jobs

Salem Immigrant Rights Rally to denounce Trump agenda

Multiple nonprofits, including unions and immigrants rights groups, are traveling to Salem on Jan. 14 to participate in the United for Immigrants Rights Rally. Set a week prior to the Jan. 20 presidential inauguration...

Phil Carrasco with Grupo Latino de Accíon Directa is orchestrating a trip from Eugene to Salem...

“We do believe that a lot of these policies being proposed are really based in hate and funded by hate groups and xenophobic groups.” And, he says, they also believe that the right to be in this country and walk freely is an exclusive privilege.

Carrasco says there’s been a call to repeal the state’s sanctuary status, which would allow the federal government to use state resources to enforce immigration policy. He says the effort could possibly show up as a ballot measure.

This is not the first time a state law that affects immigrants would be addressed in the form of a ballot measure. In 2014, Measure 88 failed to garner enough votes to grant driver cards to all Oregon residents, though the Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 833, which permitted Oregonians to apply for driver cards, regardless of their immigration status.

Ultimately, SB 833 never went into effect.

Many people who do not have legal status in the U.S. pay taxes, funding roads, schools and other state resources, Carrasco says. “It’s important that it’s not just Latino-centric organizations participating,” he says.

Organizations representing health care, working families and labor unions are among the participants. Carrasco says these groups acknowledge that “an injury to one is an injury to all.”

Around 500 people are expected to attend, with 2,000 interested in the Facebook event. Carrasco invites anyone interested in attending and carpooling to contact him.

He adds that the event is “part of a national day of action to defend immigrant rights and to denounce Trump’s agenda of hate and exclusion in our state.”

The United for Immigrant Rights Rally is 11:30 am Saturday, Jan. 14, at the Capitol building in Salem. GLAD is on Facebook at latinocommunityactiongroup. And for carpool information contact Phil Carrasco at 541-337-6391.

Hundreds expected at rally against Trump's immigration proposals

SALEM — A pro-immigrant rally set for Saturday, Jan. 14, at the Oregon Capitol could draw several hundred demonstrators opposed to President-elect Donald Trump's positions on immigration.

U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, U.S. Rep. Kurt Schrader and several state lawmakers are scheduled to participate in the rally from 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. on the steps of the Capitol.

As of Wednesday, Jan. 11, more than 500 people had indicated they plan to attend and 2,000 had expressed interest on the event's Facebook page.

The rally is one of 50 "National Day of Action Events Against Trump Policies," according to a news release by the One Oregon coalition.

Trump has said that he will seek to deport millions of undocumented immigrants from the country, end executive orders by President Obama that shield certain illegal immigrants from deportation, and start a Muslim registry.

The coalition is "deeply concerned about the impact this will have on immigrant and refugee communities, who are integral to Oregon's economy and future," said Diane Goodwin, a spokeswoman for Basic Rights Oregon, a member of One Oregon.

One of Obama's executive orders, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, protects from deportation undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children. Young people who are eligible must apply for the program every two years, receive a work permit and may attend college.

"There are more than 700,000 individuals nationally and about 15,000 in Oregon whose lives are at stake, whose ability to continue their education and their career is at stake based on what President-elect Trump does," said Andrea Williams, executive director of Causa. "A lot of times, they have never been to their home country, don't know the language or have not been there for a very long time."

State lawmakers who have given their RSVP for Saturday's rally include Portland Democrats Rep. Alyssa Keny-Guyer, Sen. Michael Dembrow, Rep. Diego Hernandez, and Rep. Rob Nosse. Woodburn Democrat Rep. Teresa Alonso Leon, who became a U.S. citizen just five years ago, also plans to attend.

The One Oregon coalition of 60 organizations opposes anti-immigrant policies. Immigrant rights organizations Causa, APANO and Unite Oregon lead the group.

The coalition plans to support state legislation in 2017 aimed at reducing racial profiling during police stops, expanding Medicaid to more children and increasing affordable housing funding.

