election

Corvallis Police: 'We're not in the business of immigration enforcement'

The Corvallis Police Department has decided what it will do about immigration and citizenship enforcement: Nothing.

In the three weeks following the presidential election, the department has received several questions from citizens concerned about immigration enforcement. Police Chief Jon Sassaman said it was time to clarify the department's policies.

Currently, Corvallis Police Department policy prohibits any form of discrimination, which includes discrimination based on a person’s citizenship status. Oregon law also prohibits law enforcement agencies from “detecting or apprehending persons whose only violation of law is that they are persons of foreign citizenship.”

Sassaman said the department would not participate in any immigration enforcement, even if Oregon law allowed for it.

“Not only do we not do it, we’re not going to do it,” Sassaman said Thursday. “We’re not in the business of immigration enforcement.”

While federal laws could change, Sassaman said he has no plans to change department policy....

“I don’t want people to be afraid,” Sassaman said...

“How people define sanctuary city might be different across the country,” Sassaman said. “So we wanted to reaffirm to the community that we’re not in the business of immigration enforcement and be as clear as possible.”

Some have speculated that cities or agencies who take exception to possible changes to federal immigration laws could jeopardize federal funding and grants. But Sassaman said he is not concerned the announcement will affect any future federal funding for the department.

“We will remain consistent with grant applications we apply for. And I guess we’ll know if we get denied,” he said. “We’ll cross that bridge when we get there.”

Rep. Steve King holds hard line against Obama DREAMers, despite Trump’s concession

The fate of the recipients of Obama’s “Deferred Action” program, referred to as DREAMers, is still up in the air as Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King made it very clear that he is opposed to any effort to keep the program in place.

In a CNN interview Thursday, King tried to explain how some of the illegal aliens granted “deferred status” by Obama could be dangerous criminals, much to the shock of the stunned CNN host.

The question of what should be done with Obama’s DREAMers arose after Trump seemed to signal that he might be open to extending their “deferral” status in an interview posted Wednesday. King rightly interjected in the interview that many of these DREAMers are no longer children but are adults after having been in the United States illegally for decades. King seemed to try to blame children for their parents bringing them illegally into the United States before deciding on blaming the parents instead.

On the same side of the aisle but on the opposite side of the issue stands South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who is preparing a bill to keep Obama’s DACA program in place and settle the issue. Trump himself has vacillated wildly between saying he would deport all illegal aliens beginning on the first day of his presidency and the far more moderate position of deporting “criminal” illegal aliens and possibly granting a form of amnesty after securing the border.

 

What is a sanctuary city and what does it mean in Portland?

The night Donald Trump was elected, the future of millions of residents nationwide was called into question. In Oregon, an estimated 130,000 people living in the state without proper authorization likely wondered what would happen next.

Trump called for the deportation of 11 million undocumented immigrants during his presidential campaign. He recently pivoted and said two to three million people would immediately be deported, which is how many were deported during Obama’s tenure.

The uncertainty of what Trump will do once he take office prompted hundreds of cities across the country to announce or re-affirm their status as sanctuary cities.

Sanctuary cities, however, may not provide the protection the word “sanctuary” suggests.

A sanctuary city does not mean the community has become a refuge for people who are not living there legally. It does not provide more homes for people, nor does it guarantee shelter. And some cities, like Portland, have declared themselves sanctuary cities without enacting any laws to back up that claim.

Still, for leaders to assert their city a sanctuary is a politically risky maneuver as Trump and his pick for Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, have threatened to cut federal funding to sanctuary cities.

So what does a “sanctuary city” mean?

There is no hard-and-fast definition and each sanctuary city is different. In Portland, it mainly means that local law enforcement has been asked not to work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to help deport undocumented immigrants.

“ICE would like local jails to hold folks who have immigration violations for an additional 48 hours, so ICE can process them,” said Michael Cox, spokesman for Portland’s mayor-elect Ted Wheeler. “Many cities feel like those actions impair their ability to police their own city.”

The ICE request has been criticized because it may make people less likely to report crimes.

