legal immigration

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: 
2019-08-16
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: 
2019-05-13
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.

HB 2932, sanctuary for criminal aliens

Alert date: 
2019-03-22
Alert body: 

A hearing on HB 2932 was held on Monday, March 18, by the House Judiciary Committee.  Several OFIR Board members attended and testified in opposition, submitting written testimony also.

OFIR has posted the testimonies at:  http://www.oregonir.org/immigration-topics/sanctuary-bill-2019-legislature.

A videotape of the Hearing can be viewed at: http://oregon.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?clip_id=26213

We encourage citizens to express their views of this bill to their state Representatives.  To identify your state Representative and get phone number/email address, click here:  https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/FindYourLegislator/leg-districts.html.  After entering your address in the format requested, see the address card and click the tab labelled House.

Democrats Winning 90% Congressional Districts with Large Foreign-Born Populations

Mass legal immigration is driving Democrats towards full electoral dominance, with left-wing politicians winning nearly 90 percent of congressional districts with larger than average foreign-born populations, analysis finds.

The Atlantic senior editor Ronald Brownstein analyzed Census Bureau statistics for the 2018 midterm elections, finding that the country’s admission of more than a million legal immigrants every year is set to hand over electoral dominance to House and Senate Democrats.

Among Brownstein’s findings is that nearly 90 percent of House congressional districts with a foreign-born population above the national average were won by Democrats. This concludes that every congressional district with a foreign-born population exceeding 14 percent had a 90 percent chance of being controlled by Democrats and only a ten percent chance of electing a Republican.

“After the 2018 result, Democrats now control more than 80 percent of the House seats in which minorities exceed their national share of the population, and nearly 90 percent of the seats with more immigrants than average, according to Census Bureau figures,” Brownstein writes.

Likewise, less than one-in-ten House Republicans represent a congressional district that has a foreign-born population larger than 14 percent.

It is not just congressional districts that are being driven towards Democrats through mass legal immigration. Entire states have been transformed, not only demographically, but electorally by the country’s current legal immigration levels....

Brownstein expects Democrats to largely target the remaining Senate Republicans in states with large foreign-born populations in the 2020 elections.

“Several of the remaining Republican Senate seats in that grouping (including Colorado, Arizona, Georgia, and perhaps Texas) will be among the top Democratic targets next year,” Brownstein writes.

Even the New York Times admits that continued legal immigration at its current rate of importing more than 1.2 million residents a year will transform the U.S. towards electoral dominance for Democrats.

This is most recently evident in Orange County, California — once a Republican stronghold — that has become entirely controlled by Democrats. The dominance of Democrats in Orange County has coincided with the county’s booming foreign-born population (Screenshot via the New York Times)...

Currently, the U.S. admits more than a million legal immigrants annually, with the vast majority deriving from chain migration, whereby newly naturalized citizens can bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the country. In 2017, the foreign-born population reached a record high of 44.5 million.

The U.S. is on track to import about 15 million new foreign-born voters in the next two decades should current legal immigration levels continue. Those 15 million new foreign-born voters include about eight million who will arrive in the country through chain migration.

University of Maryland, College Park researcher James Gimpel has found in recent years that more immigrants to the U.S. inevitably means more Democrat voters and thus, increasing electoral victories for the Democrat Party.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

 

OFIR leader speaks to Republican Women

“Every nation has the right to set immigration policy,” Jim Ludwick declared as he began an address to the Yamhill County Republican Women’s Club last week. “Every citizen has the right to advocate” for what he considers the right policy.

Those aren’t just words to Ludwick, president of the state’s largest immigration reform group.

The McMinnville resident believes too many immigrants are coming into the U.S., and far too many of those are doing so illegally. The 2010 Census showed that U.S. population grew by 27 million in 10 years. That much growth, he said, “is unsustainable and a terrible burden for our children and grandchildren.”

He wants to stop illegal immigration entirely and limit legal arrivals to 230,000 per year — the average number that came in annually during the period in which “we grew into the strongest nation,” he said.

“We’re got to do something about the immigration issue,” he repeated, saying he’s an “advocate for reforms to protect our citizens.”

To achieve those goals, Ludwick founded Oregonians for Immigration Reform, or OFIR, in 2000. 

Ludwick is a longtime McMinnville resident. He helped found the Mac Club to support McMinnville High School athletics, and served as president of Friends of Yamhill County, a land use group.

He graduated from Long Beach State College in 1964.

“I grew up in Southern California. It was diverse, but no one had a hyphenated name, like African-American or Italian-American,” he said. He and his neighbors were simply “Americans,” he said.

He said he isn’t a hater or a racist. He said he and other OFIR members simply want to protect the country from people who shouldn’t be here.

“What part of ‘illegal’ don’t they understand?” he asked.

