E-Verify

OFIR meeting - Saturday, Jan. 14 at 2:00pm

Alert date: 
2016-01-08
Alert body: 

Plan to join us for our upcoming OFIR membership meeting this Saturday, January 14 from 2:00 - 4:00pm at the Best Western Mill Creek Inn across from Costco in Salem, OR.

Learn what the future may hold with a Trump presidency.  We will be discussing local election results, as well.  There is reason for hope in our immigration efforts.

The Oregon Legislature will start the 2017 session next month.  Find out what's in the hopper and what OFIR members can do to get involved.

OFIR President, Cynthia Kendoll traveled with Center for Immigration Studies for a week long intensive study of the northeastern US /Canadian border.  She will give a photo presentation and discussion of her trip.

Invite a friend, relative, neighbor or co-worker to join you! 

 

 

 

Hidden Ipsos Poll: Public Strongly Backs Donald Trump’s Plan To ‘Pause’ Legal Immigration

Hidden Ipsos Poll: Public Strongly Backs Donald Trump’s Plan To ‘Pause’ Legal Immigration

immigration
AP/DAMIAN DOVARGANES

A just-released poll shows that Donald Trump’s campaign-trail immigration and labor policies have overwhelming public support, and strong opposition from just one-sixth of voters. 

The Ipsos poll shows that only about one-in-six Americans strongly oppose Trump’s policies towards immigrant labor, repatriations, sanctuary cities, Islamic migrants, employer oversight and his ground-breaking proposal to reduce legal immigration.

Trump’s labor and immigration policies are “strongly” backed by .... an average support of almost 60 percent, versus strong opposition of just 15 percent. Roughly 10 percent did not answer the questions.

Ipsos is a highly rated polling firm, but conducted the poll in September and hid the pro-Trump answers until Nov. 16, a week after the election....

Trump’s promise to start “immediately deporting” illegals who have committed crimes gets 75 percent strong and somewhat support, and only 7 percent strong opposition. That’s 10-to-one support.

Sixty-two percent support and 13 percent strongly oppose, “detaining or immediately deporting all people who enter the U.S. illegally.”

Sixty-seven percent of respondents support, and only 9 percent strongly oppose, the implementation of current laws that levy fines on employers who hired illegals instead of Americans...

The poll shows that Trump’s revised plans to minimize the danger of immigrant Islamic terrorism is backed by 59 percent, and strongly opposed by 12 percent. That result echoes the public’s strong opposition to Islamic doctrines.

The most significant result in the poll, however, is the strong support for reductions in legal immigration, which amounted in 2015 to roughly one new immigrant for every two Americans entering the workforce, or one immigrant for every two American births... 57 percent, back reductions in legal immigration, while 13 percent did not take a position.

On the campaign trail, Trump called for a two-year pause in legal immigration....

Any significant reduction in immigration would raise Americans’ salaries and wages, cut welfare spending, reduce housing costs and drop unemployment, according to recent studies by a Wall Street advisory group that backed Hillary Clinton, and by the National Academies of Sciences.

More importantly, a major reduction in immigration would force Democrats to give up their 20-year strategy of gaining political dominance by importing government-dependent poor workers and voters...

Screen Shot 2016-11-17 at 1.54.35 PM

 Many polls show that most Americans do like immigrants, and they want to be seen liking immigration — but they also want a reduction in the annual immigration of 1 million people, which cuts salaries for the 4 million Americans who enter the job market each year. ...

This same outspoken response is also visible in a pre-election poll of the midwesterners who gave Trump his election-winning state victories, and of Latinos, who mostly prioritize the economy over additional immigration of their ethnic group. On Nov 8, “actual election results from counties with large Latino populations suggests that Trump probably did no worse than [Gov Mitt] Romney among Latinos, and probably did better,” said Harry Enten, a data analyst at Fivethirtyeight.com.

These disparate views of Americans are highlighted in the IPSOS poll by unusually strong opposition to Trump’s campaign-trail promise to extend the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Overall, 42 percent strongly or somewhat supported building a wall, while 32 percent strongly opposed a wall, said the poll.

But this response from the 1,005 adult respondents is likely influenced by party solidarity because it was conducted Sept. 1 to Sept. 2, 2016, during the political campaign where Trump’s main theme was construction of a border wall...

