legal immigration

Immigration Pause Executive Order

On April 22, President Trump signed an Executive Order temporarily suspending some forms of immigration into the United States as part of the administration’s response to the COVID-19 crisis.

“In order to protect our great American workers, I’ve just signed an executive order temporarily suspending immigration into the United States,” the president said during a coronavirus task force briefing at the White House. “This will ensure that unemployed Americans of all backgrounds will be first in line for jobs as our economy reopens.". .

 

A better way to help refugees

Governor Brown recently signed a letter to President Trump’s administration saying in effect that Oregon will welcome refugees assigned here in any numbers.

It’s apparent that the issue of refugee resettlement needs to be more fully discussed.

What is true compassion for the millions of citizens of other countries who risk their lives to get into the U.S. and Europe claiming to be refugees?

There are millions of refugees around the world today.  We cannot take them all, and we are not really helping when we bring certain ones to admit into the U.S. or into Oregon.  This only makes it possible for some in the U.S. to feel virtuous, and for the agencies here that process the refugees to enrich themselves.

These nonprofit agencies are overwhelmingly financed by the federal government, making tax-paying citizens bear the ultimate, huge cost.  The agencies have become self-perpetuating bureaucracies with a vested interest in serving large numbers of clients.

Furthermore, it has been documented that a high percentage of applications by persons seeking refugee status are fraudulent.

We should not encourage refugees and faux-refugees to come here by issuing blanket welcome statements.  For the same amount spent on assistance to refugees in the U.S., we could be helping millions of others who’ve been left behind. The U.S. already works with other countries and the United Nations to maintain safe centers for refugees in places near their home countries, with the aim of making it possible for most of them to return to their home countries eventually. 

In a BBC Radio 4 documentary series, A New Life in Europe, a Syrian man, head of a family attempting to enter Europe, speaks bitterly of Germany’s accepting some refugee claimants while he and his family were back in the Middle East after failing twice to reach their European destination and be accepted:  "If they would close the door, people would try to help themselves here. ... We would change our plan, we wouldn't have to keep trying and waiting for another boat. We would look for a better life somewhere else. They are throwing a piece of bread tied to a string and they just keep pulling it away from you."

In other words, don’t tempt us unless you intend to let all come in who wish to.

Help for true refugees is needed worldwide. Rather than extending help piecemeal, to random fractions of the total, let’s help all of them in the most effective way possible.   That means cooperation with other countries and the United Nations.

Administration looks to end birthright tourism

On January 21st, the Trump administration announced it would begin cracking down on the practice of birth tourism. A newly published rule directs consular employees at the State Department to deny tourist visas to pregnant women who have no legitimate reason for visiting the United States other than to give birth. 

Birth tourism is a booming underground industry in the United States due to our current interpretation of birthright citizenship. Federal agents arrested three people last year in California for operating a multimillion-dollar birth tourism business. These businesses draw foreign nationals to the United States in order to procure U.S. citizenship for their unborn children. Citizen children can sponsor their parents for a green card when they turn 21. . .

MEETING ALERT - CHANGE IN MEETING DATE AND LOCATION

Alert date: 
January 10, 2020
Alert body: 

The next OFIR meeting has been moved back to the Best Western Mill Creek Inn in Salem.  It will be on Sunday, January 19th at 2:00pm

We owe a debt of gratitude to the staff at Best Western Mill Creek Inn.  They have stood by us for years.  At the meeting we will briefly discuss why we changed the meeting location back to the Best Western.

Lorraine Woodwark, National Director of Attorneys United for a Secure America will be our special guest speaker.  Russ Walker, President Trump’s Oregon Campaign manager, will be speaking as well as

We will discuss what we can do to prepare for the 2020 election.  President Trump will likely face off with an open-borders candidate.

Your participation is encouraged as OFIR forges the way into 2020.  Please plan to attend and invite a friend!

We hope to see you at the meeting!

Victory for American tech workers

WASHINGTON � Today, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower federal court ruling that displaced American tech workers lacked standing to challenge Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations authorizing alien employment in the United States.