Oregonians for Immigration Reform has sponsored several initiatives aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration.

In 2018, it sponsored Measure 105, which would have ended Oregon’s sanctuary laws. Voters turned it down, 64.5 percent no to 36.5 percent yes.

In 2014, OFIR led a successful effort to defeat Measure 88, which would have allowed illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses.

OFIR has been labeled “anti-immigrant” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nationwide group that says it monitors and exposes “hate groups and other extremists.”

As a result of the label, Ludwick, who calls the SPLC listing “arbitrary” and without evidence, has received numerous calls and letters disagreeing with the organization’s efforts and threatening him personally, as well.

While talking about OFIR to the Yamhill County Republican Women, Ludwick displayed a map of the U.S. It was mostly red, which he said indicated counties that voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. It included several spots of blue, mostly in densely populated areas such as Los Angeles and New York, indicating Hillary Clinton voters.

The denser the population, he said, the more residents feel they need laws to protect them and, therefore, the more willing they are to “turn their lives over to central government.”

As immigration causes population to grow, he said, the more likely voters will be to vote for the type of government advocated by “Democrats, Socialists and Marxists.” He later added “Communists” to the list.

Those groups, in other words, want to bring in more immigrants. If Republicans don’t stand up for their beliefs, “lots of those Trump counties will change” in the next election, he said.

Ludwick said he doesn’t believe immigration proponents who claim that immigrants commit fewer crimes than U.S. citizens. Rather, he said, evidence disputes that.

For instance, he said, the percentage of illegal immigrants in the Oregon State Prison is much higher than the percentage of legal residents who are locked up.

He claimed 137 illegal aliens are serving time for murder and 179 for rape. Illegal immigrants incarcerated for all crimes, he said, represent 18 percent of the prison’s population, but only 4 percent of the state population.

OFIR’s website cites a recent report stating as of Jan. 1, 6.15 percent of total Oregon Department of Corrections inmates have ICE detainers, denoting illegal immigrant status. Calls for further information requested from the DOC were not returned by press time.

Ludwick noted a 2008 Yamhill County case in which a 31-year-old illegal immigrant, Gustavo Mercado-Murillo, received 75 years in prison for abusing five children younger than 10.

Incarcerating this man is costing taxpayers much more than the average of $30,000 per year, Ludwick said, since the inmate, now 42, is on kidney dialysis. Taxpayers are paying for his treatment, and for the care of his wife and four children, too, he said.

“The cost just doesn’t end,” he said.

Ludwick also mentioned a Multnomah County judge who released illegal aliens from court so they wouldn’t be picked up by immigration agents. He filed a complaint, but the judge went unpunished.

“I bet every illegal hopes she’ll be the judge” for his or her case, he said.

Closer to home, Ludwick said, “the McMinnville police chief doesn’t want illegals to be afraid to report crimes, so he won’t turn them over to ICE.” He countered, “I don’t want people here who won’t report crimes.”

Ludwick said OFIR has sponsored speakers like a border patrol agent who served during the Obama administration. Back then, the speaker told OFIR members, it was a “catch and release” program where parents who tried to cross illegally were issued tickets and sent south.

But agents discovered that the same children kept showing up with different adults. “They were renting out little girls to accompany drug or human smugglers,” Ludwick said.

Illegal immigrants also raise the cost of education, Ludwick said. He said each undocumented student costs McMinnville High School $15,000, plus another $3,500 if the student is enrolled in English Language Learner programs.

Actually, the McMinnville School District receives state funding in the amount of $8,060 per student in every grade, according to Susan Escure, director of finances for the district. Citizenship makes no difference in the per-student allotment.

For each student in the ELL program, the district receives an additional $3,931, an amount determined by subtracting the transportation funding from the total per-student amount, then multiplying by one-half. That means the district receives a total of $11,991 for each student who is still learning English to offset the cost of the ELL program.

How "Illegal Immigrant" Amnesty Could Destroy American Liberty

by Trevor Loudon

There is no issue that will more decisively spell the end of American liberty than that of amnesty for this country's millions of illegal aliens.

Illegal immigration and the societal changes it will bring with it are more than an economic issue, a public health issue, a law enforcement issue, or even a national security problem—it is an existential threat to thee survival of the United States as a constitutional republic.
 
It comes down to simple math.
 
For years, the generally accepted estimate of illegal aliens living in the United States has been around 11 million.
A study released by MIT's Mohammad Fazel-Zarandi, a senior lecturer in the operations research and statistics group, and his colleagues, Edward Kaplan and Jonathan Feinstein, both from Yale School of Management, in September 2018 gave cause to re-visit that figure.
According to MIT's Sloan School: The research found that the number of undocumented immigrants living in the country is about 22.1 million, nearly twice the most prominent current estimate of 11.3 million. Even using extremely conservative parameters, the study estimates a population of 16.7 million undocumented immigrants, nearly 50 percent higher than the widely accepted population figure.
 
