enforcement

When the State of Oregon, Multnomah County, Cities of Beaverton, Tualatin and Portland filed amicus briefs in support of the United States federal government’s lawsuit against the State of Arizona over an Arizona law SB 1070, a case that will be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court, most Oregonians with any common sense would naturally ask the following question: What do the internal affairs of Arizona have to do with the state, a county and three cites?

Answering the question, the Attorney General of Oregon, the Multnomah County commissioners, the mayors and city councils/commissioners of Beaverton, Tualatin and Portland believe Arizona SB 1070 is civil rights issue.

A statement of fact to send to the pre-mentioned Oregon state, county and city elected officials: Arizona SB 1070 only allows the State of Arizona law enforcement officials to enforce federal immigration law not create Arizona immigration law. Moreover, within Arizona SB 1070 are provisos that prohibit any form of profiling of individuals based on their race, ethnicity, religion, or country of origin.

What should be particularly troubling to Oregonians about the misguided actions of the attorney general, county commissioners, mayors and city councils/commissioners in their collective action against Arizona SB 1070 is their inability to differentiate, call it a cognitive dissonance, between what is an actual civil rights issue and what is a public safety issue.

Some background history, the State of Arizona, a border state, passed SB 1070 in 2010 simply to mitigate the negative cause and effect, the collateral damage, of having hundreds of thousands undocumented foreign nationals (illegal aliens) present or entering the state primarily from Mexico.

Let us look at Arizona SB 1070 simply as a public safety issue concerning both the residents of Oregon and Arizona using some crime numbers and statistics from a comparable time frame.

The Oregon Department of Corrections (DOC) prison system in February of 2012 had 1,176 of the DOC’s 13,999 prisoners who where foreign nationals (criminal aliens); 8.40 percent of the prison population.

(At the same time, the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) prison system in February of 2012 had 5,291 of the ADC’s 39,835 prisoners who were criminal aliens; 13.28 percent of the prison population.

Comparing the preceding numbers reveals the ADC had 4,115 criminal alien prisoners more than were incarcerated in DOC prisons — 449.91 percent more.

Incarceration cost for a DOC prisoner is $82.48 per day. Therefore, DOC’s incarceration cost for 1,176 criminal aliens is approximately $35,403,715.20 per year.

Whereas, incarceration cost for an ADC prisoner is $59.85 per day. Thus, ADC’s incarceration cost for 5,291 criminal aliens is approximately $115,583,217.80 per year.

Comparing the difference in incarceration costs between the DOC and ADC prison systems, if the criminal alien incarceration numbers were to remain a constant, they won’t, the ADC will spend $80,179,502.55 more this year than the DOC — 326.47 percent more.

Oregonians certainly have a legitimate right to question whether or not the attorney general, county commissioners, mayors and city councils/commissioners took into consideration in their collective action against Arizona SB 1070 the uncounted crime victims and their families, no matter what their immigration status, all victims of the thousands of criminal aliens incarcerated in the DOC and ADC prison systems.

A review of the 1,176 criminal aliens in DOC prisons by numbers per crime equated to the following: 4-arsons; 121-assaults; 33-burglaries; 34-driving offenses; 178-drugs; 5-forgeries; 142-homicides; 49-kidnappings; 68-others; 75-robberies; 452-sex crimes; 11-thefts; and 4-vehicle thefts.

Whereas, the 5,291 criminal aliens in ADC prisons by numbers per crime equated to the following: 10-arsons; 532-assaults; 153-burglaries; 319-driving offenses; 1,721-drugs; 58-forgeries; 497-homicides; 607-kidnappings; 290-others; 373-robberies; 577-sex crimes; 31-thefts; and 123-vehicle thefts.

As dramatic as all the preceding crime numbers are from both prison systems, the numbers of criminal aliens incarcerated for drug crimes particularly stands out. While the DOC had 178 criminal aliens (15.13 percent) incarcerated for drug crimes; the ADC had 1,729 criminal aliens (32.68 percent) incarcerated for drug crimes.

