immigration

Media ignore important facts on immigration

The truth about immigration’s role in our prolonged population surge is ignored by the general media, leaving most citizens unaware of the underlying reason why traffic is increasing everywhere, why housing density is a threat even in historic residential districts in Portland and elsewhere  -- to say nothing about the problems with rising costs of public education for ever-expanding enrollments, welfare services for vast numbers of homeless and poor people, environmental degradation in Oregon, the U.S. and elsewhere. 

The rush to the U.S. by millions from around the world must be stopped if our nation is to have an acceptable quality of life here. 

Overcrowding and lack of economic opportunities drive desperate people from third-world countries to the U.S.  We’ve been giving financial and technical assistance to these countries for decades now, but population policy has not been adequately addressed.  

Negative Population Growth says: “We believe that the optimum rate of [world] population growth is negative.”  For the U.S., they recommend reducing immigration to not over 200,000 a year, causing a gradual decline in population, and stabilizing  at a sustainable level of around 150 million.  Fertility among native-born in the U.S. has been below replacement level for some time.

Where are the feminists when they’re needed to encourage women in other countries to demand the right to control reproduction in their own bodies, the right to decide whether to have children and if so, how many. 

Joe Guzzardi, a long-time supporter of reduced immigration, gives the media a good scolding for their silence on these issues.  Here are excerpts from his article:

Call to journalists: Return to your professional standards

by Joe Guzzardi, in Daily Citizen-News, Dalton GA, January 9, 2019

On New Year's Eve, The Washington Post published a shockingly biased (even as measured in the current shoddy journalism era) op-ed piece. Titled "The Demographic Time Bomb that Could Hit America," the commentary reflects columnist Catherine Rampell's opinion that declining population would represent many dramatic societal challenges.

Crucial details though are omitted, perhaps purposely. Specifically, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, by 2060 the United States is projected to grow by 79 million people, from today's 326 million to 404 million. Population is not in decline as the column infers. …

Calling all Post editors! Publishing a column about declining population's perils when population is in fact soaring is an example of why the mainstream media's trustworthiness remains well below poll numbers from decades back in the public's eye. …

Many Americans are conflicted about immigration, and deserve to know both sides of the argument. After all, the population increases between today and the mid-2060s represent about a 25 percent bump. If Americans were asked how they feel about 25 percent more people in their already overcrowded neighborhoods, schools and hospitals and on highways, most would be overwhelmingly opposed.

Instead of the full, unvarnished story, readers routinely get a set of cherry-picked facts that the media, abandoning its professional responsibilities, puts forward. Time for the truth, and let the nation come to its own conclusions.

Read the full article here: https://www.dailycitizen.news/opinion/columns/joe-guzzardi-call-to-journalists-return-to-your-professional-standards/article.html

or here: https://progressivesforimmigrationreform.org/call-to-journalists-return-to-your-abandoned-professional-standards/

The population explosion - cause and effect

A recent Gallup poll found that more than 750 million adults around the world say they would like to move to another country if they had the opportunity, and the U.S. is the most desired destination. 

Our country is already adding one international migrant (net) every 34 seconds, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Population Clock.  For some decades now, immigration levels here have been over 1 million annually.  SO … now people everywhere are complaining about traffic congestion, insufficient housing, overcrowded schools, etc. 

Consider that birth rates of native-born citizens have been at or below replacement level since the 1970’s.  It’s obvious that the true cause of the huge population growth is excessive immigration.  Social and business pressures have more or less silenced public discussion, but some intrepid souls continue to speak out.

Thanks to Jerry Ritter for writing and successfully getting this letter printed in the Eugene Register-Guard:

Sanctuary policy at the root of exploding class sizes, letter to the editor by Jerry Ritter, in the Register-Guard, Eugene OR, December 25, 2018.

There’s been a lot of ink lately on class sizes in Oregon.

Increased class sizes are primarily the result of population growth. Most of Oregon’s population growth is due to in-migration: domestic and foreign, legal and illegal.

Oregonians embraced continued encouragement of illegal immigration to our state by defeating Measure 105. So the welcome mat (sanctuary policy) stays out for people who have no right to be here. The Register-Guard’s editors proudly proclaimed on Nov. 27 that “Oregon has welcomed countless immigrants and refugees.”

I have no problem with legal immigrants, but I must ask sanctuary supporters, how does encouraging ILLEGAL immigration to Oregon help with class sizes? How does it reduce the gridlock on our roads? How does it lower our carbon footprint? How does it relieve the strain on social services (most immigrants receive some form of welfare)? How does it impact our housing crisis? Would they be willing to provide the funding to support one or more migrant families?

With the critical shortage of affordable housing in California and a continuing flood of illegal immigrants into that state, what do you suppose that means for Oregon and Washington with their welcome mats out?

Jerry Ritter, Springfield


Roy Beck, of NumbersUSA, has written for years about the need to curtail overall immigration.  See his updated summary at:  https://www.numbersusa.com/blog/new-projections-warn-much-more-congested-future-if-immigration-policies-arent-changed

Statement of DHS Secretary Nielsen, 12/26/2018: "Our system has been pushed to a breaking point by those who seek open borders. …”  

Attorney General Jeff Sessions: a true Immigration Reformer

In a recent newsletter, NumbersUSA lists all the steps that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has taken to turn our muddled immigration system around and make it work again for the best interests of U.S. citizens.

Of course, a lot remains to be done, and any progress at all depends on elected officials in Congress and The White House.  President Trump criticizes his AG at times, but looking at what Jeff Sessions has accomplished, Sessions deserves citizens’ praise and encouragement.  Let’s hope Mr. Sessions gets strong support from the public, the Department of Justice, and elsewhere in government.

From the NumbersUSA Newsletter of September 21, 2018:

No person in the Administration has done more to advance Pres. Trump's immigration agenda than Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Here's an overview of some of the areas in which AG Sessions has taken bold action over the last 21 months.

END DACA -- AG Sessions authored the legal defense for the Trump Administration's decision to end the illegal DACA executive amnesty. The Department of Justice has also defended the decision to end DACA in a number of legal challenges filed by several states and pro-amnesty groups.

END SANCTUARY CITIES -- AG Sessions has taken several actions to discourage states and local jurisdictions from providing sanctuary to illegal aliens. He's blocked Department of Justice grants for sanctuary jurisdictions and sued the state of California over the state's passage and implementation of laws that block both law enforcement and employers from working with federal immigration officers. AG Sessions has also supported a Texas state lawsuit that seeks to eliminate sanctuary jurisdictions in the Lone Star state.

REDUCE ASYLUM FRAUD -- Earlier this year, AG Sessions took action to reduce the growing number of illegal border crossers who exploit the asylum system to avoid prosecution for illegal entry. He strengthened the credible fear standard by clarifying that the law does not allow individuals to receive asylum for fear of gang violence or domestic abuse perpetrated by non-governmental actors. He ruled that credible fear claims should only be approved when the alien has a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country because of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. This single action should help reverse the dramatic rise of defensive asylum claims entered by illegal aliens over the last decade.

INCREASE IMMIGRATION JUDGES -- AG Sessions has taken steps to eliminate the enormous backlog of cases that are bogging down the immigration courts. Just last week, AG Sessions announced that the DOJ would be increasing the number of immigration judges by 50% to help deal with the more than 746,000 immigration cases that await a ruling. This major new expansion would be on top of the additional judges AG Sessions sent to the Southern border region earlier this year to help deal with the ongoing border surge. He's also issued new guidelines to immigration judges to ensure the fair and expeditious treatment of cases and placed limits on judges' ability to postpone hearings that allow illegal aliens to live and work in the United States.

ZERO-TOLERANCE POLICY -- AG Sessions issued a zero-tolerance policy for illegal border crossers, ordering the prosecution of all foreign nationals apprehended crossing the border illegally. The policy also covers illegal aliens who enter a defensive claim for asylum -- approximately 80% of illegal border crossers from Central America who claim asylum have their claims eventually denied.

In his State of the Union speech earlier this year, Pres. Trump said "Struggling communities, especially immigrant communities, will be helped by immigration policies that focus on the best interests of American workers and American families."

It's clear that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has done more to implement those policies than any other individual in the Trump Administration.

We encourage you to call the White House comments line at (202) 456-1111 and tell Pres. Trump that you stand with Attorney General Sessions and support the actions he's taken to return America's immigration system back to one that serves the national interest.

Have time for a laugh? Read this

Matt O’Brien, of FAIR, does a great put-down on academic discussions of immigration, in PhDs Take 800 Words to Say Absolutely Nothing About Immigration.

Excerpts:

… a recent op-ed in the Washington Post, “Like it or Not, Immigrant Children Are Our Future,” reveals just how far off the rails twenty-first century academics have drifted.

The essay was authored by Marcelo M. Suárez-Orozco, the Dean of the Graduate School of Education at UCLA and Carola Suárez-Orozco, the co-director of the Institute for Immigration, Globalization and Education at UCLA. Both hold PhDs. And both have had lengthy careers in academia. Yet, even working as co-authors, neither seems to be able to say anything relevant about immigration.

They begin with this jargon-laden nonsense: “An entirely new cartography of immigration is unfolding in real time.” If you’re scratching your head, don’t beat yourself up. I have almost as many degrees as the Suárez-Orozcos – and two decades of practical experience dealing with immigration issues – and I have no idea what that means either.

And, over the course of roughly 800 words, it doesn’t become any clearer. According to the Professors Suárez-Orozcos, “there are a cluster of impediments to integration that are particular to the current era of globalization.” But fear not, “scholars, educators and practitioners are coming together in a global ‘network of networks,’ endeavoring to move the needle in supporting immigrant youth.”

So…what’s the actual conundrum being addressed? It appears to be some vague riff on the standard far-left narrative: Developing-world immigrants are somehow more motivated than the current populations of the nations they seek to enter, and therefore essential to the continued success of those countries. Citizens of receiving nations who believe in borders and sovereignty are racist, rather than merely patriotic or practical. It is malice that blinds the citizens of Western democracies to all of the benefits of “diversity” that come with unchecked mass migration. We need immigrants to “fix” Judeo-Christian culture and save it from itself. Ergo, any limits on immigration are “racist” or “xenophobic” rather than reasonable or practical.

That narrative is absurd on its face. And the lack of coherence behind the argument is exactly why it must be expressed using highfalutin gobbledygook, instead of clear, analytical prose. ...

Thus, we live in a world where average citizens regularly make substantive, useful observations about immigration policy in 280-character tweets but two PhDs drone on for 800 plus words and succeed only in saying absolutely nothing about the very same issues.

Update on candidates in November 2018 election

Alert date: 
September 16, 2018
Alert body: 

September 16, 2018

The Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project continues to add more information to its comparison chart on immigration issues.

Their Comparison Guide on Immigration covers candidates for Governor, Oregon Senate and Oregon House.

It now incorporates incumbents' votes in the 2017 Oregon Legislature on HB 3464.  HB 3464, granting “privacy” to illegal aliens, sheltering them from questions about their immigration status, passed on July 6, 2017, the next to last day of the session.  It had been rushed through the Legislature with only one public hearing, June 8.  

Please take a look at the current OAAVEP postings on immigration:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTl1YE1_y1T6t7R09aawmsBcOJ4Y0akcraDePs1S1D1F9yPecFVZNja4VNBgWjLgBt24QCnmemZat57/pubhtml

OFIR’s earlier summary of candidate positions contains some information not in the OAAVEP Comparison Guide.  See OFIR’s earlier summary here.

Regarding candidates for Governor, the OAAVEP Guide does not include candidate Buehler’s support for repealing ORS 181A.820 (Measure 105).  Knute Buehler announced publicly in July that he will vote for Measure 105. https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/07/republican_knute_buehler_says.html

During his two terms in the Oregon Legislature, he consistently voted against benefits to illegal aliens.

Information on candidates' immigration positions available now

Alert date: 
August 11, 2018
Alert body: 

For several years now, in election seasons, OFIR has provided information on Oregon candidates’ positions on immigration issues.  See the Elections section in Immigration Topics.

For 2018, OFIR has posted an Overview of the General Election which includes pertinent information.

Collection of information on candidates’ immigration positions is becoming easier now since the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Survey has begun including several good questions on immigration policy in its compilations of candidate positions on a variety of current issues. 

NumbersUSA also collects information on Congressional candidates’ positions, and with its large database of incumbents’ voting records on immigration issues, NumbersUSA is a valuable source for voters to know about.  Their current listing for Oregon can be viewed here.

With immigration so much in the news today, it’s advisable to check the views of candidates in one’s voting district.  If you don’t find any public information on their views, that’s useful to know also, because candidates should be well-versed on immigration issues to serve their constituents adequately now.  A reluctance to state their positions publicly is a red caution flag for voters.

“Immigration has risen to the top of the list when Americans are asked to name the most important problem facing the nation …”, according to a new Gallup poll.  

Voters can email their candidates and ask them, please, to reply to the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Survey questions on immigration which are posted here.  Email addresses for candidates are usually on the candidates’ websites, and the OAAVEP survey includes link to candidate websites in most cases.  If you have a problem contacting candidates in your voting districts, you can email OFIR and we’ll send you contact information.

If you wish, you can cite these references to your candidates:

1.  FAIR has issued a good report specifically about what states and local governments can do to help immigration enforcement; see it here.  The full report is a pdf document:  https://fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/2016_State_and_Local_Agenda.pdf

2.  A CIS analyst presented testimony to Congress summing up current needs very well; view her report, “Restoring enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws,” here.  

3.  Informative discussions of what constitutes good immigration policy are available on the websites of NumbersUSAFederation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Center for Immigration Studies

Who stands up for immigration law enforcement?

On Wednesday, July 18, the public got a clear picture of which among Oregon’s U.S. Representatives support enforcement of immigration laws and which do not.  The House voted on H. Res. 990, “Supporting the officers and personnel who carry out the important mission of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” 

The Resolution was introduced in response to the current national campaign for abolishing ICE and immigration law enforcement.  The text of the Resolution lists many specific reasons why ICE is necessary and has served our country well.

It comes as no surprise that Rep. Earl Blumenauer, Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, and Rep. Peter DeFazio chose to avoid disclosure of their positions. In the roll call vote, they answered only “Present.”

Thanks to Rep. Kurt Schrader and Rep. Greg Walden for voting YEA.

Control over the entry of non-citizens is essential for the survival of any nation. It’s useful for citizens to know where our legislators stand on this fundamental issue of national sovereignty. 

We now know for sure that Rep. Blumenauer, Bonamici and DeFazio put the interests of illegal aliens and the employers that hire them, above the best interests of citizens.  Their records of betrayal are detailed further at NumbersUSA.com, which has tracked Congressional actions on immigration since 1997, and issues grades for all members of Congress, including Senate and House.

Oregonians, please vote to repeal Oregon’s sanctuary statute this November when IP 22 will be on the ballot.  A Measure number for IP 22 will be available soon, and if passed, it will free up local law enforcement to cooperate with ICE as they should.

CBS News YouGov 2018 Battleground Tracker

YouGov has conducted an estensive survey on opinions of immigration, political parties, and other issues. View the YouGov survey.

Sessions Shuts Down Stealth Amnesty

WASHINGTON Attorney General Jeff Sessionss has ordered an end to a longstanding practice of immigration judges (IJs): administratively closing cases to make them disappear from the docket. Immigration judges did this so often in past administrations that the procedure amounted to a vast amnesty-by-stealth for deportable aliens. When an alien’s case is administratively closed, the alien gets to stay in the United States until the case is reopened—and most such cases, once closed, are never reopened.

The Attorney General noted that out of fourteen briefs he received from various groups, the brief of the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) was the only one to oppose administrative closure. Again and again, this lopsidedness in briefing is the reality in these cases, with dozens of groups pushing open borders, and IRLI, standing alone, advocating enforcement.

Agreeing with IRLI’s brief, the Attorney General noted that no statute or regulation confers general authority on IJs to employ administrative closure. And Sessions declined to grant IJs this authority. Instead, he expressly overruled prior Board of Immigration Appeals cases that had recognized it.

Sessions’ ruling means that IJs will be unable to use administrative closure except in certain narrow circumstances where its use is provided for in regulations. As for cases that previously have been administratively closed, Sessions ordered that they must be reopened if either party that is, either the Department of Homeland Security or the alien so requests. Thus, his ruling ends stealth amnesty going forwward, and frees the government to roll back the massive stealth amnesty that has already happened.

“We are pleased that the Attorney General agreed with us and not the thirteen briefs on the other side,” said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI. “This ruling chokes off an abuse that has gone on far too long: letting deportable aliens stay by making their immigration cases just disappear. Immigration Judges undoubtedly are overworked,” Wilcox added, “but they are charged with applying our immigration laws, and have no authority simply to erase deportable aliens’ cases from the docket. Now the administration’s duty is clear: to step up, recalendar these prior cases, and finally bring them to a conclusion.”

The case is Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018).

Candidate information available for May 15 primary

Ballots for the May 15, 2018 primary election are arriving in the mailboxes of Oregon’s registered voters.

OFIR has now posted information on the immigration positions of many candidates running in the primary. Please take a moment to look over the information before you fill out your ballot.

The offices for which informational reports are available on the OFIR website are:

Governor

Commissioner of Labor and Industries

Congressional candidates

Oregon House candidates (HD 09, HD 18, HD 19, HD 20, HD 23, HD 26)

Oregon Senate candidates (SD 3, SD 4)

Much of the information came from answers to questions in the 2018 survey of the Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project. It contained a list of questions covering many political issues, including three questions on immigration policy for Governor and Legislative candidates and six questions for Congressional candidates. 

See the OAAVEP immigration questions listed in OFIR’s Overview for the Primary.  Other candidate information came from candidates’ websites, news articles, and official (OLIS) records of votes by incumbent legislators.   

 

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - immigration