In this case, the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) represents Save Jobs USA, which is made up of former employees of Southern California Edison. That public utility drew bipartisan criticism in Congress when it displaced 500 of its American employees after forcing them to train their cheaper foreign replacements.

As spelled out in federal law, the H-4 visa allows the spouses of H-1B guestworkers to “accompany” the alien to or “join” the alien in the United States. Under the Obama Administration, DHS added to the law governing the H-4 visa by allowing H-4 spouses to work in the United States. Since many of these foreign tech-workers’ spouses are tech workers themselves, Save Jobs USA filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that challenged DHS’s authority to issue these work authorizations.

The district court held that Save Jobs USA lacked standing to bring the lawsuit because it did not suffer an injury from the employment of their H-1B competitors. Today, however, the D.C. Circuit, in reaffirming the “competitor standing doctrine,” held that Save Jobs USA did suffer injury from the regulation and had standing to sue.

The case will now return to the district court for a decision on whether DHS has the authority to permit H-4 spouses to work.

“The media has largely ignored the problem of DHS creating guestworker programs through regulation,” said John M. Miano, counsel for IRLI. “The Constitution gives Congress authority over the immigration system, but more labor now enters the U.S. job market through regulation than under laws passed by Congress.”

“The Save Jobs USA case has major implications for the immigration system,” said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI. “If the courts hold that DHS does have the authority it claims to permit alien employment through regulation, it can continue to wipe out the protections for American workers that Congress has enacted. We are pleased by the court’s decision on standing, and will press forward to get this unlawful foreign workers’ program overturned.”

The case is Save Jobs USA v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 16-5287 (D.C. Cir.).

Woodburn School District discriminated against teacher candidate based on citizenship status, Justice Department finds

The Woodburn School District discriminated against an applicant who was the most qualified for a teaching job but was denied the position because of his citizenship status, the U.S. Department of Justice found.

The rejected candidate was a work-authorized, conditional permanent resident but not a U.S. citizen. He had applied for a Spanish teaching job at Woodburn Academy of Arts and Sciences.

In a settlement announced Tuesday, the school district must pay the candidate $5,774.81...

The Justice Department also found the district inappropriately prescreened the candidate by asking him for specific documentation to verify his citizenship status and work authorization...

The Immigration and Nationality Act prohibits employers from refusing to hire certain work-authorized, non-U.S. citizens because of their citizenship status...

The Woodburn School District "appreciates the Department of Justice’s investigation and guidance,'' according to a statement released by the district Tuesday.

"While the investigation involved a single incident that took place over a year ago, the District takes it seriously and will use it as a training opportunity to prevent future incidents,'' the statement said.

The Immigrant and Employee Rights section of the Justice’s Department’s Civil Rights Division received a complaint from the applicant on Aug. 20, 2018...

The Woodburn School District...must not discriminate against applicants or employees based on citizenship, immigration status or national origin, when recruiting, hiring or firing employees, the settlement says.

The district must ensure human resources staff, school supervisors and other staff are trained to comply with the law. New staff involved in recruitment or hiring decisions must view a Justice Department webinar on The Immigration and Nationality Act and document they’ve seen it within 60 days of their hiring or selection, the agreement says.

If any further violations are identified during the the three years of the agreement, Justice Department officials will give the school district 30 days to correct the problem without initiating a new investigation.

Woodburn School District Superintendent William Rhoades signed the agreement Oct. 10.

"The District is fully committed to compliance with the law and highly committed to supporting equity for our immigrant community,'' the district said in its statement. "We especially recognize the contributions of our immigrant staff, students and families and we continually seek to improve our practice.''


 

A Review of Open Borders Inc.: Who's Funding America's Destruction?, by Michelle Malkin

Immigration by undemocratic means

John Wahala

The last four decades of mass immigration did not just happen by chance. Complex social and political forces drove the demographic transformation that has added 55 million people to the U.S. population since 1980. Given the magnitude of this transformation, it is curious that more has not been written on how and why it occurred. Here at the Center, Jerry Kammer and others have documented historic policy decisions that led to exponential increases in immigration. But such analysis is largely absent in the volumes of specialized immigration studies published each year by academia. Even in the popular press, narratives on what is behind this influx, which affects every aspect of American life, are surprisingly rare.