These numbers are significant, the ADC had 1,551 criminal aliens more incarcerated for drug crimes than the DOC — 971.34 percent more.

With so many crimes being committed on a regular basis locally and nationwide by illegal aliens, just read your local newspaper, these Oregon state, county and city elected officials, seemed to have engaged in a feigned ignorance as to the source of the preceding crimes, the country of origin of the majority of criminal aliens in both the DOC and ADC prison systems.

The country of origin of 992 of the 1,176 criminal aliens in DOC prisons was from Mexico — 84.35 percent.

Likewise, the country of origin of 4,820 of the 5,291 criminal aliens in ADC prisons was from Mexico — 91.10 percent.

Leaving the February 2012 time frame of comparison and contrast of the DOC and ADC prison systems, let us just focus on the most recent criminal alien numbers available from the DOC from the last four years.

In a four year time period, the number of criminal aliens incarcerated in the DOC prison system went from 1,061 alien prisoners on March 1, 2008 to a record number of 1,285 alien prisoners on March 1, 2012; an increase of 224 criminal aliens — a 21.11 percent increase.

Over the same four year time period, criminal aliens incarcerated in DOC prisons for drug crimes increased from 117 alien prisoners on March 1, 2008 to 190 alien prisoners on March 1, 2012; an increase of 73 criminal aliens — a 62.39 percent increase.

In a period of one month, from February 1st to March 1st of 2012, the number of criminal aliens in the DOC prison system increased by 109 alien prisoners — 9.27 percent more.

Over the same preceding time period, criminal aliens incarcerated in DOC prisons who declare their country of origin as being Mexico increased from 992 prisoners to 1,066 prisoners; an increase of 74 Mexican national prisoners — a 7.46 percent increase in one month.

Back to the U.S. federal government’s lawsuit against the State of Arizona over an Arizona SB 1070, the Attorney General of Oregon, the Multnomah County commissioners, the mayors and city councils/commissioners of Beaverton, Tualatin and Portland must withdraw their amicus briefs they presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the U.S. federal government’s lawsuit against Arizona SB 1070 so the case before the nation’s highest court can be settled quickly.

The State of Arizona’s ability to fully implement SB 1070 empowering Arizona law enforcement officials to enforce federal immigration law will enabling them to more effectively protect the residents of both Arizona and Oregon from the invasion of criminal aliens primarily from Mexico.

David Olen Cross of Salem (docfnc@yahoo.com) writes on the subjects of immigration and foreign national crime. Read more about Oregon, Multnomah County, Beaverton, Tualatin and Portland versus Arizona SB 1070

Last year Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the U.S., filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona for their passage of SB 1070, the tough but fair, anti-illegal alien bill. A federal appeals court ruled against Arizona. However Arizona filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court and fortunately the Court has agreed to hear their appeal of the lower court ruling. It will be heard on April 25.

A number of government jurisdictions across the U.S. have filed amicus briefs, some supporting Arizona and some in opposition. Unbelievable but true: four Oregon jurisdictions have joined with the pro-illegal alien side in opposition to Arizona’s attempts to protect its citizens against the terrible impact of illegal immigration. These Oregon jurisdictions are: City of Portland, County of Multnomah, City of Beaverton, and the City of Tualatin.

Equally shocking is the action of the Attorney General of Oregon, John R. Kroger, who joined a group of attorneys for Amici Curiae in support of the lawsuit against Arizona.

Oregon is faced with monumental problems, many of which are caused by the flood of illegal aliens into the state. Nonetheless Kroger decided that he knows better than Arizona lawmakers about a law that they passed. The Federation for American Immigration Reform, (FAIR), estimates illegal aliens cost Oregon taxpayers close to $705 million a year. Illegal aliens cost the Oregon Department of Justice $110 million dollars a year. Shouldn’t Kroger be more concerned about that?

