Letters page
Welcome to the OFIR Letters and Op-Eds section. Here you can read Letters to the Editor and Op-Eds that have been published in various newspapers and news sources.
One of the most basic duties of our government is to protect its citizens.
Cities and states that provide sanctuary to illegal immigrants violate this duty, and politicians who support it for political gain are dangerous, naive, and grossly negligent.
Perhaps enlightened leaders like Gov. Kate Brown can explain how sanctuary zones promote safety and justice to the families of victims like Kate Steinle, the young woman (allegedly) killedby an undocumented immigrant deported five times, yet protected by the city of San Francisco.
According to a recent report by the United States Sentencing Commission, “non-citizens” account for about 22 percent of all federal murder convictions and 72 percent of federal drug convictions, an appalling statistic, given that undocumented immigrants account for about 7 percent of the U.S. population.
As a society, we should have empathy for foreigners wanting a better life for themselves and their families and should provide a path to citizenship for those who can lawfully contribute.
But the reality is that we can’t accept everyone who applies for citizenship. And we shouldn’t. U.S. citizenship is not a human right; it is a privilege extended by our government.
And it is our responsibility to determine whom we welcome as fellow citizens.
Equal Time 101: In a Nov. 17 letter to Gov. Kate Brown, Oregon Health Authority (OHA) Director Pat Allen documented the myriad ways in which the agency tasked with managing Oregon's $9.3 billion Medicaid program has wasted or misallocated taxpayer dollars.
Oregon overpaid $74 million in federal funds to “dual eligible” enrollees who were old enough to qualify for Medicare and poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, Mr. Allen wrote. The OHA also incorrectly enrolled an undisclosed number of unauthorized immigrants in Medicaid, rather than in the state’s less expansive emergency health care program, costing taxpayers $25.7 million in “payment errors and over-claimed federal funds.”
The Oregon Secretary of State’s audit, released Nov. 29, found that 41 percent of Medicaid enrollees in a backlog of 115,200 recipients were in fact ineligible for the benefits they received.
Would you invest your money in such a business? Does this inspire you with confidence? Does it make you want to be taxed more? What they have done with federal money they will do with yours if you give them a 101 “blank check." That is what Measure 101 will do to you. For starters, a “yes” on Measure 101 will assess (tax) “certain hospitals” 0.7 percent, add 1.5 percent assessment on the Public Employees Benefit Board, managed care organizations, and insurers. You also will pay for local government and school health cost increases due to the insurance assessments.
Measure 101 will tax you to mismanage their Oregon sanctuary state utopian health care dreams.
Vote no.
Homelessness is a problem across America. Recently, it was reported that 168,000 people were homeless on the West Coast. Nationally, homelessness according to the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, the 2016 census ranges from 58 homeless per 100,000 in Mississippi to 437 per 100,000 in New York, with an average being about 125 per 100,000.
Looking at a map provided by the Center for Immigration Studies of sanctuary localities in America and comparing it with the homeless census, it becomes clear that sanctuary policies increase homelessness. Illegal aliens are drawn to sanctuary localities and compete with the educationally and economically disadvantaged U.S. citizens for the finite number of housing and jobs available.
Oregon, a sanctuary state, has the second highest rate of homelessness with 323 per 100,000, followed by California, a sanctuary state, in third with 301 per 100,000, and Washington, with Seattle and surrounding counties being sanctuary localities, in fifth with 286 per 100,000.
States and large metropolitan areas that adopt sanctuary status have more than double the average homeless populations compared to states that enforce federal immigration laws. It’s time we demand the rescinding of Oregon’s sanctuary status and put our most vulnerable citizens’ needs as a priority.
PCC, a taxpayer-supported institution, has undermined the rule of law. It is voters' right and obligation to hold PCC to account.
In mid-October, area voters will receive ballots to approve or reject Portland Community College's $185-million bond request. Before voting, they should ask: Has PCC earned the trust to credibly solicit — let alone to deserve — more of our hard-earned money?
As one of the property owners who would foot PCC's tax bill, I say no. Over the past 18 months, the college has taken actions that subvert U.S. law; threaten public safety; and violate its moral, fiduciary and educational responsibilities to American students, taxpayers and the nation as a whole.
First: Late last year, PCC's elected board of directors declared the college a sanctuary for illegal immigrants. Via this policy, the college will refuse U.S. immigration authorities information on any illegal-immigrant student "unless legally compelled."
Why did PCC's directors take this action? Had they exercised due diligence, they would have found their sanctuary policy violates federal law: 8 U.S. Code 1324 criminalizes all who, "knowing ... that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields" that alien from detection.
Worse still, the policy endangers public safety. What if, in a swiftly-developing case, PCC were to deny its help to law-enforcement authorities seeking the whereabouts of a criminal-alien enrollee? That refusal would give the subject more time to elude capture, commit further crimes — and, possibly, escape justice completely.
Second: Last month, PCC announced it had established a "Dream Center" on its Rock Creek campus to provide academic and legal help to illegal-immigrant students.
Again: Why? Does PCC consider the educations of non-citizens more important than the educations of Americans? In many PCC programs — welding, nursing and veterinary technology, for instance — enrollment is limited and there is stiff competition for admission. The illegal-immigrant students championed by PCC's "Dream Center" will compete against, and in many cases crowd out, the college's American students for spots in those programs.