Michelle Malkin's provocative new book, Open Borders Inc.: Who's Funding America's Destruction? helps fill this void. The work is a grand conspiracy theory, which Malkin is the first to admit, but one that is built on a dizzying array of facts and figures, all of which indict powerful individuals and institutions who are working to dissolve American sovereignty. That may sound hyperbolic, but it is the stated goal of one of Malkin's chief antagonists, George Soros, who has openly declared that "sovereignty is an anachronistic concept originating in bygone times" and that "the critical issue of our time is how to overcome the obstacles posed by national sovereignty to the pursuit of the common interest." Soros has donated a considerable portion of his fortune through his network of Open Society Foundations, the world's "largest private funder of independent groups working for justice, democratic governance, and human rights", to those who are actively undermining American immigration law in various ways both here and abroad. These include activists on the ground assisting migrant caravans, community organizers, educational groups, and political operatives.

The long-term commitment that Soros has made to dissolving national sovereignty is staggering. But his resources fund only a piece of the effort to open the border that is being made by transnational organizations, corporations, churches, celebrities, and even officials within the U.S. government, all of which Malkin documents with hundreds of anecdotes. She is admittedly angry, having devoted her life's work to seeking "the safety and security of the United States" while witnessing this burgeoning coalition of lawlessness. She believes that countering this growing "immigration anarchy" is "the most central and existential issue of our time."

The push for open borders reveals the post-national political shift that has occurred among western elites, who exhibit far less concern for their fellow citizens than they once did. Transnationalism is growing on both the left and the right (in spite of populist uprisings like the Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump). But while the intent of ideologues like George Soros is clear, the intent of others in the open borders coalition is not as obvious. Does every Catholic priest who ministers to migrants or every social worker assisting refugees wish to remake the entire social and political order? Undoubtedly the answer is no. Many of these folks are apolitical actors who truly want to help the most vulnerable. Unfortunately their motive has gotten mixed up with billions of dollars in public funding that has clouded their judgment.

Malkin quotes Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who, in reference to Catholic Charities, foresaw the demise of private institutions back in 1980: "Private institutions really aren't private anymore ... many are primarily supplied by government funds. In time, there cannot be any outcome to that encroachment save governmental control." This is what has happened to Catholic groups and other organizations assisting immigrants and resettling refugees. A majority of their revenue comes from public sources and they are compensated by the volume, putting the emphasis on bringing ever increasing numbers of foreigners to the United States rather than prudently assessing the need for relocation, promoting integration, and considering the impact on local communities.

To make matters worse, resettlement is increasingly controlled by intergovernmental agencies within the United Nations that are awash in cash and rife with venality. Malkin quotes the Arabic language news site Al Monitor: "Aid organizations have become fountains of corruption, while 'humanitarian mafias' accrue massive sums." And she cites a UN internal audit that deemed every measure of financial controls over refugee relief funds "unsatisfactory". Bribery and sexual exploitation have been widely reported. This culture has infected scores of migration charities operating in the United States. Despite what good they still may do, they have become a major migration industry driven by profits and internationalist in outlook. Or as Malkin says, they have become "a colossal, profit-seeking venture cloaked in humanitarian virtue." By this assessment, they are similar to the industries that lobby for ever more foreign workers to drive down wages and increase profits.

The scope of this open-borders coalition is massive. And while it contains some who are unwitting participants, those driving the agenda are members of a diverse elite who know exactly what they are doing. And they are doing it, as Malkin says, with "unfettered contempt for actual popular sentiment." This includes much of the Hollywood elite, who, as Malkin details, seek to abolish the border while living behind "walls within walls within walls" in an "impenetrable bubble of protection", much like the officials in the Vatican.