The phone number for John Kroger is: (503) 378-4400.

His email is: attorneygeneral@doj.state.or.us

With all of the problems facing Oregon, what in the world would compel Beaverton, Tualatin, Portland and Multnomah County to file a friend of the court brief against another state? Don’t they have enough problems of their own? If you live in one of these jurisdictions, you might call the local officials and ask them what in the world are they doing? What business is it of theirs to fight against a law passed by the Arizona Legislature to protect their citizens facing constant danger from illegal immigration while the federal government fails to help?

Mayor of Beaverton, Dennis Doyle.  mayormail@beavertonoregon.gov; 503-526-2497; Fax: (503) 526-2479  

Beaverton City Council. citymail@beavertonoregon.gov or call 503-526-2222.

Mayor of Tualatin, Lou Ogden. logden@ci.tualatin.or.us

City Council of Tualatin  council@ci.tualatin.or.us

Administration  Phone: 503-692-2000; Fax: 503-692-5421

Mayor of Portland, Sam Adams. mayorsam@portlandoregon.gov; 503- 823-4120.

City Commissioners and their contact information listed at:

http://www.portlandonline.com/index.cfm?c=28533

Multnomah County Commissioners:  All five are listed with email, phone, and fax numbers at:

http://web.multco.us/contact Read more about Oregon Attorney General on Wrong Side

The Legal Workforce Act (H.R. 2885), sponsored by U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith proposes a national mandatory E-Verify.  NumbersUSA has prepared a chart showing how the bill will impact each state.  You can clearly see that Oregon would benefit greatly if such a bill were to pass.

Go to:  https://www.numbersusa.com/content/oregon-everify.html

Call your Congressmen today, tell them you are a constituent and that you support Lamar Smith's legislation.  Tell them you think Oregon would benefit greatly from the passage of HR 2885 and you are counting on their support of the bill.

  Read more about In Oregon: What Immigration Enforcement Would Look Like With H.R. 2885 Enacted

In an effort to quell accusations by the open borders lobby that the Administration has not gone far enough with its administrative amnesty program, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced last week the creation of a new “public advocate” position for illegal aliens. Senior ICE Advisor Andrew Lorenzen-Strait, who was appointed as the new advocate, will serve as a point of contact for aliens in removal proceedings, community and advocacy groups, and others who have concerns, questions, recommendations or other issues they would like to raise about the Administration’s executive amnesty efforts. (ICEPress Release, Feb. 7, 2012)

The ICE announcement attempted to portray the creation of the Public Advocate position as part of the normal course of business.  “The creation of the Public Advocate position is another milestone in ICE's ongoing work to enact significant policy changes and improvements to focus the agency's immigration enforcement resources on sensible priorities…” ICE stated in its press release. (Id.) 

The new advocate will report directly to the Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), Gary Mead. According to the agency’s website, the public advocate’s role will entail:

• Assisting individuals and community stakeholders in resolving complaints and concerns with agency policies and operations;
• Proposing changes and recommendations to fix community-identified problems and concerns;
• Alerting agency leadership to potential community stakeholder concerns with current or proposed agency policies and/or operations; and
• Maintaining a collaborative and transparent dialogue with community stakeholders on the agency's mission and core values.  (See ICE Website, Feb. 11, 2012)

Ironically called a “public” advocate, ICE created the new role solely to placate amnesty advocates in an election year. Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), called the Administration’s creation of the new position outrageous. “This is just further proof that the Obama administration puts illegal immigrants ahead of the interests of Americans,” he further added in a press release. “The Obama administration’s lack of immigration enforcement allows illegal immigrants to steal jobs away from American workers and now their in-house lobbyist for illegal immigrants costs U.S. taxpayers more money.” (Rep. Smith Press Release, Feb. 7, 2012) Read more about Administration Appoints New Lobbyist for Illegal Aliens