Similarly, 23 percent of the poll’s respondents strongly opposed cancellation of the Obama’s 2012 quasi-amnesty for younger illegals, who are called ‘Dreamers” by Democratic advocates. When asked if they support or oppose “Ending the executive orders that protect people who were brought to the US illegally when they were children,” 23 percent said they were strongly opposed, and 23 percent said they “strongly” support the proposal. Overall, 43 percent of Americans support an end to the amnesty, while 45 percent somewhat or strongly oppose ending the amnesty.

But when the same question is asked without any reference to “children,” support for repatriations spikes and opposition crashes. Sixty-two percent support — and only 13 percent strongly oppose — “detaining or immediately deporting all people who enter the U.S. illegally.” That’s four-to-one support for enforcing immigration laws. 

The public’s conflicting answers may also be caused by the poll’s lack of information about the scale and economic impact of current immigration.

Trump deportations would hit Idaho ag, where a fourth of all workers are undocumented

What would happen to an industry that loses one-fourth or more of its employee base?

Idaho’s agriculture industry, and particularly its farming sector, might run head-on into that hypothetical question if President-elect Donald Trump follows through on a pledge to reverse his predecessor’s executive actions on immigration and deport undocumented immigrants en masse.

Agriculture represents about 4 percent of Idaho’s $65 billion annual gross domestic product, and about the same percentage of the state labor force..... - approximately 45,000...

But Pew’s analysis says Idaho’s undocumented workers dominate in the state’s agriculture industry....

The state’s agricultural industry employs more than 40 percent of Idaho’s undocumented immigrant population, and more than one-quarter of all state ag workers are undocumented. Idaho, Washington and Oregon are the only three states in the nation where agriculture is tops in both of those metrics, said Jeffrey Passel, senior demographer with Pew and one of the study’s authors.

The share of agriculture workers who are unauthorized “tends to be very high everywhere,” Passel said. But Idaho’s agriculture sector is “a little bit unusual” because it also employs the largest portion of the state’s unauthorized immigrants. Nationwide, construction and the leisure/hospitality industry, which includes hotel service workers, employ the most unauthorized immigrants.

“Just 4 percent of unauthorized workers are in agriculture” nationwide, Passel said.

IDAHO TOPS IN AMNESTY ELIGIBILITY

Idaho ranked first among states in the percentage of undocumented immigrants who could avoid deportation under President Obama’s executive action on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and related moves on pathways to citizenship — more than 60 percent, according to Pew. That’s because such a high percentage of Idaho’s undocumented population, nearly 9 out of 10, is Mexican. That population qualifies at a higher rate based on DACA’s criteria regarding longevity and family ties.

Trump has proposed immediately reversing Obama’s actions and deporting anyone in the U.S. illegally.

A measurable if imperfect proxy for undocumented population is foreign-born workers. .... Almost all are Hispanic, he said.

The state’s unemployment rate is tight at 3.8 percent. “We have been short of workers here for the last two or three years,” Troxel said.

‘DEPENDENT ON FOREIGN-BORN LABOR’

Troxel said that if workers are deported, “it will have impact.”

“If food prices go up because it can’t get harvested or processed by the existing workforce, then there’s going to be dramatic repercussions,” he said.

Like Troxel’s group, the Idaho Dairymen’s Association has supported and worked for immigration reform to address the status of undocumented workers. Dairy workers are needed year-round, not seasonally, so the industry has little use for H-2A visas granted to temporary agricultural workers.

“Any change in immigration policy that brings some certainty to what that policy is, is a positive...

Donald Trump won ... now what?

On Tuesday, Americans elected Donald Trump as the 45th President, and according to exit polling, many based their vote on Trump's tough stance on illegal immigration and his pro-American worker positions. So what can we expect from a Trump Administration?

Historically, a President's first 100 days in office are when they can accomplish the most, and in late-October, Trump laid out a fairly detailed plan for his first 100 days, including actions he plans to take on immigration.

First, Trump said he'll cancel Pres. Obama's executive orders and actions. This includes ending Obama's executive amnesties -- DACA and DAPA -- and could also mean an end to his extension of the OPT program that allows foreign students who graduate with a degree in a STEM field to stay and work in the U.S. until they can get an H-1B visa and an end to Obama's regulation that allows H-1B holders to stay and work after their visa expires if their employer has applied for an employment-based green card on their behalf, just to name a few.

Second, Trump announced that he would cancel ALL federal funding for Sanctuary Cities. He's likely to receive some pushback on this; Seattle has already announced that it will continue to be a Sanctuary City under a Trump Administration, but if Trump does withhold funding, that policy will probably end quickly. The question is: how far will Trump go? Will he only block law enforcement funding, or will he also block funding unrelated to law enforcement.

Third, Trump will begin removing the 1 million criminal illegal aliens still present in the United States who have already been ordered removed. Most have not been removed because of Pres. Obama's Priority Enforcement Program which only allows for the removal of the most dangerous criminal aliens. Some have not been removed because their countries won't take them back. On the latter issue, Trump has also pledged to block new visas to countries that refuse to repatriate their citizens.

Fourth, Trump has promised to suspend immigration from terror-sponsoring countries. There's been some debate over whether a President has the authority to do this, but federal law specifically gives the President discretion to block entry to foreign citizens. It'll be interesting to see how Congress responds to Pres. Obama's demands to dramatically increase refugee resettlement during the lame-duck when they'll have to pass a spending bill to keep the government running past Dec. 9.

Fifth, Trump promises to have legislation introduced within the first 100 days that fully funds the building of a border fence (with Mexico paying for it) and includes Kate's Law that would establish minimum sentencing guidelines for aliens who illegally re-enter the United States.

Just as important will be who Trump appoints to certain key positions throughout his Administration. The Attorney General, DHS Secretary, and Secretary of State will all play key roles in ending illegal immigration and reducing overall immigration numbers.

For Roy's reaction to Trump's election and a list of things Trump promised to do, read his new blog here. I've also posted a blog reviewing what happened in the House and Senate races and what impacts there may be for immigration.

 
 


 

You haven't voted yet? Read this!

Alert date: 
2016-11-05
Alert body: 

NOTE:  It's too late to MAIL your ballot.  You must deliver it to an authorized, secure dropsite.

If you have not yet voted, read this one article before casting your vote:

It's the Supreme Court, Stupid!, by Tom Tancredo, Breitbart.
 
Read the full article. Here are some excerpts:
 
In the early days of Bill Clinton's campaign to oust President George Herbert Walker Bush from the White House in 1992, his campaign strategists concocted a slogan that defined Bush as a failure and set the guardrails for the Democrats' entire campaign: "It's the economy, stupid."
 
It stuck, and as they say, the rest is history.
 
... I, Tom Tancredo, the man who has championed border controls and immigration enforcement more than any other national figure, say: no big deal. It's the Supreme Court, stupid!
 
... what I care about most - and what all patriots and constitutionalists should tattoo on their eyelids - is that Donald Trump, not Hillary Clinton, must make the next Supreme Court appointments.
 
Yes, I know: There is no way to guarantee that Donald Trump will make the same appointments to the Supreme Court that Ted Cruz or Tom Tancredo would make.
 
Republican President Richard Nixon gave us the author of the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, and George H.W. Bush gave us David Souter. But what is guaranteed is that Trump's appointments to federal courts will be 1,000 percent better than Hillary Clinton's. (Can you spell Associate Justice B-a-r-a-c-k -O-b-a-m-a?)
 
Constitutional conservatives understand that our immigration laws are meaningless if they are not enforced. It will mean nothing if President Trump orders a wall built from Brownsville to San Diego if a lawsuit brought by a dozen leftist groups results in a U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down that order as contrary to the Constitution.
 
The same is true for every single important issue you can name, from education choice to refugee admissions, from criminal justice reform to repeal of Obamacare. If Hillary Clinton is allowed to remake the entire Supreme Court for a generation in the image of Justices Ginsberg and Sotomayor, our Constitution is dead and salt poured on the gravesite.
 
What is most important - and most important by a factor of one hundred - is that the Scalia vacancy and every other vacancy that occurs be filled by a judge who respects the Constitution as a restraint on Congress and the President, not a blank slate for creating a socialist utopia of "transformative justice."
 
Yes, immigration policy is one of the two most important challenges that will confront the president sworn in on January 20, 2017. The other is Islamist terrorism. I hope Donald Trump spells out ambitious, sensible and effective plans for meeting those two challenges.
 
... What I care about very much and what I know for a 100 percent certainty is that those decisions and proposals by President Donald Trump will be one thousand percent more consistent with my constitutional principles than the decisions made by President Hillary Clinton.
 
