Oregon legislation

A group of illegal aliens and two non-profits are suing the State of Oregon saying their constitutional rights were violated when voters struck down a ballot-initiative that would have given them driving privileges. Those opposing their efforts also argue that federal taxpayer funds are being illegally used to pay lawyers for the plaintiffs.

Familias En Accion and Los Ninos Cuentan and five illegal aliens are suing the Oregon Governor Kate Brown, numerous members of the Oregon Department of Transportation Commission, and the Administrator of the Driver and Motor Vehicles Division for the Oregon Department of Transportation. The complaint was filed in early November.

A federal district judge in Oregon will soon be deciding whether the group of illegal immigrants had their constitutional rights violated after voters struck down via voter referendum, S.B. 833, that would have given driving privileges to illegal aliens in Oregon.

When passed and signed into law by the governor, S.B. 833 directed the Department of Transportation to issue a driver card to an applicant who does not provide proof of legal presence in the U.S. The only requirement for them is to comply with the requirements for driving privileges, and to have lived in Oregon for more than one year. Opponents say the law was hurriedly passed by the legislature and governor.

According to the group’s class action complaint, the 2014 citizen referendum that nullified the measure (by 66 percent of the vote), “arbitrarily and irrationally” excludes them from driving privileges and is motivated by racial animus against Mexicans and Central Americans.

Lawyers for those fighting the lawsuit say that the illegal immigrants and the non-profits that represent them, also claim that the referendum was motivated by a “desire to punish” them. They say the plaintiffs urge that “it is not a crime for a person to seek or engage in unauthorized work in the United States.”

In 2013, the Oregon state government attempted to join a growing number of states that have passed laws granting driving privileges to illegal aliens. Before the bill was implemented, a pro-immigration control advocate, Oregonians for Immigration Reform (OFIR), sparked a ballot initiative gathering over 58,000 signatures to let voters decide whether they wanted the law.

The initiative received resounding support from voters concerned that such privileges would lead to more illegal aliens moving into their state, resulting in more crime and welfare abuse and further disruption to Oregon’s communities and labor market. Although the illegal aliens are suing the state of Oregon in order to get the citizen-ballot results found void and unenforceable, OFIR has filed a motion to intervene in the case.

According to OFIR’s attorneys, the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), a D.C. nonprofit law firm, the Oregon attorney general’s office appears to volunteer an argument on behalf of the illegal immigrant plaintiffs in its brief, specifically that the Fourteenth Amendment protects politically unpopular minority groups from being targeted by state action and that this group could encompass illegal immigrants.

Julie Axelrod, IRLI counsel for the case told Breitbart Texas that such a constitutional protection does not exist. If it did, says Axelrod, “this would be fatal to U.S. immigration law as a whole, which necessarily ‘targets’ illegal aliens and specifically states that aliens ‘shall be removed’ from the country should they enter without inspection.”

The Oregon AG’s office also claims that OFIR made derogatory and racist statements about Hispanics in their get-out-the-vote-efforts, which is absolutely not true, according to OFIR and their attorneys. Nor does OFIR have a “general interest in denying rights to immigrants” as the plaintiffs have claimed, says Axelrod. “OFIR has never sought to deny rights to lawful immigrants. OFIR simply believes, in common with 66 percent of Oregon voters, that granting driving privileges to those present in this country in violation of the law is poor public policy,” said Axelrod.

Earlier this month, attorneys for the illegal aliens, the Oregon Law Center (OLC), filed a brief opposing OFIR’s motion to intervene in the case. Even though OFIR arranged the very ballot-measure that’s involved in the case, the illegal aliens’ attorneys are relying on the 2013 decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, where the Supreme Court ruled that proponents of traditional marriage in California could not make their government enforce the successful ballot initiative due to the group not having a sufficient “personal stake in defending its enforcement.” That decision, OFIR attorneys argue, applies only to a party’s right to bring a case in court, not to intervene on behalf of a party to the case.

On top of claiming rights normally given only to citizens and legal residents, the illegal aliens appear to be using a federal taxpayer-grant program to pay for their legal representation in violation of congressional appropriations law.

