ Jurisdictions, by Brendon Darby, 23 May 2017.

_____________. Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks to Federal Law Enforcement Authorities About Sanctuary Cities, Portland OR, September 19, 2017.

Why President Trump Can And Should Strip Sanctuary City Federal Funding, by Matt O’Brien, Federation for American Immigration Reform, April 12, 2017.

List of CIS reports on sanctuary cities. This online list is continually being updated. Here are a few recent entries; some entries are blogs and some are fuller reports. For example,

• Courthouses as Sanctuaries?, by Dan Cadman, April 11, 2017.
• Map: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States, by Bryan Griffith, Marguerite Telford, Jessica Vaughan. March 2017.
• Sanctuary Cities Must Cooperate With Federal Enforcement, by Jan Ting, December 2016. Published by the New York Times, Dec. 1.
• A Practical Step toward Dismantling Unlawful Sanctuary Rules, by Dan Cadman, August 2016.

List of NumbersUSA references on sanctuary policies. Click here to get a current list of NumbersUSA’s many news reports on sanctuary policies. For example, this posting of March 28, 2017: Rasmussen poll: Likely voters believe that sanctuary policies make their communities less safe. If the link doesn’t work, visit the homepage of NumbersUSA and use Search box in top horizontal menu, entering search term “sanctuary policies.”

Beaverton's 'sanctuary' status will threaten U.S. citizens, by Richard F. LaMountain. In Beaverton [Oregon] Valley Times, January 19, 2017. Also posted on OFIR website here. LaMountain is a past Vice President, OFIR.

Partners In Crime: Mayors Of Sanctuary Cities, Human Traffickers And Other Criminals, by Michael W. Cutler, April 4, 2017. On website of Californians for Population Stabilization. Cutler is a retired INS Senior Special Agent, with 30 years’ service at INS.

Oregon's Sanctuary Status Threatens Public Safety and Law Enforcement Funding, by Billy J. Williams. Op-ed In The Oregonian, Sunday, August 6, 2017. Billy J. Williams is the United States Attorney for the District of Oregon.

2016

Tackling Sanctuaries, by Dan Cadman, Jessica Vaughan. Center for Immigration Studies, December 2016. 18 p. “This report examines the justifications given by sanctuary jurisdictions for their policies, and finds them to be largely unfounded. … The Trump administration has a number of tools available at its disposal and within the confines of executive authority to address the problem of sanctuaries and the public safety problems they create. Contents: Key Findings -- Introduction and background -- What is a “sanctuary”? -- What are the arguments made by sanctuary advocates? -- How can the new Administration tackle sanctuaries? -- Conclusion -- End notes.

The Role of State & Local Law Enforcement in Immigration Matters and Reasons to Resist Sanctuary Policies. Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Issue brief, January 2016. 8 p. (pdf version, 6 p.) Partial contents. -- Cooperation with federal immigration officials is essential to thwarting national security threats. -- Cooperation with federal immigration officials saves taxpayer money. -- The Supreme Court has upheld state and local cooperation and assistance provisions. -- Conversely, state and local sanctuary policies may be preempted by federal law.

Sanctuary Nation; the Tragic Cost of Harboring Illegal Alien Criminals. (vol.26, no.3, Spring 2016 issue of the quarterly magazine, The Social Contract) Partial contents. -- America’s ‘sanctuary cities’ and their tragic consequences, by Dave Gibson. -- The impact of criminal alien violence: Administrations’ immigration policies under scrutiny at Congressional Hearing, by Rep. Trey Gowdy. -- Dangerous alien criminals prey on American communities, by Rep. Bob Goodlatte. -- Immigration and the art of the question: effective questions that must be asked of our politicians, by Michael Cutler.

HB 2932, “Relating to the immigration status of criminal defendants; declaring an emergency.  Prohibits court from inquiring into defendant’s immigration status or requiring defendant to disclose defendant’s immigration status at time of plea or at any other time during criminal proceeding.  Requires court to allow defendant, upon request, additional time for plea decision after informing defendant about possible adverse immigration consequences of plea. Declares emergency, effective on passage.”

Written statements submitted in opposition to HB 2932, at House Hearing, 3/18/2019

In alphabetical order by first name

Cynthia Kendoll - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174570

David Wall – https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174984

Elizabeth Van Staaveren –  https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174206

Jerry Ritter - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/173965

Jim Ludwick - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174594

Lyneil Vandermolen –  https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174571

Richard LaMountain – https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174572

====================================

Written statements submitted in support of HB 2932, at House Hearing, 3/18/2019

In alphabetical order by name of organization

1. ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon), Leland Baxter-Neal, Staff  Attorney.    https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174299

2. AILA (American Immigration Lawyers Association), Cindy del Rosario, Immigration Attorney, Gonzales and Gonzales Law Offices.     ttps//olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174329

3. Causa, Andrea Williams, Executive Director.       https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174573

4. OCDLA (Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association), Mary Sofia, Legislative Director.    https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174338

5. OCDLA (Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association), Kacy Jones, Attorney, Metropolitan Public Defender.    https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174332

6. OJRC (Oregon Justice Research Center, Immigrant Rights Project), Joseph Justin Rollin and Erin L. McKee, Attorneys and Co-Directors.    https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174283

7. PCUN (Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste), Martha Sonato, Political Director.    https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174586