What is confounding about all of this is how indifferent the coalition seems to the harm caused by open borders. As Malkin succinctly puts it, those undermining our immigration laws are "enabling human trafficking, violent crime, and exploitation of cheap, illegal alien labor." She includes stories of illegal-alien criminals, refugee terrorists, and overwhelmed communities unable to stop the constant flow of resettlement. There is a high social and fiscal cost to unregulated immigration that somehow never fits into the calculus of those advocating more of it. While they presume to have the moral high ground, an unprecedented level of immigration is detrimental to everyone. Malkin includes a heterodox quote from Father Andrew McNair, chaplain for the Office of Black Catholic Ministry of the Diocese of Providence, "The right to immigrate is not absolute ... the common good of any nation consists of three principles: respect for the person, social well-being and development, and peace ... lax immigration policy walks over these principles ... enforcing the law and asking people to obey the law isn't mean or heartless, but charity in its truest sense."

Unfortunately, "respect for the person" has been replaced by incivility on immigration. It was not all that long ago when those who wanted high levels of immigration would debate those who favored lower levels. Both sides would acknowledge a certain number of facts, like socioeconomic data from the Census Bureau, and calmly and respectfully discuss normative outcomes based on those facts. Sharing any common ground is now rare. Even government statistics are rejected as illegitimate and those favoring lower levels of immigration, or those simply favoring enforcement of the laws on the books, are dismissed as racist. In much of the media and academia, and even in some congressional hearings, a rational basis for discussion no longer exists.

The current environment of slander and censorship is fostered by groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center, a self-proclaimed arbiter of hate speech that uses its influence to shut down its political opponents. (The Center for Immigration Studies has filed a lawsuit against the SPLC under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.) Mark Potok, a former principal of the now disgraced group, which has been called out for its own internal racial, sexual, and financial injustices, explained the organization's intent, "I want to say plainly that our aim in life is to destroy these groups, to completely destroy them." Co-founder Morris Dees has concurred: "We see this political struggle, right? So you know, I mean, we're not trying to change anybody's mind. We're trying to wreck the groups, and we are very clear in our head: we are trying to destroy them."

For years that is what the SPLC sought to do to dozens of groups with whom they disagreed. Their efforts ruined the reputations of many good people and resulted in violence and attempted murder. CIS did our own expose on them and Malkin devotes a chapter to the impact they have had persuading public and private institutions to cripple groups and individuals while raking in millions from gullible celebrities like George Clooney.

The refusal to debate marks an erosion of liberal democratic ideals and a descent into ignorance and violence. Malkin provides anecdotes of individuals who have been blacklisted by Twitter and Facebook and declined business by financial institutions. She quotes conservative David Horowitz on this communist tactic: "The censorship powers of Social Media are awesome and historically unprecedented. When they are amplified by the arbitrary financial power of corporations such as Mastercard and Visa, the result is a leviathan willing and able to crush out basic freedoms and constitutional guarantees without a moment's remorse." Malkin also provides details on terrorist organizations like Antifa, which have dropped pretense and taken to the street to commit violence, ironically in the name of fighting fascism.

To say the current political climate is troubling would be a grievous understatement. At the forefront of this disturbing development are those who are undemocratically pushing for open borders. Michelle Malkin does a service to everyone who is interested in returning to a calm and reasoned debate by chronicling their antics.


 

The Oregon State Fair starts Friday!

Alert date: 
August 16, 2019
Alert body: 

It's that time of year! The Oregon State Fair will be opening Friday, August 23 and will run through Monday, Labor Day, Sept. 2.

OFIR will be hosting a booth at the State Fair inside the Jackman Long building again this year.  We do hope you will drop by and say hello!

You can find us in booth #235 inside the Jackman Long Building which is located just to the south of the Red Gate.

If you are interested in volunteering for a shift in our booth - just give us a call at 503.435.0141 or send us an email through our website at  www.oregonir.org

Hope to see you at the Oregon State Fair!

 

New High in U.S. Say Immigration Most Important Problem

Story Highlights

  • 23% mention immigration as most important problem, highest in Gallup trends
  • The government is the most commonly mentioned problem, at 26%
  • Most Americans still say immigration a good thing for the U.S.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans' concern with immigration continues to be heightened, as 23% name it the most important problem facing the country. This is by one percentage point the highest Gallup has ever measured for the issue since it first began recording mentions of immigration in 1993.