According to OLC’s website, the group receives numerous grants from the federal government, including from the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), a taxpayer-funded grant-making entity created by Congress in 1974. IRLI says that since the mid-1980’s, when LSC was caught providing federal grants to organizations representing illegal aliens, Congress prohibited the agency from spending appropriated funds for “litigation and related activities” for “representation of illegal aliens.”

The prohibition from spending tax dollar-funded federal funds is still on the books today; however, lawyers for the illegal immigrants appear to be receiving taxpayer money anyway, says the attorneys for OFIR. That the LSC feels safe in violating Congress’s prohibition shouldn’t be surprising, says Axelrod. Since 2014, the Obama administration has distributed millions of dollars in grants to lawyers representing illegal immigrant minors from Central America.

There have been several articles and treatises written about why the Legal Services Corporation must be abolished, including this one by the Heritage Foundation.

Oregon is fighting the trend, set by a wave of states, to issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. According to a Pew Charitable Trusts study, “[a]s of the summer of 2015, 10 states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Vermont, and Washington) and the District of Columbia issue driver’s licenses, or similar documents referred to by different names, to this population, and nearly 37 percent of unauthorized immigrants live in a jurisdiction where they may obtain a license.”

Breitbart News reported in February of this year that California has issued driver licenses to more than a half million illegal immigrants (605,000) in 2015. This was the first year that the illegal immigrants were eligible for driving certification in California. California Assembly Bill 60 (AB 60) was implemented on January 2, 2o15.

The results of an April 2015 survey by YouGov/Huffington Post of 1000 adult Americans found that 47% “strongly oppose,” and 17% “somewhat oppose,” allowing Illegal aliens to obtain driver licenses in their state. Moreover, 42 percent of those surveyed felt that allowing illegal aliens to obtain drivers licenses “makes the U.S. less safe.”

Lana Shadwick is a writer and legal analyst for Breitbart Texas. She has served as an associate judge and prosecutor. Follow her on Twitter @LanaShadwick2 Read more about ILLEGAL ALIENS SUING FOR RIGHT TO OBTAIN DRIVER LICENSES

(Washington, D.C.) – On Wednesday, January 13, 2016, the Immigration Reform Law Institute (“IRLI”), along with Jill Gibson of the Gibson Law Firm, LLC, filed on behalf of their client Oregonians for Immigration Reform (“OFIR”) a motion to intervene in an Oregon federal court lawsuit brought by five admitted illegal aliens and two illegal alien special interest groups (collectively “plaintiffs”). At the same time, IRLI and Ms. Gibson filed on OFIR’s behalf a motion to dismiss the lawsuit as lacking merit. The lawsuit seeks to force the State of Oregon to grant driving privileges to illegal aliens.

Specifically, the suit seeks to overturn as unconstitutional the outcome of the November 2014 general election in Oregon, when, through the Oregon Constitution’s referendum veto process, Oregon voters overwhelmingly rejected (by 66%) a bill passed by the legislature and signed by the governor that would have extended eligibility for driving privileges to unlawfully present persons (OFIR was the driving force behind the referendum veto who collected the requisite number of signatures to get the issue placed on the ballot.). Conspicuously absent from the plaintiffs’ complaint is any mention of the alleged fundamental right denied them. Certainly it is not the right to a driver’s license or interstate travel as every court to address this issue has held that illegal aliens hold no such rights.

States actually have a number of legitimate public purposes that are rationally served by laws that restrict driving privileges to persons lawfully present in the U.S. For instance, states have a legitimate interest in limiting their finite resources to citizens and legal aliens and in not allowing their government machinery to be a facilitator for the concealment of illegal aliens. States also have a legitimate concern that persons subject to immediate or subsequent deportation will not be financially responsible for property damage or personal injury due to automobile accidents. Finally, states have a legitimate interest in promoting national security. Granting driving privileges to illegal aliens harms national security because, unlike legal aliens, illegal aliens have not undergone background checks or face-to-face interviews to determine whether they pose a national security threat.

Dale L. Wilcox, IRLI’s Executive Director commented, “This is a ridiculous case with no merit and is a waste of the court’s time and precious resources. The audacity of trespassers on our sovereign soil to demand taxpayer-funded benefits, like a driver’s license or card, just boggles the mind.” Wilcox continued, “Illegal aliens do not have a right to driving privileges, nor do they have a right to travel freely in the U.S. as federal law makes their very presence in the U.S. unlawful. In short, this case is about sour grapes as the overwhelming majority of Oregonians have spoken and rejected taxpayer-funded giveaways to those who have no legal right to be here.”