There are no known counter protests to the event. Oregonians For Immigration Reform, which frequently clashes with Causa on policy proposals, had no plans for a counter demonstration Saturday, said OFIR President Cynthia Kendoll. OFIR has scheduled a meeting the same day as the demonstration to discuss the results of the election and 2017 legislation.

Trump's immigration proposals have begun to address many of the frustrations some Americans have had with immigration policy and practices, Kendoll said.

"I think the Trump administration has nailed it when he said we need to reassess what we are doing and why and how is it benefiting the United States," Kendoll said.

She said she supports Trump's plan to end the DACA program.

"Those parents made the choice for their children to pick them up and bring them to this country," Kendoll said. "I didn't make that choice for them."

OFIR attempted to advance ballot initiatives last year that would have made English the official language of Oregon, required businesses to use a federal program to verify citizenship of employees and required proof of citizenship to vote. The initiatives ultimately were tied up in court after immigrant rights organizations and the ACLU challenged the ballot titles.

OFIR plans to offer at least four pieces of legislation next session, though Kendoll declined to disclose specifics Wednesday, Jan. 11. None are expected to gain momentum in the Democratic-controlled Legislature.

Also published in the East Oregonian

Sessions-led DOJ will reform immigration law to put Americans first

BY IAN SMITH & MICHAEL HETHMON, OPINION CONTRIBUTORS

In the lead-up to today’s confirmation hearing for Attorney General-designate Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), open-borders activists have been pushing back hard in their public advocacy campaigns against his potential appointment.

The Justice department, of course, does have plenty of jurisdiction over immigration. Should Sessions clear committee and get the necessary votes for the post, immigration policies reflecting the senator’s enforcement-first approach will surely top DOJ’s agenda.

Much to the open-borders lobby’s horror, patriotic immigration reform will likely be a point of emphasis for a Sessions-led DOJ.

First, the agency must send a formal request to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that all Notice-To-Appear (NTA) documents be actually filed with DOJ’s immigration courts.

NTAs, the charging document that starts the removal-hearing process, are supposed to be issued by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents to every illegal alien apprehended in the country.

In 2014, however, agents began receiving orders not to issue NTAs for aliens who claim to have been in the country before January of that year. This so-called ‘catch-and-release’ or ‘notice-to-disappear’ policy quickly sparked complaints from agents when the number of apprehended aliens making such claims skyrocketed.

Border Patrol Union President Brandon Judd relayed to Congress that the motive behind the change was to suppress the rates at which illegal aliens fail to appear for their removal hearings, a figure that’s dramatically increased during the Obama years.

Until a NTA has been filed with an immigration court, an alien is not in removal proceedings under current regulation. This creates a major loophole in the deportation system.

Without a NTA being logged into the system, those aliens refusing to show up in court can’t be recorded as no-shows. By ensuring that all NTAs are filed and posted on public dockets on the DOJ website, future administrations won’t be able to hide behind this kind of smoke-and-mirrors data reporting. 

The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) is a DOJ sub-agency that adjudicates cases of illegal-alien hiring. With American wages averaging around ten times those of Mexico, the magnet behind the illegal immigration numbers and the legal immigration backlog appears to be job opportunities.

Unfortunately, while we finally made it unlawful for employers to hire illegal aliens in 1986 with the Immigration Reform and Control Act, we never got the promised enforcement.

The current state of OCAHO is testament to that. Despite its importance, the court, at present, is completely neutered — only two judges currently sit on its panel and months occasionally pass without any permanent judges.

As we’ve advocated elsewhere, a return of worksite enforcement actions on the part of ICE, which were discontinued in 2007, must be made. Those actions should be supported by rejuvenated courts and far greater penalties.

Fines proposed by ICE and levied by OCAHO are not only too low (making the practice of hiring illegal aliens simply a cost of doing business), they’re almost always reduced by the court. OCAHO regulations must be amended to curb this mitigation process.  

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) also prohibits employers from discriminating against American citizens based on their citizenship-status, a practice employees in the tech industry have been well-acquainted with for years.

But, at the urging of the immigration attorneys lobby, OCAHO has refused to protect U.S. workers from employer-retaliation when they complain about an illegal alien.