Portland already had an informal commitment to deny ICE’s 48-hour hold requests when Mayor-elect Ted Wheeler reaffirmed Portland’s status as a sanctuary city in November.

But there are no laws that prohibit the city from at any point changing its mind.

That doesn’t sit well with many in Portland. On Nov. 21, hundreds of people, led by a group called Latino Milenios (translation: millennials), demonstrated in front of city hall and demanding legal action to back up the city’s sanctuary declaration.

“We’re in a very difficult moment here. There are Latino families that don’t even want to take their children to school,” said Francisco Lopez, political director for the immigrant-rights group Voz Hispana Cambio Comunitario. He says he’s received more than a dozen phone calls daily since the election from people worried about deportation.

Hate crimes have also increased nationwide, and Oregon has landed at the top of the list. Many crimes are targeted at immigrants and people of color.

Lopez and others want Portland to implement a bevy of protections, similar to other sanctuary cities such as San Francisco, which has dedicated millions to its immigrant protection efforts.

San Francisco has been criticized for being over-protective. President-elect Trump blasted the city after a woman was shot to death by a Mexican man with a criminal record who had been deported several times.

Most undocumented immigrants in the U.S. do not have criminal records. Two-thirds have lived in the country for more than a decade and 70 percent contribute to the workforce.

Lopez says many are part of families that include U.S. citizens and legal action is a necessary step to protect people in Trump’s America, which he calls “a very different world.”

Voz Hispana and Latino Milenios want Portland to provide legal services to immigrants who have been victims of racism or face deportation, formally declare the city will not cooperate with ICE or allow raids of immigrant families, lobby the state to create safeguards to protect immigrants, and launch a campaign against hate crimes.

“These laws will not prevent things from getting worse,” Lopez said. “We are talking about being prepared to protect and defend our undocumented immigrant families.”

He likens the idea to a Martin Luther King, Jr. quote: "It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me."

Mayor-elect Ted Wheeler’s office said he will consider the requests once he takes office.

“The phase we’re in now is analyzing the legal framework that exists and determining whether it’s adequate given the incoming administration,” said Wheeler’s spokesman, Michael Cox.

Wheeler’s office is adamant that protecting Portland's immigrants is paramount, even if that means losing federal funding.

“Our values as a community, when it comes to being a place that is safe and welcoming for all people, are more important than the federal funding that would be attached to violating them,” Cox said.

Portland received $48.9 million in federal grants last year. It’s unclear how much Trump would drain from sanctuary cities as punishment for not working with federal immigration officials.

“It’s unknown what that federal funding would be,” Cox said. “We don’t know what he’s talking about withholding. The president-elect has made many commitments during the campaign, some of which he’s backed off of already. It’s hard to say.”

Trump has indeed backed off his pledge to deport immigrants, to some extent. He has not yet backed off his threat to defund sanctuary cities.

Lopez says the uncertainty of what a Trump administration could do is all the more reason for Portland to act.

“We don’t know what’s going to happen. There are people who are afraid of being on the streets,” he said. “These human beings are part of the socioeconomic fabric of our community and we need to do something about it.”
 

Oregon measure calls for proof of citizenship to vote

SALEM — With concerns that are based on fear, rather than proof, that voter fraud exists in Oregon, a conservative duo is proposing a solution: put a clause in the state constitution that requires all voters to prove they’re U.S. citizens before they can vote.

Two Republicans have already filed a proposed constitutional amendment well ahead of the 2018 election that would require each of the state’s 2.5 million voters to register again within two years, this time proving to the state they are eligible U.S. citizens using approved government documents.

That way, says Mike Nearman, a Republican representative from Polk County, there’s proof that only eligible citizens are voting.

“I’ve heard rumors of what went on in House District 22, which is Woodburn and north Salem, that there was heavy recruiting and voter registration drives among populations of Latinos that are likely to have a lot of illegal aliens,” Nearman said last week in a phone interview. “I don’t have my doubts that it is going on at least at some level.”

Woodburn, in the Willamette Valley, is majority Hispanic or Latino, according to 2010 data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

“We have online registration that has the little check box that says I am a U.S. citizen. That’s all there is,” Nearman said. “If I’m a citizen of Germany or Switzerland I can just go check that box and do that.”