A copy of both motions as filed can be seen here:

http://Irli.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/stamped-motion-to-intervene.pdf

http://Irli.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/stamped-motion-to-dismiss.pdf

For additional information, contact:

Dale L. Wilcox
202-232-5590
dwilcox@irli.org Read more about IRLI Files Motions to Intervene and Dismiss in Illegal Alien Lawsuit Seeking Driving Privileges

The tension was thick inside a Benton County courtroom Monday as Francisco Resendez Miranda prepared to speak before being sentenced to life in prison for the execution-style killings of three Pasco people.

The Umatilla man, speaking through an interpreter, was critical of the evidence prosecutors presented at trial and the witnesses who testified against him.

During his brief statement, Resendez Miranda, 24, didn’t admit to the grisly slayings or apologize to the victims’ family members who were seated nearby.

Instead, he told the court the mandatory life sentence without parole for his November convictions on three counts of aggravated first-degree murder have ripped him from his children and family.

“I know that everybody thinks I am a monster,” he said. “But I would have liked for you to know me otherwise.”

Shortly after Resendez Miranda was done speaking, Judge Bruce Spanner imposed the life sentence for the 2014 shooting deaths of David Perez-Saucedo, 22, Victoria Torres, 19, and Abigail Torres-Renteria, 23, who was nearly nine months pregnant.

Resendez Miranda’s attorneys, Shane Silverthorn and John Chambers, plan to appeal.

Spanner had some harsh words for Resendez Miranda before he was led from the courtroom.

“The Legislature has decided that you should never walk freely in our community again. The Legislature has also decided that I should not have any discretion but to impose a sentence of life without the possibility of parole,” Spanner said. “And I have to tell you, I agree with the Legislature on both counts.”

Prosecutor Andy Miller told the Herald it didn’t come as a shock that Resendez Miranda decided not to apologize to the victims’ families because he has continually denied his role in the killings.

“I don’t think there’s anything great a defendant can say, but I was disappointed by what he said,” Miller said. “I think it made it harder on (the victims’ families) to listen to him.”

Representatives from all the families were at the hearing Monday. Miller told the court that it was too emotional for family members to speak, so an official read two letters on their behalf.

The stepmother of Torres-Renteria wrote about the victim’s 8-year-old son recently praying to God to bring his mother back.

“I didn’t have an answer for that. It broke my heart to hear him say that,” wrote Lupe Hernandez in the letter. “The only thing I have to say myself is may God forgive you because I will never forgive you.”

Resendez Miranda was arrested shortly after the victims’ bodies were found Aug. 9 in a rural Benton County cornfield off Nine Canyon Road.

Perez-Saucedo and Resendez Miranda knew each other through work at Wyckoff Farms. Resendez Miranda allegedly sold methamphetamine to Perez-Saucedo, according to testimony.

The victims had traveled to Umatilla, where Resendez Miranda lived, hours before they were killed. Testimony at trial and court documents revealed there was a break-in at Resendez Miranda’s apartment, which was a motive for the murders.

Perez-Saucedo’s sport utility vehicle was spotted leaving the scene of the break-in. Resendez Miranda and a crew of family and friends chased the SUV to a nearby gas station, where a confrontation took place.

The victims were then taken back to Resendez Miranda’s apartment, testimony and police reports confirmed, and they were found dead hours later.

Resendez Miranda reportedly admitted to more than one person that he was involved in the killings, according to testimony. His shoe print was found at the murder scene and blood from one of the victims was found on his clothes. Surveillance video also showed him with the victims at the gas station.

Police are still searching for Resendez Miranda’s father and two brothers in connection with the case. Authorities believe Fidel Miranda-Huitron, Eduardo Miranda-Resendez and Fernando De Jesus Miranda-Resendez fled to Mexico.

Esteban Torres, the grandfather of victim Victoria Torres, wrote in his letter that justice will be served when all the suspects are brought into custody.

“Today there is a heavy burden in my heart because she is gone and part of justice is being done,” the letter said. “I sincerely hope that it won’t be too long before the others will follow (Resendez Miranda).”
  Read more about Umatilla man sentenced to life for triple murder

Fox News is reporting that a group of aliens living illegally in the United States, Oregon specifically, is suing to overturn a ballot initiative in that state in which voters resoundingly rebuffed attempts to legislatively permit illegal aliens to obtain Oregon driver's licenses.

The basis? Discrimination. The plaintiffs allege that the ballot initiative, Measure 88, is unconstitutional "because it 'arbitrarily' denies driving privileges based on membership in a 'disfavored minority group.' It [the lawsuit] alleges Oregon voters were motivated by "animus toward persons from Mexico and Central America."

Fox quotes Norman Williams, associate dean for academic affairs at the Willamette University College of Law in Salem, as saying "that the plaintiffs' best argument is under the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause — and to claim Oregon has no rational basis for depriving undocumented Latin Americans of the ability to drive on Oregon's roads."

Mr. Williams goes on to say, "The U.S. Supreme Court has been clear that neither legislators nor voters may target a minority group because of their race or ethnicity."

He seems to be missing the point that it is immigration status, not race or ethnicity, that is key to the license denial. It is beyond argument that the state has a legitimate interest in deciding to whom it will issue driver's licenses; certainly Oregonian voters think so. So does the Federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which recently sustained a restraining order against the Obama administration issued by a U.S. District Court in Texas after that state (and 25 others) filed suit. Perhaps the good dean should read that opinion.

It is hard to imagine how a claim of unconstitutional discrimination could possibly be sustained. First, the ballot measure is facially neutral. It denies a license to anyone who is illegally in the country, without regard to race, ethnicity, or national origins. An overstayed Canadian of Northern European origins would be denied a license as surely as a mestizo from Mexico.

Second, individuals lawfully residing in the United States — including, obviously, people of Mexican or Central American origin — are all entitled to licenses without other qualifiers or caveats, so they are clearly unaffected. Surely if there were state-sanctioned "animus toward persons from Mexico and Central America" it would leak over into other provisions of the motor vehicle laws. But it clearly has not.

While it is true that Mexicans make up a large (but shrinking) portion of the population of aliens illegally in the United States — the Pew Research Center estimates 5.6 million in 2014, down from 6.4 million in 2009 — it is equally true that Mexicans represent the highest proportion of lawful resident aliens living in the United States as of 2013, according to the Department of Homeland Security. (See Table 4, here.)

The only thing one can reliably conclude from available statistics is that, by geographical circumstance (Mexico being the neighbor to our immediate south and the Central American countries just a bit further south), a large proportion of both our legal and our illegal populations will almost inevitably emanate from those countries. How this translates into a claim of discrimination is beyond me.

Let us watch and see how this mini-drama plays out. One suspects that the legal organizations representing the plaintiffs know full well that they are attempting to tilt the tables in the ongoing struggle between the states and the administration in the Fifth Circuit case, which the Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to hear, by playing off of the same issues under the guise of discrimination.
  Read more about On Driver's Licenses for Illegal Aliens, States' Rights, and Discrimination

SALEM — A group of Mexican immigrants is suing to reverse a decision by Oregon voters on a 2014 ballot measure that prevents undocumented immigrants from getting Oregon driver cards.

In a lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Eugene, the plaintiffs said the outcome of Measure 88 is unconstitutional because it "arbitrarily" denies driving privileges "to Plaintiffs and others based on their membership in a disfavored minority group."

The plaintiffs also say the referendum was "motivated in substantial part by animus toward persons from Mexico and Central America,"...

The lawsuit comes nearly a year after Oregon voters resoundingly defeated Measure 88,...

"It was an overwhelming rejection of giving drivers' licenses to illegal aliens," said Jim Ludwick, communications director for Oregonians for Immigration Reform. "but somehow that doesn't apply to people who are here illegally and think the law doesn't apply to them." 

The measure was a reaction to Senate Bill 833, which passed in the 2013 legislative session with support from Democrats and a few moderate and rural Republicans. Then-Gov. John Kitzhaber signed the bill at a May Day rally on the Capitol steps before a raucous crowd of 2,000 people.

But the law never took effect as opponents quickly organized a campaign to refer it to the ballot.

Since 2008, Oregon has required applicants for a driver's license or permit to provide proof of citizenship...

"It's reached a crisis point for families because they don't have a solution,"...