If given citizenship and voting rights (which Hillary Clinton promised to initiate within a hundred days of taking office), 11 to 22 million eventual new voters will have a huge impact on future U.S. elections.
This fact is not lost on the left-wing activists in the United States, who seek to use the illegal alien population to secure a "permanent progressive majority" for the Democratic Party and their allies.

More Voters

Communist Party USA (CPUSA) leader Emile Schepers wrote a paper on immigration amnesty for the party's 2014 national Convention in Chicago.
 
"For decades, the CPUSA has been involved in the struggle for the rights of immigrant workers and their families. … A central focus has been gaining legal rights for the 11 million undocumented," Schepers wrote.
"We call for progressive legislation which legalizes as many people as possible as quickly as possible. … We are for ease of access too U.S. citizenship."
 
Former Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez was, for more than 20 years—the main champion of illegal alien amnestty in the House of Representatives. He is a former leader of the Marxists' Leninist Puerto Rican Socialist Party (PRSP) and an ally of both the United States largest Marxist organization—the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)—and the pro-China League of Revolutionaary Struggle (LRS).
In July 2015, Rep. Gutierrez addressed the House of Representatives on the power of the Latino vote and the political left.
 
"If millions of people naturalize, become citizens, and if we add to that the million Latino citizens who this year will turn 18, plus all our allies in the African-American community, LGBT voters and younger voters, environmental voters, women voters, Asian voters, union voters … coonstitute a majority of Americans. Together, we are the New American Coalition that will dominate politics for decades to come."
 
Gutierrez's good friend, former SEIU International Executive Vice President Eliseo Medina, is the undisputed leader of the “amnesty” movement in this country. Medina is a long-time member of the DSA, a CPUSA ally, and was an informal adviser to former President Barack Obama on immigration and amnesty issues.
At the America's Future Now! conference in Washington, D.C. on June 2, 2009, Medina addressed "progressive" attendees on the need for urgent illegal alien amnesty.
Speaking of Latino voters, Medina said: "When they [Latinos] voted in November, they voted overwhelmingly for progressive candidates. Barack Obama got two out of every three voters that showed up. …
 
"If we are to expand this electorate to win, the progressive community needs to solidly be on the side of immigrants. That we'll solidify and expand the progressive coalition for the future. …
[If] we reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters. Can you imagine if we have, even the same ratio, two out of three?
"If we have 8 million new voters who care about …. and willl be voting. We will be creating a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle."
Medina exhibits no compassion for the plight of illegal aliens or sympathy for families being torn asunder. Medina does not speak of a "nation of immigrants"or the "American Dream."
 
This is all about hard numbers and raw power.  It's very clear that the left wants illegal immigrant amnesty for one reason only—votes.

One-Party State

The 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney lost his election by around 2.5 million votes. President Donald Trump actually lost the popular vote by around 3 million ballots. He won by about 200,000 votes through the Electoral College. Thank God for the wisdom of the Founding Fathers who gave America a system to temper the dangers of raw "majority rule" and political dominance by large population centers and ethnic or religious blocs.
 
Many states with high illegal alien populations, such as Arizona, Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina are only marginally inside the Republican camp. Illegal alien amnesty would almost certainly send those states permanently "blue."  Virginia—once "red"”would also be lost for the Republicans. Even Republican-stronghold Texas is very vulnerable. Losing only one or two of these states would doom the Republican Party to minority party status, and eventual oblivion.
 
How can the Republicans hope to counter 10 to 20 million new Democrat voters, possibly as soon as the 2022 election cycle?
Today's Democratic Party is no longer the party of Harry Truman or John F. Kennedy. It is now a party of the far-left. At least 30 percent of the current Democratic senators and congressmembers have ties to the CPUSA, DSA, Freedom Road Socialist Organization, Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, or other revolutionary organizations. Many congressmembers also have ties to China, Iran, Venezuela, and especially Cuba.
Illegal alien amnesty would give the Democrats permanent control of the United States. This means a "one-party state" soon to be dominated by the far left. Think California nationwide, with no hope of a turnaround.
 
No political party should ever be given permanent unchallenged power.
As British history statesman Lord Acton famously said: "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." "Amnesty" would give the far left in the United States the absolute power they have so long craved.
Illegal alien amnesty is the left's road to the American "one-party state." For the sake of our children and grand-children, for the sake of the remaining free world, this cannot be allowed to happen. It must be fought with every fiber of our being by those who love liberty.
 
America, you must say no to amnesty.
 
Trevor Loudon is an author, filmmaker and public speaker from New Zealand. For more than 30 years, he has researched radical left, Marxist and terrorist movements and their covert influence on mainstream politics.

Read the original article.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - legal immigration