Line graph. Americans’ mentions of immigration as the country’s most important problem reached a high of 23% in June.

The June 3-16 poll was conducted as the U.S. continues to grapple with how to handle a surge of Central American immigrants at the U.S.-Mexican border. Gallup has previously found spikes in mentions of immigration as the most important U.S. problem at other times when the immigration debate intensified, including:

  • 22% in July 2018 amid controversy over a U.S. policy to separate children and parents who were trying to enter the U.S. illegally
  • 17% in July 2014, when a wave of young immigrants from Central American countries crossed the U.S. border illegally
  • 19% in April 2006 as the Senate worked toward passage of a comprehensive immigration reform bill it later passed but ultimately was not considered by the House of Representatives

Mentions of immigration have been higher on average in 2019 than in any prior year. The 20% average to date compares with 14% in 2018, and no more than 10% in any other year.

Yet immigration has typically finished behind the government as the nation's top problem over the past three years, and did so again this month, when 26% of Americans named the government. Government has finished ahead of immigration in all but two months since February 2017 (July and November 2018). This included a record 35% naming the government in February.

Concern about the government is broadly distributed across the three major partisan groups, with 32% of Democrats and 23% of both Republicans and independents currently identifying it as the most important problem. In contrast, immigration mentions are far more common among Republicans (42%) than Democrats (7%). Twenty-one percent of independents name it.

One in Three Want Immigration Levels Decreased

Asked their preferences for U.S. immigration levels, 37% of Americans say it should be kept at its present level, while more say it should be decreased (35%) than increased (27%). The percentage wanting immigration reduced is higher than the average 30% holding this view in Gallup's two prior surveys, in January 2019 and July 2018. However, in the past, many more Americans have called for a reduction than do so now, including 41% in June 2014, 58% in October 2001 (after 9/11), and a record 65% in the mid-1990s during a surge of illegal immigration in California.

In recent years, there has been an uptick in the percentage who want immigration to the U.S. increased. Before 2012, the percentage never reached 20%, but it has been above that mark since, including a record 30% in January.

Line graph. Among Americans, 37% want immigration kept at current levels, 35% would prefer it decreased and 27% increased.

As their differences in perceptions of immigration as the most important problem would suggest, partisans have divergent views on U.S. immigration levels. A slim majority of Republicans, 54%, want them decreased, while 31% want them kept the same and 13% increased. Democrats are about equally likely to prefer increased immigration (43%) as to want current levels maintained (42%); just 13% want immigration cut. Independents' views essentially match those of all U.S. adults.

Public Mixed in Assessment of Immigration's Effects

Even as they acknowledge immigration as one of the nation's most pressing problems, Americans still view immigration positively in general, with 76% describing it as a good thing for the country today and 19% as a bad thing. Since Gallup first asked this question in 2001, no fewer than 52% have affirmed immigration's value, with the current year's figure the highest to date by one point.

Line graph. Three-quarters, 76%, of Americans say immigration is good for the country, 19% say it is bad for the U.S.

Notably, two-thirds of Americans who identify immigration as the most important problem still believe it is a good thing for the country.

Democrats (87%) are much more likely than Republicans (62%) to say immigration is a good thing, with 78% of independents holding that view.

Americans' assessments of the effect of immigration on six aspects of U.S. society are mixed. In two areas -- the economy and food, music, and the arts -- more believe immigration has made the situation better than made it worse. The public is divided as to immigration's effects on social and moral values and job opportunities for their family, but more evaluate immigration's effect on crime and taxes negatively than positively.

Americans' Views of Immigration's Impact Mixed
For each of the following areas, please say whether immigrants to the United States are making the situation in the country better or worse, or not having much effect. How about -- [RANDOM ORDER]?

 

Better

Worse

No effect

Net (% Better - % Worse)

 

%

%

%

pct. pts.

Food, music and the arts

The economy in general

Social and moral values

Job opportunities for you and your family

Taxes

The crime situation

Gallup, June 3-16, 2019
57 10 32 +47
43 31 25 +12
31 28 39 +3
19 25 56 -6
20 42 37 -22
7 42 50 -35
 

Americans' opinions on the impact immigration has on these aspects of society have shifted in a more positive direction over the past two decades. Specifically, the public is much more positive today about immigration's effect on the economy and job opportunities than they were in 2001, when Gallup first asked the question. While still negative overall today, Americans are less negative about immigration's effect on taxes and the crime situation than they were 18 years ago.

Probing further on immigration's impact on the economy, the poll asked Americans whether immigrants "mostly help the economy by providing low-cost labor" or "mostly hurt the economy by driving down wages for many Americans." For the first time, a majority of Americans say immigrants mostly help the economy, with 55% holding this view, compared with 37% who see immigrants as harming the economy. In 1993 and 2004 surveys, large majorities of Americans saw immigrants as detrimental to the economy.

Line graph. More than half, 55%, of Americans see immigrants as mostly helping the U.S. economy; 37% see them as hurting it.

Republicans disagree with Democrats and independents on the effect of immigration on the economy. Whereas 60% of Republicans see immigration as hurting the economy, 72% of Democrats and 58% of independents believe it helps.

Implications

At a time when Americans are more likely to name immigration as the most important problem facing the country than any in recent memory, they hold mixed views about it. They still see immigration as a good thing for the country, and more believe it benefits than harms the economy. About one-third want to see immigration levels reduced, but that is a lower proportion than in past surveys, including times when fewer Americans viewed immigration as a pressing U.S. problem.

The issue continues to challenge U.S. lawmakers, as Congress and Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump have been unable to enact meaningful legislation to stem the flow of illegal immigrants to the country and develop a plan for immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. As such, the issue promises to remain a major one in the coming presidential election.

View complete question responses and trends.

Learn more about how the Gallup Poll Social Series works.

 

Alert on HB 2932, to provide privacy protection for criminal aliens

Alert date: 
May 13, 2019
Alert body: 

HB 2932 is a bill protecting illegal aliens charged with crimes.  It “prohibits courts from inquiring into defendant's immigration status or requiring defendant to disclose defendant's immigration status at time of plea or at any other time during criminal proceeding.  Requires court to allow defendant, upon request, additional time for plea decision after informing defendant about possible adverse immigration consequences of plea. Declares emergency, effective on passage.”

This bill, which legitimizes illegal immigration, opening our borders to the world without limit, is being sped through the legislature now.  A hearing was held by the House Judiciary Committee on March 18, and several OFIR members spoke against it or sent written testimony to the Committee.  But the Committee passed the bill, as did, on April 16, the full House.

The Senate Judiciary Committee held a Hearing on April 25 and will hold a Work Session to vote on the bill on May 13This Work Session is the last chance we have to voice objections to the bill, which is dangerous because it shelters criminal illegal aliens and encourages the acceptance of illegal immigration generally, threatening the sovereignty of our country.

If you can send a written statement of opposition to the Senate Judiciary Committee, please do.

HOW TO EMAIL A STATEMENT TO THE COMMITTEE

Visit the website of the Senate Judiciary Committee at https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Committees/SJUD/Overview

Scroll down to near the bottom of the page and see a line starting with “To Submit Testimony.” There is a link there to use for sending your statement directly to the Committee.

OR you can use this email address displayed at top of the PDF version of the Agenda pagesjud.exhibits@oregonlegislature.gov

Remember that your statement is considered testimony and will be part of the official legislative history of the bill, viewable online by anyone.  You need only to give your name and your county in your statement.  It’s recommended that individuals not include their full addresses.

In the email subject line, please identify the bill number (HB 2932), the name of the committee (Senate Judiciary Committee) holding the meeting, and the date of meeting (May 13).  The statement must arrive before meeting time, 8:30 a.m, May 13.

THEY ASK THAT YOU SEND YOUR STATEMENT IN PDF FORMAT IF POSSIBLE, but that it is not a requirement.

You can view statements previously sent on HB 2932 here.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - legal immigration