The policy, which hasn’t gained popularity in Oregon politics, is picking up some steam nationally following the presidential election, despite being viewed as voter suppression by civil liberties groups.

After Republican Donald Trump upset Hillary Clinton in the election, there have been unfounded accusations of large-scale voter fraud. Trump fueled the fire by alleging on Twitter he didn’t actually lose the popular vote by over 2.4 million votes. Instead, he said, without citing any evidence, he won the popular vote “if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.”

Kris Kobach, a Republican and Kansas secretary of state, is considered a prominent supporter of the concept Nearman is pitching for Oregon. Kobach has been an ardent defender of a law that seeks to require Kansans to prove their citizenship before registering to vote.

A federal court this year struck down the Kansas proof of citizenship law. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2013 against a similar law in Arizona, saying the National Voter Registration Act, also called Motor Voter, which allows voters to register without proving citizenship, pre-empted the state laws.

“We know this kind of requirement stopped tens of thousands of people from registering in Kansas,” said Dale Ho, director of the Voting Rights Project from the American Civil Liberties Union. “People aren’t interested in having an intellectually honest debate about it because there’s no evidence to back up their assertions about widespread registration of noncitizens.”

Kobach may have plans to address the court ruling, and as a member of Trump’s transition team, he has the ear of the incoming president.

A photo taken by an Associated Press photographer as Kobach met with Trump on Nov. 21 showed a document Kobach was holding that included plans for Trump’s first year as president. Much of the document was obscured by Kobach’s hand and arm but includes a reference to voting:

“Draft Amendments to National Voter—” the rest of the sentence is covered by Kobach’s arm, but elections experts believe it refers to the National Voter Registration Act, the federal law that allows voters to register by attesting to their citizenship.

Kobach didn’t respond to a request for comment.

“Here’s the bottom line: courts have ruled that the current version of the (Motor Voter Act) pre-empts a proof-of-citizenship requirement and that trying to have a separate registration system for state elections is unlawful,” said Josh Douglas, associate professor of law at the University of Kentucky College of Law.

If Kobach wanted proof-of-citizenship laws to be implemented on a wider scale, he could suggest amending the Motor Voter Act to put in place a national requirement for prospective voters to prove citizenship before voting, or allow states to enact their own laws with that requirement, Ho said.

Under Nearman’s proposal for Oregon, everyone seeking to participate in elections would have to register using a U.S. passport, certificate of naturalization from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, original or certified birth certificate or other government document.

Some Republicans have sought that level of proof for registering to vote in Oregon long before Nearman became chief petitioner of the proposed amendment.

Some Republicans in the state House and Senate have pitched the idea every session since at least 2005. The closest it’s come to the governor’s desk is when it passed the Republican-controlled House in 2005 before dying in the Senate.

Nearman didn’t say there was proof that voters in House District 22 illegally registered to vote — a felony in Oregon. The Bulletin also spoke with Jaime Arredondo, director of Accion Politica PCUNista, a group that organizes Latino voters, who helped run a voter registration drive in the district.

“Our groups have been doing voter registration in this area for over 20 years,” Arredondo said. “We cover every step of the way, checking on citizenship, on age and so-forth. Our folks know when they go out there what their requirements are to do that.”

Secretary of State Jeanne Atkins, a Democrat tapped in 2015 to replace Kate Brown when she became governor, said in an interview Friday there hadn’t been accusations of voter fraud in Oregon this year. She said she heard of one ineligible voter who registered but later contacted the county clerk and unregistered.

“It’s not that we couldn’t investigate a complaint. We could, if people actually had evidence of voter registration drives where people were being encouraged to ignore the legal responsibility involved or downplay it or anything like that,” Atkins said. “Evidence of that happening would be something that we would probably in partnership with the Department of Justice go after pretty severely.”

Still, without a law requiring voters to take the step to show the state or county clerks that they’re in the country legally, of age and not a felon serving an ongoing sentence, those pushing for a law that would require that level of proof maintain that Oregon’s elections are vulnerable to fraud.