The new administration’s promise to protect American workers cannot be realized unless OCAHO regulations are first amended to clarify that it is a prohibited act of immigration-related employment discrimination for an employer to prohibit or retaliate against a U.S. citizen for complaining about the employment of illegal aliens or the use of illegal alien contract workers. 

DOJ must also issue a legal opinion confirming that section 274A(a)(h)(3) of the INA does not give the executive branch unlimited authority to grant work permits to any alien, regardless of their legal status. 

When the president got angry with Congress for rejecting the ‘DREAM Act’ for the 24th time, he ordered DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to take a "fresh, new look" at the INA and conjure up the legal authority he sought to bypass Congress.

OLC Assistant Attorney General Karl R. Thompson's reinterpretation of section 274A(a)(h)(3) describes a super-doctrine of executive discretion whereby the outgoing president could claim almost monarchical powers to issue work permits as well as amnesty en masse

But, section 274A(a)(h)(3) only provides a list of limited exceptions to the general rule that it is unlawful “to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien.”

The INA defines “unauthorized alien” as any alien not “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” or an alien not “authorized to be so employed by this chapter or by theAttorney General."

Despite the INA’s general rule against employing illegal workers, OLC attorneys claimed that the phrase “by the Attorney General” allows the attorney general (now the DHS secretary) to give himself unfettered discretion in granting work permits to any category of illegal aliens he chooses.

We offered up this corrected interpretation in a friend-of-the-court brief to the Fifth Circuit, which ultimately took it up and closely tracked in their eventual decision to maintain the injunction against Obama’s Deferred Actions for Parents of Americans (DAPA) amnesty program. DOJ must formally adopt this interpretation. 

Numerous other immigration reforms that put the national interest first can be implemented by DOJ under existing statutes, once Obama’s memos and decrees on discretion are rescinded. And no doubt they will be with an "America First" attorney general, like Sessions, at the helm. 

Ian Smith is an investigative associate at the Immigration Reform Law Institute, a public interest law firm working to defend the rights and interests of the American people from the negative effects of mass migration. Hethmon is the senior counsel for IRLI.


http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/313533-sessions-led-doj-will-reform-immigration-law-to-put

Fix Immigration. It’s What Voters Want.

An excellent opinion piece by Republican Senator from Arkansas - Tom Cotton

New York Times

Donald J. Trump smashed many orthodoxies on his way to victory, but immigration was the defining issue separating him from his primary opponents and Hillary Clinton. President-elect Trump now has a clear mandate not only to stop illegal immigration, but also to finally cut the generation-long influx of low-skilled immigrants that undermines American workers.

Yet many powerful industries benefit from such immigration. They’re arguing that immigration controls are creating a low-skilled labor shortage.

“We’re pretty much begging for workers,” Tom Nassif, the chief executive of Western Growers, a trade organization that represents farmers, said on CNN. A fast-food chain founder warned, “Our industry can’t survive without Mexican workers.”

These same industries contend that stricter immigration enforcement will further shrink the pool of workers and raise their wages. They argue that closing our borders to inexpensive foreign labor will force employers to add benefits and improve workplace conditions to attract and keep workers already here.

I have an answer to these charges: Exactly.

Higher wages, better benefits and more security for American workers are features, not bugs, of sound immigration reform...

Photo

 

A day laborer from Honduras waiting for work in Kansas City. Credit Todd Heisler/The New York Times

It’s been a quarter-century since Congress substantially reformed the immigration system. In that time, the population of people who are in this country illegally has nearly tripled...

Some people contend that low-skilled immigration doesn’t depress wages. In his final State of the Union address, President Obama argued that immigrants aren’t the “principal reason wages haven’t gone up; those decisions are made in the boardrooms that too often put quarterly earnings over long-term returns.” Yet those decisions are possible only in the context of a labor surplus caused by low-skilled immigration. In a tight labor market, bosses cannot set low wages and still attract workers.

After all, the law of supply and demand is not magically suspended in the labor market. As immigrant labor has flooded the country, working-class wages have collapsed...