What is not in the spotlight of media coverage of the campaign is this truth: Even if Trump and Congress deadlock on new immigration policies, all President Trump has to do to change direction radically is to order the robust enforcement of our current immigration laws. Bingo!
 
... After eight years of Obama's government by executive decree, not only in immigration but across a broad spectrum of government programs, our Constitution is in tatters.
 
If we invite four more years of this lawlessness with a Supreme Court clearing the way for every new insult to American sovereignty and the rule of law, there will be no possibility of returning to the constitutional government we inherited from ten generations of patriots.
 
... What we need most is the conscientious enforcement of existing immigration laws that have been subverted and castrated by Obama.
 
After a housecleaning and restaffing the upper echelons of the Department of Homeland Security, a simple order from President Trump to the 25,000 officers of the US Border Patrol would be sufficient to halt 95 percent of the illegal traffic across our border. That order would be only ten words: Do your job, and call me if you need anything.
 
The really good news is that such simple policies - the actual enforcement of existing immigration laws - do not require new legislation. They do not require cutting a deal with Senator Chuck Schumer or the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. What the enforcement of immigration laws does require is a Supreme Court that respects the Constitution and the President's oath to take care that laws be faithfully executed.
 
If Clinton's Supreme Court reverses the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court ruling that invalidated Obama's "executive amnesty," then new immigration laws will be meaningless because they will mean whatever President Hillary Clinton wants them to mean.
 
In 2016, we have come to a day or reckoning in American politics. Patriots must take sides, and also must take up arms. In politics, our arms are our votes. Those votes will not be cast for mythical perfect candidates, for better candidates that should have won or might have won, but didn't. We have to vote for one of two candidates who have a chance to take that oath of office on a cold day in January.
 
For myself, when I cast my ballot, I will not be asking whether Donald Trump's immigration policies are 100 percent in tune with my own. It is enough that whatever policies he finally adopts, my country has a 1,000 percent better chance of survival than if Hillary Clinton is making Supreme Court appointments designed to complete Obama's dream of remaking America into something the patriots who died in battle at Bunker Hill, Omaha Beach and Fallujah would not recognize.

 

Forget the fence — E-Verify shuts down illegal immigration's magnet

Ten years ago today, President George W. Bush signed into law the Secure Fence Act, a bill requiring the kind of 700-mile partition on our southern border so controversially called for by Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

The mandate to build double-layered fencing, which was designed to stop not only illegal border-crossers on foot, but also drug-traffickers by car, passed breezily in both chambers and garnered a supportive vote from Hillary Clinton, then in her fifth year as New York’s junior senator.

Trump’s proposal, of course, shows we never actually got what our reps voted for, a scenario known all too well by immigration-control advocates.

While an advisor to former Mexican president Vicente Fox in the early 2000s, Fredo Arias-King led a delegation to discuss immigration policy with members of Congress; what he was told in closed-door exchanges has become lore in restrictionist circles.

Several dozen congressmen from either side of the aisle not only candidly voiced their absolute support for open-borders, but also admitted their active abuse of our immigration laws...

In any case, a reaffirmation of the decade-old Secure Fence Act is likely not even necessary...

The biggest magnet for illegal immigration is employment: the “linchpin” to deterrence according to the former chair of the 1994 Commission on Immigration Reform, Barbara Jordan.

In Mexico, for instance, a relatively wealthy country compared to many other immigration-sources, average wages are just 10 percent of what they are in America. E-Verify would go farthest in securing this linchpin, certainly more so than a longer and higher fence.

Co-administered by DHS and the Social Security Administration, the ‘electronic verification’ system allows employers to verify that their potential employees are actually authorized to work in the country...

Where it’s been most comprehensive, the results have been striking.

When Arizona made E-Verify mandatory in 2008, it was so successful in pushing illegal aliens back home that the neighboring Mexican state of Sonora sent a delegation to Tucson to complain that they couldn’t handle the returning influx.

Their burden was likely vast, judging by the immediate benefits experienced by Arizona. The state’s public school system immediately began experiencing relief with a $50 million surplus suddenly appearing on the books that year. Apartment buildings reported alien-tenants moving out by the thousands (leading, no doubt, to more affordable rents for American residents).

And, although the law went into effect around the time of the financial crisis, when many illegal aliens likely had additional motivations to leave, researchers have found that Arizona had by far the largest decline (20 percent) in illegal-alien figures in the country, breaking the ceiling, no doubt, on long-depressed working-class wages in that state.

Other benefits of the program abound. Since E-Verify uses government data rather than documents provided by potential employees, it removes the possibility of Social Security and identity fraud, a chronically underreported crime that’s created a giant mafia-run black market and which disproportionately hurts American children.

The system also reduces the threat of discrimination against applicants...

But like any law, a federal E-Verify mandate is good only to the extent it’s enforced.

Currently, it is illegal for employers to “knowingly hire” an illegal alien — a prohibition set out in 1986’s Immigration Reform Control Act (IRCA)...

A drywall company in Washington state recently became the first such defendant sentenced in the entire history of that state’s western district court. The attorney for the company pleaded with the judge that IRCA after all was a law “broken daily” and that his client’s “employment practices have been indistinguishable from thousands of other employers nationwide who have ignored IRCA at no peril.”

Returning the country to a nation of laws will require an amped up vigilance on the part of its citizenry. They’ll have to show the political elite that if they continue to ignore the American people, it will be at their peril, not America’s. 

Smith is an attorney in Washington, D.C.

Skewed perspective doesn't tell the whole story

It seems that reporter April Ehrlich might be a bit off center in Worker shortage coincides with immigration decline in her article published in the Argus Observer.

First of all, and not mentioned in the article is that Oregon law that makes it illegal for anyone under the age of 16 to work in the fields like many of us remember doing.  We worked to earn money for school clothes, rides at the State Fair or saving for college.  It was hot, dirty and most important, a valuable life lesson that I still treasure.

The reporter states that nationwide only 26% of ag workers are illegal aliens.  That means that the remainder are US citizens or approved VISA workers who are willing to do the work.

Perhaps even more disturbing is the false wailing that illegal alien laborers only take the jobs Americans won't do - like picking our fruit and vegetables or working in the fields.  The fact is, numerous studies show that less than 5% of laborers in the US illegally, are actually working in the fields.  They, like most workers, want better jobs and move easily on to employment in construction, drywall, hotels and restaurants etc., pushing American workers and legal immigrants out of those very jobs.

The successful acquisition of employees can be described quite simply. 

Adequate, competitive wages for the work being done, safe, decent working conditions, attractive benefits and, as most industrialized nations do, mechanize when possible to streamline and reduce the tedious, dirty jobs often associated with farm or factory work.

The alternative, which is practiced by many seeking to avoid the above, is to hire illegal labor.  The fact is that it's against Federal Law to hire workers that are in the country illegally. There are VISA's available for ag labor, if only employers would do the paper work and be responsible.  But, that's too much work and expense, apparently, when they can more easily hire illegal workers.  After all, there are no real consequences for hiring illegal aliens - right?

Instead, those working here illegally are more easily cheated and abused as employees.  Those working here illegally are often being paid under the table, or using a fake or stolen ID to get a job.  Employers know they are hiring illegal workers, they know they are breaking the law and they know that it's likely an illegal alien worker won't complain about long hours, no breaks, unsafe working conditions or worse.

What kind of business model is this for the United States?  We aren't some 3rd world country taking advantage of the poor with no other options - or, are we?

Why don't we have a real conversation about what needs to be done to make Oregon's farmers more competitive in world markets in a way that does not involve encouraging more illegal aliens to come here for those jobs.  Why don't we invest in research to improve mechanization to make our farmers more competitive?  I think we're smart enough to do that - don't you?

E-Verify may have prevented this tragedy

It seems that every day we hear of horrific tragedies perpetrated by illegal aliens.  This tragedy, however, just might have been prevented if the old guy would have insisted upon hiring only workers that have been E-Verified by their employer and have the legal right to work in the United States.

It's fair, it's reasonable and it's smart to inquire of any business that you intend to have working in or on your property, if their employees have been verified for employment in the United States using the FREE Federal E-Verify program.

If the business doesn't use E-Verify, or suggests they "know" the guys they are hiring, I would urge you to take your business elsewhere.  In Oregon alone, there are nearly 3,500 businesses that want to be certain they are hiring only those that have the legal right to work in the US., not just hire the cheapest labor they can find.

Who knows if this horrific tragedy could have been prevented, but, it might have been!

Protect yourself, protect your family, protect your property - insist on E-Verify.
 