“I think it’s not just 2016; I think it’s been happening for a long time,” said James Buchal, a Portland attorney and co-chief petitioner of the 2018 initiative who also ran for attorney general in 2012.

Rather than require the secretary of state’s office or county clerks to take steps to verify that residents on the voter rolls weren’t registered illegally, Buchal and Nearman’s measure would require each of the 2.5 million — and rapidly climbing — voters in Oregon to register again, this time proving citizenship with an approved government ID.

Buchal thinks that may hurt their case if the two collect the 117,578 needed signatures and move forward with a campaign in the 2018 election.

“People are lazy,” Buchal said. “If they find out they would have to re-register, they might not like that.”

'Sanctuary Cities' Vs. National Security and Public Safety

Why 'sanctuary city' mayors should be given an MVP Award by ISIS and drug cartels.

The lunacy of the immigration executive orders and other actions of the Obama administration to block the enforcement of our immigration laws and immigration anarchy will be brought to a screeching halt on the day that Donald Trump replaces Mr. Obama in the Oval Office.

However the “Immigration All-Clear” will not be sounded across the United States in cities and states that have been declared “Sanctuaries” by the mayors and governors who have created a false and very dangerous narrative that equates immigration law enforcement with racism and bigotry.

This insidious false claim has been heartily embraced by the demonstrators who are rampaging across the United States...

This is the false narrative that has enabled mayors of so-called “Sanctuary Cities” to foist this lunacy on the residents of their cities...

The challenge for the Trump administration and for all Americans, is to eliminate these enclaves of lawlessness.

Sanctuary cities are highly attractive to illegal aliens and the criminals, fugitives and likely terrorists among them who entered the United States by evading the inspections process...

Sanctuary cities, however, certainly do not provide “sanctuary” for the residents of those cities who, all too often, fall victim to the crimes committed by these criminal aliens...

Terrorists would most likely seek to set up shop in sanctuary cities to evade detection and arrest.

They can use the security provided by such “leaders” as Chicago’s Rahm Emanuel and New York’s Bill de Blasio as a staging area for attacks...

While politicians from both parties often claim that the “Immigration system is broken” as a way of justifying their positions of advocacy for massive amnesty programs and the creation of these dangerous “sanctuaries” for criminals, fugitives and terrorists, in reality, this is “Immigration Failure -- By Design.”

America’s borders and immigration laws are our first line of defense and last line of defense against international terrorists, transnational criminals, fugitives from justice and those foreign nationals who would displace American workers...

A quick review of a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)- Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182 would quickly dispel the bogus claim that equates the enforcement of our immigration laws with racism.

That section of law enumerates the categories of aliens who are to be excluded. Among these classes of aliens who are to be prevented from entering the United States are aliens who suffer from dangerous communicable, diseases or extreme mental illness.

Additionally, convicted felons, human rights violators, war criminals, terrorists and spies are to be excluded as well as aliens who would seek unlawful employment...

It is vital to note that our immigration laws make absolutely no distinction in any way, shape of form as to the race, religion or ethnicity of any alien.

The Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) is a multi-agency federal task force that operates under the aegis of the FBI.  While, as might be expected, the FBI contributes the greatest number of enforcement personnel to that effort, the second largest contingent of agents assigned to the JTTF are special agents of  Immigration and Customs Enforcement / Homeland Security Investigations (ICE/HSI).

The majority of international terrorists also commit immigration law violations including visa fraud, immigration benefit fraud and a list of other crimes which include immigration law violations....

This quote from the official report, “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel” identifies the nexus between systemic failures of the immigration system and vulnerability to terror attacks in the United States.

Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. It would remain largely unknown, since no agency of the United States government analyzed terrorist travel patterns until after 9/11. This lack of attention meant that critical opportunities to disrupt terrorist travel and, therefore, deadly terrorist operations were missed.

That quote also underscores the importance of enforcing our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States and how failures of such efforts create deadly vulnerabilities for the United States.  This concern was the focus of my recent article, “Immigration and the Terrorist Threat: How our leaders are spawning catastrophe.”

Read the full article.