And to ice the cake: In April of last year, the college sponsored a "Whiteness History Month." The "whiteness" ideology, as summarized by academician Mikhail Lyubansky, posits that "U.S. society is characterized by a socially-created racial hierarchy that values white[s] above all others."
This, simply put, is nonsense. Over the past half-century, American governments, colleges and businesses have instituted aggressive "diversity," affirmative-action and minority set-aside policies. These give citizens and even non-citizens of color preferences for educations, jobs and promotions over the very citizens PCC alleged are "privileged" by "whiteness." Today, American society provides more freedom, opportunity and prosperity to more people of more races than any society in the world. What, then, possessed PCC to propagate a racially-divisive ideology that fosters resentment against that society?
In sum: PCC, a taxpayer-supported institution, has undermined the rule of law. It has championed, to the detriment of Americans, the interests of non-citizens here illegally. It has denigrated U.S. history and society. And it has set a destructive example for the students in whom it should strive to imbue respect — not contempt — for their country and its laws.
It is voters' right and obligation to hold PCC to account. When they receive their ballots, they should vote no on the PCC bond.
CONTRIBUTED - Richard F. LaMountain
Richard F. LaMountain lives in Cedar Mill. He was a chief sponsor of the 2014 statewide ballot measure via which Oregon voters rejected illegal-immigrant driving privileges. Email: rflamountain@peoplepc.com
We must maintain the trust of all residents so they too feel free to report crimes.
Recently, questions have been raised about why the U.S. attorney general portrayed Oregon law enforcement as unwilling to help Immigration Custom Enforcement (ICE) enforce immigration law.
Three separate issues limit the ability of Oregon law enforcement officers to cooperate with federal immigration officers. All of these issues are completely outside the control of law enforcement; two are statutory restrictions enacted by the Oregon Legislature, and the other is a result of a federal court decision.
In 1987, the Oregon Legislature passed ORS 181A.820, specifically prohibiting local police from using any agency money, equipment or personnel for the purpose of detecting or apprehending people whose only violation is being in the country illegally. This law makes it clear that Oregon officers cannot get involved in immigration enforcement, although it does allow sharing information with ICE if a person is arrested on criminal charges.
Earlier this year, the Legislature passed and the governor signed HB 3464 into law, which further prevents Oregon law enforcement agencies from sharing certain information with ICE. This law allows police to share the name of the person in custody, but we cannot share the person's address, associates, work or school information, contact information, or the times of their court hearings in some cases.
The final limitation is the opinion of the federal court in the Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas County case. The court found that keeping Maria Miranda-Olivares in custody solely on the basis of an ICE detainer violated her constitutional rights. The county paid her more than $30,000 for holding her 19 hours past her release time.
Recently, another issue emerged that could potentially effect federal grants used to help fund local law enforcement programs. There are now federal demands to certify compliance with federal law in order to obtain these grants. These demands already have resulted in litigation, City of Chicago v. Sessions.
Significant uncertainty exists about whether we can comply with this federal law, (specifically 8 USC 1373), which prohibits any state or local prohibitions or restrictions on sending or receiving information from ICE regarding the citizenship or immigration status of a person.
The state doesn't believe that Oregon law violates federal law. It is unclear how the federal government will view HB 3464, and law enforcement is stuck in the middle between state and federal law. The Oregon State Sheriffs' Association has put this question to the U.S. Attorney's Office and is awaiting an answer.
Oregon law enforcement leaders are in a very difficult position. We must maintain the trust of all community members so they too feel free to report crimes, appear at court hearings, and understand Oregon officers do not enforce federal immigration law. That had been the case since 1987 — we were restricted from actively assisting ICE, but we were free to provide them the information they needed to carry out their mission.
That delicate neutrality has been destroyed by increasing tension and conflict between the state and federal law and administrations. The unwillingness of Washington, D.C., to acknowledge cases like Miranda-Olivares puts Oregon law enforcement agencies at risk.
Our national leaders' unwillingness to fix an immigration system that has been broken for decades is incredibly disappointing. The enactment of HB 3464, which requires Oregon law enforcement to deny information to ICE that any other person could lawfully obtain, further complicates our work, and the resulting restrictions on public safety grant funding reduces public safety.
The political rhetoric around immigration has some of our communities questioning whether they can trust their local law enforcement.
The immigration issues facing Oregon law enforcement are complex, challenging, and unlikely to be resolved quickly. In the meantime, your Oregon sheriffs will uphold the law, keep the lines of communication with both state and federal partners open, and focus on keeping our communities safe.
John Bishop is director of the Oregon State Sheriffs' Association. He served as sheriff of Curry County from 2008 to 2014. He can be reached at bishop@oregonsheriffs.org.
I find it rather sad that there are so many of our state and local politicians, local leaders, and citizens who want to support illegal entrants over citizens of the United States.
I know that in the liberal town of Eugene it is considered heresy to make a statement like that. However, as Attorney General Jeff Sessions has said, we are a nation of laws that need to be followed.
Since many of our elected leaders support not following immigration laws today, what laws will they not want to follow tomorrow? Maybe tomorrow there will be no penalty for robbery, murder, rape, speeding, abusing a child, not following affirmative action or allowing a pet to overheat in a car.
For the benefit of all the citizens of the United States, we need to follow all the laws of our country. If you don’t like a law, do what President Trump just did with Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival executive order. He asked Congress to take a look at it and add or modify the law as it saw fit.
Please don’t allow state and local politicians and leaders to spend one cent of our tax dollars fighting for something that clearly needs to be addressed by Congress.