No doubt automation and globalization have also affected wages, but mass immigration accelerates these trends with surplus labor, which of course decreases wages. Little wonder, then, that these Americans voted for the candidate who promised higher wages and less immigration...

America has always offered a basic deal: If you’re willing to work hard and play by the rules, you can make a better life for yourself and your kids. But without good wages, this deal seems impossible...

Yet, as if Mr. Trump’s campaign never happened, companies in labor-intensive industries want to sustain or even increase current immigration flows....

Our country, like any country, needs borders and must decide who and how many can cross those borders...

This policy would resemble the immigration systems of Canada and Australia, countries with similar advanced economies. While our system gives priority to reuniting extended families and low-skilled labor, their systems prize nuclear-family reunification and attributes like language skills, education and work experience. A similar system here would allow in immigrants like doctors to work in rural areas while not pushing down working-class wages.

In some quarters, proposals like these invoke cries of “nativism” and “xenophobia.” But recent immigrants are the very Americans who have to compete with new immigrants for jobs. Far from being anti-immigrant, this proposal would give recent arrivals a better shot at higher wages, stable work and assimilation.

We have an immigration policy today that few Americans support or voted for. It’s allowed legal and illegal immigration at levels divorced from what our economy needs. That has undermined the earning power of those Americans least able to afford it.

But in this election, Americans finally demanded an end to this unthinking immigration system. President-elect Trump and Congress should take that mandate and act on it promptly in the new year.

Read the New York Times full article and comments here.

 

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

Alert date: 
January 8, 2016
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! 

 

 

 

Foreign Student Visas: Educating America’s Adversaries

Frontpage Magazine

Foreign Student Visas: Educating America’s Adversaries

Guess who Obama’s State Department issues hundreds of thousands of student visas to?

December 22, 2016

It has been said that if you give a man a fish you will feed him for a day, but if you teach him how to fish, you will feed him for a lifetime.  This simple saying illustrates how important training/education is.

Incredibly, the United States’ immigration policies formulated by the Obama administration welcome hundreds of thousands of Chinese STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) students into our nation’s premier universities while it is clear that China demonstrates hostility to the United States acting not as a partner, but rather as an adversary.

Chinese computer hackers attack computers in the United States as a matter of routine. The obvious question is how many of those Chinese computer hackers may have been trained and educated in the United States.

China’s recent theft of a U.S. Navy drone in the South China Sea underscores this hostility as do the arrest of numerous spies operating on behalf of China to steal America’s military and industrial secrets.

Not surprisingly, China has offered to return the drone while President-Elect Donald Trump has been quoted as saying that China can keep that drone.

China may have had two reasons for its illegal action.  It is clearly attempting to demonstrate that it has unilateral control over the strategically important South China Sea although this claim is not based on law or fact.  Additionally, China has an obvious interest in America's military technology.  By now China’s engineers have had ample opportunity to study the design of the drone and, perhaps, has managed to embed technology within the drone that would continue to provide intelligence about the use of that drone.

The U.S. Navy’s underwater drones seem to have drawn particular interest by China’s military.  In fact, on April 22, 2016 Newsweek reported, “Chines Spy In Florida Sent Drone Parts To China For Military."

On April 14, 2016 Newsweek published a report about a naturalized United States citizen, Edward Lin, who had joined the U.S. Navy only, allegedly, to be able to spy on the Navy.  I cannot help but wonder if his application for citizenship had been more effectively scrutinized if his alleged disloyalty to the United States could have been uncovered sooner.

That report, “Accused Navy Spy Edward Lin Had Friends In Sensitive Places" began with the following:

Edward Lin, the U.S. Navy officer suspected of spying for China and Taiwan, had scores of friends in sensitive places, if the number of contacts who “endorsed” him for military and security “skills” on LinkedIn, the professional networking site, is any guide.

Among those who endorsed Lin, a Taiwan-born officer assigned to a highly classified naval air reconnaissance unit in Hawaii until his secret arrest last year, are senior Taiwanese military officers and a Beijing-based venture capitalist specializing in “mobile internet applications and mobile games,” according to their LinkedIn bios. His American endorsers on the site include the second in command at the U.S. Naval Air Station, Guantanamo; the U.S. Pacific Fleet’s senior political-military analyst on Southeast Asia; a Navy congressional liaison officer; and fellow former aviators in his reconnaissance squad, including one now working at the Northrop Grumman Electromagnetic Systems Laboratory in Sacramento, California.

Lin also served as a congressional liaison for the assistant secretary of the Navy for finance management and comptroller from 2012 to 2014, a position that presumably gave him access to highly classified strategic weapons planning and put him in regular contact with senior members of the House and Senate armed services and military appropriations committees.

Lin’s assignments and the relationships that he developed positioned him perfectly to have access to extremely sensitive information.

Chinese citizens are not only allegedly spying on our military.  On May 19, 2016 Reuters reported, “U.S. charges six Chinese nationals with economic espionage."

On December 8, 2016 ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) released a press release that provided the latest statistics concerning foreign students who are present in the United States.

This press release began by noting that there are currently 1.23 million foreign students who have been admitted with F (academic visas) or M (vocational visas) studying at 8,697 schools scattered across the United States.

Consider this excerpt from that press release:

Nearly 42 percent of all F and M students pursued studies in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. This marks a 10.1 percent increase in international students pursuing STEM studies compared to November 2015.

Out of the nearly 514,000 international students pursuing STEM studies, almost 450,000 were from Asia, with the majority of all STEM students from India and China.

Concerns about foreign students with malevolent goals is not limited to students from China.

On February 24, 1998, two days short of the fifth anniversary of the first World Trade Center bombing, the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Information conducted a hearing on the topic, “

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265186/foreign-student-visas-educating-a...

USE it or LOSE it - Your Political Tax Credit can help OFIR continue our work

Alert date: 
December 10, 2016
Alert body: 

On Election Day, American immigration patriots won a remarkable victory.

And thanks to our state's generous political tax credit -- explained below -- you can help amplify that victory right here in Oregon.

First, though, consider what we've achieved. For the first time in years, we will have a friend rather than a foe in the White House -- a presidential administration whose immigration policies will put the interests of Americans, and not illegal aliens, first.

President-elect Trump has pledged to secure our border and end the disastrous "catch and release" policy that has unleashed criminal aliens inside our country.

He has vowed to reverse the Obama executive orders that have given de facto amnesties to millions of illegal aliens.

And he'll work to push through Congress a law that will require employers, via E-Verify, to vet their new hires for proof of legal U.S. presence.

In short, he has pledged to take the actions that we at OFIR have urged on our leaders for years -- and worked hard to achieve at the state and local levels.

With your help, OFIR will continue that work -- to, among other things, repeal Oregon's illegal-alien sanctuary law, keep driver licenses out of the hands of illegal aliens, and assure that only U.S. citizens in Oregon register to vote.

But to pursue these goals, we need your financial help. And Oregon tax law gives you an easy way to provide that help without it costing you a dime if you owe Oregon income tax.

In Oregon, when filing their tax returns, taxpayers may contribute a certain portion of their state tax payment to an Oregon political action committee (PAC) -- $50 for those filing an individual return and $100 for those filing a joint return. In other words, you may elect to give money to a political action committee (PAC) that otherwise would go to the state government -- where it would be controlled by Kate Brown and the amnesty-supporting majority in the state legislature.

But here's the catch: To take that state tax credit, you must make the contribution by the end of that tax year -- no later than Dec. 31, 2016.  So before then, we hope you'll write a check or make an online contribution to OFIR PAC.  If contributing by check, please write the check to OFIR PAC.  Contributions to OFIR are not tax-deductible.  Mail checks to OFIR PAC, PO Box 7354, Salem OR 97303.  Thank you!

Two years ago, by spearheading the successful charge against illegal-alien driver cards, OFIR helped set in motion the great patriotic wave that culminated on Nov. 8.  We believe we've earned your trust -- and your ongoing support.  During this historic time -- this new dawn for America -- help us continue our efforts with your donation today.

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.

'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.

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.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - jobs