How Trump can ramp up deportations

Donald Trump says one of the first things he'll do when he becomes president is deport up to 3 million undocumented immigrants. It would be one of the largest such roundups in American history.

Here are answers to many questions about how he will accomplish that.

How many "criminal" undocumented immigrants are there?

In a post-election interview with CBS' 60 Minutes, Trump said he would deport 2 million to 3 million of the 11 million undocumented immigrants who are "criminal and have criminal records." The actual number depends on how one defines "criminal."...

The Department of Homeland Security puts the number of "removable criminal aliens" at 1.9 million...

Many are already in custody, making them the easiest to identify....

How will the government track down those undocumented immigrants?

Trump could ask Congress for more funding to increase the size of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), but a quicker solution would be redirecting the current 14,000 ICE officers, agents and special agents to concentrate on arrests.

But only 1,000-1,100 agents currently down fugitive undocumented immigrants who are criminals or gang members....    The rest work on detention operations, screening visa applicants in foreign countries, conducting immigration audits of U.S. businesses and investigating crimes that include money laundering, import and export fraud, and human trafficking.

Sandweg said several core functions must be maintained because of congressional mandates, but an ICE director could easily refocus more people to finding undocumented immigrants.

"There would be a lot of flexibility for an ICE director to re-calibrate the agency," said Sandweg, now an attorney with Frontier Solutions.

How quickly can undocumented immigrants be deported?

Before they can be deported to their home country, immigrants have the right to a hearing before an immigration judge. But the nation's immigration courts are already overburdened.

That has led to a huge backlog of 521,676 cases waiting nearly two years on average to be heard, ...

The only way to speed up those cases is to hire more immigration judges....

Yet, even if Trump filled all 374 posts and added 150 more judges over the next two years, they could not clear out all the currently pending immigration cases until 2023, according to a review by Human Rights First, a non-profit advocacy group.

Which undocumented immigrants will be targeted?

Trump's emphasis on criminals may leave millions of other undocumented immigrants in the clear.

One such group: the 740,000 young undocumented immigrants granted deportation protections under President Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA. To qualify, they had to register with the federal government, have a clean record and work or go to school.

Trump has vowed to end the program and rescind their deportation protections, leaving them fearful of being targeted.

Mexican nationals would be the most heavily targeted, because they account for 52% of undocumented immigrants, according to the Pew Research Center. Another 15% come from Central America, 13% are from Asia, and 6% come from South America.

Deported Mexicans are usually sent home by bus, while those from other countries are put on flights.

What will happen to those who remain?

As a candidate, Trump often hinted that some undocumented immigrants could remain in the U.S. During the 60 Minutes interview, he said that after the border is secured, his border wall is completed and "everything gets normalized," he would "make a determination" on how to handle those who remain.

Trump has not elaborated, but Republican proposals in recent years provide some possibilities....

A must read: Open Letter to the NY Times on Its Epic Failure in the Presidential Election

Open Letter to the NY Times on Its Epic Failure in the Presidential Election
 
By Jerry Kammer, November 17, 2016

I am writing in response to the epic failure of your coverage of the presidential election. I write as a former immigration reporter whose respect for the Times has long been diminished by the ideological bias that pervades much of your immigration coverage and commentary.

I believe that bias explains your inability to appreciate the public frustration with immigration that was a significant factor in the victory of Donald Trump. Your work on immigration exemplifies the liberal bias...

I point first to the banner headline across the top of page one on Wednesday, November 9, the day after the election. With a solipsistic slant more appropriate to a journal of social psychology, it declared: "DEMOCRATS, STUDENTS, AND FOREIGN ALLIES FACE THE REALITY OF A TRUMP PRESIDENCY". It was a headline that will live in journalism infamy.

Bloomberg editor Mark Halperin explained why. Said Halperin, "This is the day after a surprising, underdog, sweeping victory, and their headline is not 'Disaffected Americans have a champion going to the White House' or 'The country votes for fundamental change.' The headline is about how disappointed the friends of the people who run the New York Times are about what's happened." Halperin observed that the headline was like a self-parody of the clueless editorial elite. "I mean, it's amazing!" he exclaimed. "I mean, it's The Onion!"