OFIR meeting this Sat., May 7 at 2:00pm

Alert date: 
2016-05-06
Alert body: 

OFIR is proud to invite you to our next OFIR membership meeting Saturday, May 7th at 2:00pm at the Best Western Mill Creek Inn across from Costco in Salem, OR.

Our featured speaker will be Republican candidate for Oregon's next Governor - Dr. Bud Pierce. Learn more about his immigration policies. Decide for yourself who would make the best Oregon governor!

Whether you're a political news junkie, or you would rather just hear the high points during campaign season, you simply must pay attention to this election - our future hangs in the balance. While we are fairly certain our OFIR members are regular voting participants, we can't express enough what a pivotal election this will be. It's been a long time since Oregon voters have played much of a role in the Presidential election. It appears that this year we just might! While OFIR is a non-partisan, single-issue organization, the importance of the upcoming election cannot be overstated.

People vote for candidates based on many factors. OFIR focuses on a candidates IMMIGRATION policies only. Visit our website to learn more about other races: http://www.oregonir.org/immigration-topics/elections

The 2016 Primary election is Tuesday, May 17th.  If you're unsure about your voter registration, it's advisable to check it soon. You can do that online here.

OFIR welcomes all candidates running for any office to attend our meeting. If there is time at the end of the meeting, candidates will be given the opportunity to speak for 2 minutes. Please introduce yourself upon arrival!

Please invite a friend and come to our next OFIR membership meeting Saturday, May 7th at 2:00pm at the Best Western Mill Creek Inn across from Costco in Salem.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Driving directions to Best Western Mill Creek Inn:

From I-5, take exit 253, which is the intersection of I-5 and State roads 22 and Business 99E. Go West on 22 (Mission St.) a short distance to Hawthorne Ave. (Costco will be on your right), Turn R on Hawthorne Ave. to the first left, which is Ryan Drive. Turn left on Ryan Drive, by Denny’s Restaurant, and proceed to Mill Creek Inn just beyond.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave."-- - Barbara Jordan, Chair, U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, testimony to Congress, February 24, 1995.

Court Rules Oregon Attorney General Must Not Distort Language In Immigration Control Initiative

Advocates for immigration restriction in Oregon have stopped the state’s attorney general from distorting the language in a citizen initiative that seeks to stem the tide of local businesses hiring illegals.

In a ruling issued in early March, Justice Rives Kistler ruled in Kendoll v. Rosenblum that the modified language inserted by Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum into Initiative Petition 52 would mislead voters and moreover did not even properly communicate the effect of the initiative, were it become to law.

“[The measure] would require, as a matter of state law, that employers use a federal website to verify the authenticity of the documents that federal law requires only that they review,” the ruling stated. “That additional requirement is one major effect of the measure. The caption, however, does not highlight that effect.”

Rosenblum must now go back to the drawing board and change the ballot language to communicate its actual effect.

The measure states that business with five or more employees must confirm employees through E-verify, a federal website which checks out employment information, like social security numbers.

Oregonians for Immigration Reform (OFIR) forwarded the ballot-measure in response to data indicating that illegals comprise about 5 percent of the workforce in Oregon. Meanwhile, unemployment rates among black youth rest at about 55 percent.

If the measure is successful, Oregon would join the ranks of several other states with similar verification programs. Arizona’s implementation of a verification program proved to be the most controversial. Pro-immigration groups challenged Arizona’s law, a challenge which the Supreme Court picked up. Ultimately, the coalition comprised of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Hispanic nationalist groups, the Department of Justice and others failed to strike down the law.

Immediately after it came into play, illegal aliens started to pour out of the state, prompting outbursts of anger from Mexican officials, as the Mexican labor market was clearly struggling to accommodate the new surge of workers. For illegals, employment in the United States is attractive because average wages are 10 times higher than in Mexico. E-verify, then, is seen as an important step by immigration-control advocates to protect American wages from plummeting.

Dale Wilcox of the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), who served as OFIR’s co-counsel, said in a statement, “The ballot language written and certified by the attorney general hid the true purpose and effect of the initiative and would have only served to confuse voters.”

IRLI is also working to battle an attempt by illegals in Oregon to eliminate Measure 88, which prevents them from gaining driver’s licenses. This measure, five illegals are arguing, is unconstitutional.

Follow Jonah Bennett on Twitter

Send tips to jonah@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
 

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - E-Verify