The five Mexican immigrants, identified only by their initials in court documents, are joined by two Latino nonprofits, Familias En Acción and Los Niños Cuentan, as plaintiffs in the case....

Kristina Edmunson, a spokeswoman for Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, said the state is reviewing the case but declined to comment further.

— Ian K. Kullgren

  Read more about Oregon driver cards: Immigrants sue to reverse Measure 88 defeat

A new study out Tuesday, Aug. 18, shows that the number of individual states bypassing thorny federal immigration issues and instead finding practical ways to deal with driving privileges for unauthorized immigrants is growing.

The PEW Charitable Trusts report, called “Deciding Who Drives; State choices surrounding unauthorized immigrants and driver’s licenses,” released Tuesday, said 10 states and the District of Columbia passed driver’s license laws for non-citizens in 2013. It had been 11 states until Oregon’s law was repealed by ballot measure last fall.

Two more states, Delaware and Hawaii, passed laws this year granting driver identification to unauthorized immigrants. And four more, Minnesota, North Carolina, New Mexico and Texas, have bills in front of legislative committees.

“So you can see, this issue exemplifies immigration federalism,” said Adam Hunter, a director at the PEW Charitable Trusts whose team put the report together. “All states are grappling with immigration. We have large states, small states and states across the political spectrum that don’t want to address immigration reform, but do want to comply with the REAL ID Act of 2005.”

The act, a voluntary measure for states, sets minimum standards for driver’s licenses on issues such as security features for federal identification. States that issue separate driver’s cards for unauthorized immigrants are required to give them distinctive markings and text that says “not valid for federal identification.”

States such as Washington avoided some of the anticipated problems of having two separate sets of driver’s ID by issuing unauthorized immigrants the same driver’s license as it issues to other residents. Hunter said this proviso means Washington is not in compliance with the voluntary federal law.

“These licenses don’t grant or change anyone’s immigration status,” Hunter said. “Immigration has always been thought of as a federal-level prerogative. This report shows that it is an issue of a growing number of states legislating on matters of importance to their immigrant populations. They’re applying practical solutions on local matters.”

Hunter said it was too early to know whether states who’ve adopted local driver’s license laws have seen an increase or decrease in unauthorized-immigrant population growth, because many of the new laws had only been implemented this year.

Cynthia Kendoll, president of Oregonians for Immigration Reform, the grassroots organization that helped overturn Oregon’s driver’s card law last year, said she’d be more likely to read a PEW report that examined the number of states trying to repeal their laws versus those trying to implement one.

“I don’t expect it’ll (issuing driver’s cards for unauthorized immigrants) come up next session,” Kendoll said. “But then you never know what the Legislature is going to do. I would hope they’d listen to what the people, their constituents, want. And I think that 66 percent of Oregonians (the percentage who voted to repeal the law last November) is a pretty good indication of what the people of Oregon want.”

STATESMAN JOURNAL
Driver cards rejected by wide margin
  Read more about More states tackle driver’s card dilemma

A significant bipartisan majority of the 2013 Legislative Assembly voted to enact House Bill 2787, which became known as the “Tuition Equity Act.” It established in-state tuition eligibility for students who demonstrate the intent to become United States citizens and who met certain previous attendance requirements in schools both in Oregon and other U.S. states and territories.

The Legislative Fiscal Office’s report on the bill estimated that only 38 undocumented alien students would access the opportunity to pay in-state tuition to attend an Oregon university during the 2013-15 budget period, and that 80 students would participate during the 2015-17 biennium. The Act didn’t affect Oregon community colleges, because they do not have residency requirements.

Tuition Equity Act supporters argued it would cause minimal cost to Oregon taxpayers. They further implied they would neither ask for future eligibility expansion for in-state tuition nor request financial aid eligibility for undocumented alien students. I voted against HB 2787 — not least because I didn’t believe their words.

University and community college students who are neither United States citizens nor eligible non-citizens are ineligible for federal grant-in-aid programs. Undocumented aliens are prohibited from even filing a Free Application for Federal Student Aid. However, Oregon’s own taxpayer-funded grant-in-aid program for college students, the Oregon Opportunity Grant, is not constrained by federal law.

The Legislature’s Democratic majority enacted Senate Bill 932 this year, on party-line votes. It significantly enlarged the number of undocumented aliens who are eligible for in-state tuition. Further, the bill created new eligibility for Oregon undocumented alien university and community college students to receive Oregon-funded grant-in-aid and student loans.

I believe this bill will serve as a beacon for undocumented alien students to come to Oregon for what amounts to a free college education at the expense of Oregon taxpayers.

The Legislative Fiscal Office’s report on SB 932 estimates that as many as 1,000 undocumented alien students may receive Opportunity Grants the first year, and that as many as 4,000 may be participating within four years. At only $1,000 per term, the cost could reach $12 million per year. The fiscal report doesn’t appear to contemplate my predicted in-migration of students.

Not only does SB 932 make undocumented alien students eligible for Oregon taxpayer-paid tuition and expenses, it likely gives them preference over documented resident citizens. According to the bill’s fiscal report, grants and loans for unauthorized immigrants “may be skewed towards an expected family contribution rate of zero or close to zero, which would give this population a higher priority for grant awards.”

The Democratic majority further amended the existing program by enacting House Bill 2407. It ensures that the state will make grants to students with the highest financial need and, where possible, prioritize funding for students from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. That priority will be based upon an “equity lens” established through Oregon Education Investment Board rulemaking. The “equity lens” appears to be focused on contributing financial aid to low-income undocumented alien students.

Democrats further amended the statute to include “foundations of community colleges” that distribute money to community colleges in the program.

Another bill, House Bill 3063, was created specifically to increase the number of under-served, low-income and first-generation college-bound students who enroll in community college and make progress toward a degree or certificate. This, too, appears to be focused on impoverished, first-generation and perhaps undocumented immigrants. It appropriates $3 million in general fund dollars to that program.

Many legislators who voted for the Tuition Equity Act in 2013 rightly feel betrayed. Assurances that their votes would not open the floodgates for undocumented alien students to attend Oregon colleges and universities with taxpayer-funded Opportunity Grants were insincere. Egregiously, some legislators contend they’re unable to remember making those assurances. So much for an open and transparent legislative process.

Doug Whitsett, R-Klamath Falls, represents District 28 in the Oregon Senate. Read more about Changes to tuition act prove doubters right

SALEM — Oregon lawmakers have cleared the way for state grants for Oregon university students who were brought to the United States as children but lack immigration papers.

Gov. Kate Brown will receive Senate Bill 932 after the Senate voted 17-12 on Friday for the final version. The House approved it, 34-25, on the previous day.

With the exception of one Democrat in the Senate, the votes were along party lines ...

The House vote followed a verbal dust-up between a supporter and opponents of the bill.

According to state estimates, a maximum of 1,000 such students would be eligible for Oregon Opportunity Grants — and that 350 of them were likely to obtain them.

Rep. Joe Gallegos, D-Hillsboro, said about 75 students are enrolled at state universities under the terms of 2013 legislation allowing them to qualify for in-state tuition rates if they meet specified requirements....

The two-year budget for Oregon Opportunity Grants will be increased by 24 percent, to $141 million. According to estimates, 84,000 students will receive average grants of $1,650.

But a couple of the five Republicans who voted for the 2013 in-state tuition law said they believed it would not extend to eligibility for state financial assistance.

“We are going to do now what we said was not going to happen,” said Rep. Julie Parrish, R-West Linn.

The bill received no Republican votes, and Sen. Betsy Johnson of Scappoose was the only Democrat in opposition...

The House debate was interrupted when Rep. Chris Gorsek, D-Troutdale, criticized the opposition voiced by some of his colleagues as he spoke in favor of the bill. His remarks triggered a response by Rep. Sal Esquivel, R-Medford, who had just spoken against the bill.

A House rule says: “In speaking, the member must confine discussion to the question under debate, avoid personalities and not impugn the motives of another member's vote or argument.”

House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, spoke after a timeout lasting several minutes, during which members of both parties attempted to calm things.

“I want to point out that it is really important not to impugn or infer someone’s motives here on this floor,” Kotek said. “I want to say that the member from East Multnomah County was inappropriate in what he was saying.”

Gorsek then rose and said: “I understand that I did something extremely inappropriate“ and I am extremely embarrassed by that.”
  Read more about Lawmakers clear grants for undocumented students