The Times' reporting and editorializing on illegal immigration have long been marred by a lack of interest in how the story — especially the recent decades of mass illegal immigration — plays out in the lives of ordinary Americans....

Back then, the Times was attuned to the political complexity and moral ambiguity in which immigration policy is steeped. An editorial observed, "For reasons of vitality, humanity and history, America wants and needs immigrants. What it does not need is such an uncontrollable flood of illegal migrants..".

In recent years, led by publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., the paper has adopted an ideology of multiculturalism...

Said Sulzberger, "You weren't supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights, whether it's the rights of immigrants to start a new life; or the rights of gays to marry; or the rights of women to choose." Predicting that fateful decisions lay before the graduates, he said: "You will choose at each point whether to be bold or hesitant, inclusive or elitist, generous or stingy."

Inclusiveness has become the most sacred value at our country's most influential newspaper. The Times editorial board demands full inclusion for illegal immigrants, whom it embraces as "Americans in waiting"....

Consider your choice of the two reporters you have placed in Arizona since 2010, when the state replaced California as the epicenter of the national immigration debate. Both Marc Lacey and Fernanda Santos are talented journalists. But both were far more attuned to illegal immigrants' struggle for inclusion than to the insistence of most Arizonans that the federal government enforce immigration laws that, by definition, set standards for inclusion and prescribe penalties for those who defied the law.

Lacey, for example, had chronicled the struggle for gay rights in such countries as Cuba, Jamaica, Argentina, and Mexico. Santos, herself an immigrant from Brazil, co-authored "Latinos in the United States: A Resource Guide for Journalists". Neither reporter showed much interest in the anxieties of Arizonans like the woman who wrote this eloquent plea in a letter to the editor of the Mesa Tribune:

Why am I a racist because I am scared? The media say, "But they only want to work to feed their families." I also want to work to feed my family, but most important to me is that my family is safe. I think those who can make over $40,000 a year don't realize how much it affects the working poor. My husband is a construction worker. He goes to a job site to work and has to compete with a person who will accept $6 an hour. My husband now has to work two jobs. ... I am frustrated by the system and I know that the government at all levels (local and federal) has failed the American people. If I am a racist for feeling this way, then so be it, I'm a racist.

It was a passionate, defiant cry from the heart that is incomprehensible at the New York Times, whose reporters are committed to the Times' narrative that illegal immigrants are noble strivers opposed only by snarling nativists. Perhaps the most notorious example was longtime immigration reporter Nina Bernstein, whose monotone preoccupation with the migrants' side of the story prompted journalist Mickey Kaus to write in 2007 that Bernstein was "the most tendentious and biased reporter on the paper — that would be the famed liberal bias — and she's almost certain to weave a cocoon that will help restrict Times readers to utter marginal irrelevance as debate proceeds."

Now the Times' national immigration reporter is Julia Preston. While Preston's reporting is less tendentious than Bernstein's, she continues the tradition of inattention to immigration's effects on the job prospects of Americans at the lower end of our job markets. Preston has provided admirable coverage of the displacement of American tech workers. But she has done little to inform Times readers of the lesser-skilled workers who are displaced by illegal immigrants...

Finally, I point to a 2015 interview that Times reporter Liz Robbins conducted for C-SPAN with Dan-el Padilla Peralta, whose book Undocumented chronicled his journey from his native Dominican Republic.

Padilla Peralta's pages seethe with contempt for opponents of illegal immigration. He describes them as "anti-immigrant zealots who invoked the law as cover for their xenophobia", as "haters", racists, and "the chauvinistically minded few". He heaps scorn and ridicule on a former classmate Princeton, calling her an "immigrant-hater chick".

Robbins' interview was a protracted swoon, an all-in-for-inclusiveness abdication of the journalistic duty to conduct skeptical inquiry. As I watched on TV, I waited in vain for probing questions. Did Padilla Peralta see no justifiable reason for the United States to limit immigration? When did U.S. policy toward him and his family become reprehensible? Was it when his parents defied immigration law by overstaying their visas? Was it a few years later when his father had returned to the Dominican Republic and his mother was receiving government support for housing and food? Did Padilla Peralta understand why Americans are infuriated by his claim, asserted on behalf of immigrants whether legal or not, that, "We are in the ascendant. America is ours." What was this if not arrogant mockery of the democratic society that has allowed it to happen?

Robinson was so rapturous in Padilla Peralta's presence that she felt no need to ask him to explain the strutting, arrogant taunt at the very end of his book: "And so to the haters, a final word: Demography is a bitch. Holla at me if you want me to break it down for you."

What we heard on November 8 was a primal scream from tens of millions of Americans who feel betrayed by political, social, and journalistic elites whose post-national religion of inclusiveness demands the glorification of illegal immigration and the demonization of those who protest our government's failure to stop it.

You could start by directing your reporters to spend a few hours learning the views of Barbara Jordan, the late civil rights champion who in 1995 reported to Congress as chair of the federal Commission on Immigration Reform. Typical of Jordan's concern for her fellow Americans was her insistence that "it is both a right and a responsibility of a democratic society to manage immigration so that it serves the national interest."

Read the full article.

Donald Trump wins!

Alert date: 
2016-11-13
Alert body: 

The map below shows state and county voting results for the 2016 election (as of November 11, 2016):


 

Map of 2016 election results by county

 

The above map is available as an interactive map showing US presidential election results by county, 1952-2016 - see the article A country divided by counties, The Economist, November 11, 2016.

 

Key states in the 2016 election (as of November 10, 2016):

Key states in the 2016 election as of November 10, 2016

The above chart is from the New York Times - see the article Live Presidential Forecast, New York Times.

 

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.

 
 


 

Quite a spin on reality

I read the following article with interest - wondering how CAUSA might try to put a big smiley face on yet another defeat of their misguided efforts with the election of Donald Trump.. 

Please read selected portions of the article posted below and my remarks noted with **.  Read the full article.

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

Causa
OREGON’S IMMIGRANT RIGHTS OREGONIZATION

Message to Community about election results

November 10, 2016

After Tuesday’s elections, the nation's direction changed....

Causa’s mission is to improve the lives of Latino immigrants and their families...

Since 1995, Causa has stood with our immigrant families for their safety, protection, and recognition in this country and we will continue to do so.

     **CAUSA advocates for the ?rights? of illegal aliens living and working in Oregon.

Over the last year, we’ve seen a culture of xenophobia growing in America and in our own state.

We saw it earlier this year when local efforts attempted to qualify three anti-immigrant ballot measures. Causa and a coalition of 57 organizations stopped those efforts in their tracks....

     **CAUSA and 57 organizations had absolutely no role in stopping  the qualification of 3 initiatives for the ballot.  Unless they are implying that the Attorney General's office is in cahoots with CAUSA, I would like to know exactly how they claim to have stopped our efforts?

....Immigrants are a part of this country, and are here to stay. Immigrants are courageous, smart, resourceful, and resilient people who come to this country ready to work hard and make it even stronger.....

     **Once again the term immigrant and illegal alien are not interchangeable.  Legal immigrants are welcome!

The call for this work is louder than ever. We will continue the momentum we built in Oregon...

     **By momentum, are you referring to the defeat of driver cards for illegal aliens? 

     **All five Congressional districts, 35 of 36 counties and nearly a million citizens voted NO to driver cards without proof of legal presence -

     a resounding  66% NO vote!

We call on our elected leaders, allies, and community members to join us. In the coming weeks, we’ll plan and provide more information about our next steps, please stay tuned.

We’ve also been deeply moved and grateful for the Causa supporters who have reached out over the last 24 hours to donate or ask how they can support. If you want to join us in building power by volunteering or making a donation, we welcome your support.

Thank you for standing up for the rights of immigrant families in the face of fear and hate.

     **Legal immigrant families are warmly welcomed in our state and have nothing to fear.. 

     **I would speculate that the word "illegal"  is intentionally left out of your fundraising requests?

La lucha sigue,

The Causa Team:
Andrea, Lorena, Delia, Yanely, Cristina C., Carmen, and Cristina M

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - election