taxes

Oregon Department of Corrections: Criminal alien report April 2016

By the numbers, David Olen Cross wades through the numbers to bring us an accurate look at the real impact of illegal immigration. 

The Oregon Department of Corrections (DOC) April 2016 Inmate Population Profile indicated there were 14,676 inmates incarcerated in the DOC's 14 prisons.

Data obtained from the DOC indicated that on April 1st there were 948 foreign nationals (criminal aliens) incarcerated in the state's prison system; more than one in every sixteen prisoners incarcerated by the state was a criminal alien, 6.46 percent of the total prison population.

Some background information, all 948 criminal aliens currently incarcerated in the DOC prison system were identified by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE),... After the inmate completes his/her state sanction, prison officials will transfer custody of the inmate to ICE.

Using DOC Inmate Population Profiles and ICE detainer numbers, the following table reveals the total number inmates, the number of domestic and criminal alien inmates along with the percentage of them with ICE detainers incarcerated on April 1st in the state's prisons.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Month/Day/Year DOC Total Inmates DOC Domestic Inmates DOC Inmates W/ICE detainers DOC % Inmates W/ICE detainers
April 1, 2016 14,676 13,728 948 6.46%
Source: Research and Evaluation DOC Report ICE inmates list 01 April 16 and Inmate Population Profile 01 April 16.

Using DOC ICE detainer numbers, the following table reveals the number and percentage of criminal alien prisoners incarcerated on April 1st that were sent to prison from the state's 36 counties.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
County DOC Total Inmates W/ ICE Detainers DOC % Inmates W/ICE Detainers
Marion 236 24.89%
Multnomah 202 21.31%
Washington 183 19.30%
Clackamas 70 7.38%
Lane 50 5.27%
Jackson 35 3.69%
Yamhill 23 2.43%
Linn 18 1.90%
Umatilla 18 1.90%
Polk 15 1.58%
Klamath 14 1.48%
Benton 12 1.26%
Malheur 12 1.26%
Lincoln 10 1.05%
Deschutes 7 0.74%
Coos 6 0.63%
Jefferson 6 0.63%
Josephine 6 0.63%
Douglas 4 0.42%
Clatsop 3 0.32%
Tillamook 3 0.32%
Wasco 3 0.32%
Crook 2 0.32%
Hood River 2 0.21%
Morrow 2 0.21%
Union 2 0.21%
Columbia 1 0.10%
Gilliam 1 0.10%
Lake 1 0.10%
OOS 1 0.10%
Baker 0 0.00%
Curry 0 0.00%
Grant 0 0.00%
Harney 0 0.00%
Sherman 0 0.00%
Wallowa 0 0.00%
Wheeler 0 0.00%
Total 948 100.00%

Source: Research and Evaluation DOC Report ICE inmates list 01 April 16.

Here are the ways Oregon residents were victimized by the 948 criminal aliens.

Using DOC ICE detainer numbers, the following table reveals the number and percentage of criminal alien prisoners incarcerated on April 1st by type of crime.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Crime DOC Total Inmates W/ ICE Detainers DOC % Inmates W/ICE Detainers
Sex Abuse 184 19.41%
Rape 167 17.62%
Homicide 137 14.45%
Drugs 104 10.97%
Sodomy 93 9.81%
Assault 77 8.12%
Robbery 54 5.70%
Kidnapping 33 3.48%
Theft 23 2.43%
Burglary 18 1.90%
Driving Offense 9 0.95%
Vehicle Theft 3 0.32%
Arson 0 0.00%
Forgery 0 0.00%
Escape 0 0.00%
Other / Combination 46 4.85%
Total 948 100.00%
Source: Research and Evaluation DOC Report ICE inmates list 01 April 16.

Using the DOC Inmate Population Profile and ICE detainer numbers from April 1st, the following table reveals the total number inmates by crime type, the number of domestic and criminal alien prisoners incarcerated by type of crime and the percentage of those crimes committed by criminal aliens.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Crime DOC Total Inmates DOC Domestic Inmates DOC Inmates W/ICE Detainers DOC % Inmates W/ICE Detainers
Sex Abuse 1,707 1,523 184 10.78%
Rape 966 799 167 17.29%
Homicide 1,650 1,513 137 8.30%
Drugs 923 819 104 11.27%
Sodomy 1,056 963 93 8.81%
Assault 1,893 1,816 77 4.07%
Robbery 1,581 1,527 54 3.41%
Kidnapping 293 260 33 11.26%
Burglary 1,419 1,396 23 1.62%
Theft 1,163 1,145 18 1.55%
Driving Offense 241 232 9 3.73%
Vehicle Theft 413 410 3 0.73%
Arson 78 78 0 0.00%
Forgery 33 33 0 0.00%
Escape 52 52 0 0.00%
Other / Combination 1,208 1,162 46 3.81%
Total 14,676 13,728 948 100.00%
Source: Research and Evaluation DOC Report ICE inmates list 01 April 16 and Inmate Population Profile 01 April 16.

Using DOC ICE detainer numbers, the following table reveals the self-declared counties of origin of the 948 criminal alien prisoners by number and percentage incarcerated on April 1st in the state's prisons.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Country DOC Total Inmates W/ ICE Detainers DOC % Inmates W/ICE Detainers
Mexico 761 80.27%
Guatemala 24 2.53%
El Salvador 14 1.48%
Cuba 13 1.37%
Ukraine 11 1.16%
Vietnam 11 1.16%
Russia 10 1.05%
Honduras 9 0.95%
Federated States of Micronesia 6 0.63%
Philippines 6 0.63%
Other Countries 83 8.75%
Total 948 100.00%
Source: Research and Evaluation DOC Report ICE inmates list 01 April 16.

Beyond the DOC criminal alien incarceration numbers and incarceration percentages, per county and per crime type, or even country of origin, criminal aliens pose high economic cost on Oregonians.

An individual prisoner incarcerated in the DOC prison system costs the state approximately ($94.55) per day.

The DOC's incarceration cost for its 948 criminal alien prison population is approximately ($89,633.40) per day, ($627,433.80) per week, and ($32,716,191.00) per year...

None of preceding cost estimates for the DOC to incarcerate the 948 criminal aliens includes the dollar amount for legal services (indigent defense), language interpreters, court costs, or victim assistance.

Bibliography

Oregon Department of Corrections Population Profile April 1, 2016:
http://www.oregon.gov/doc/RESRCH/docs/inmate_profile_201604.pdf

Oregon Department of Corrections Population Profile (unpublished MS Excel workbook) titled Incarcerated Criminal Aliens Report dated April 1, 2016.

Oregon Department of Corrections Issue Brief Quick Facts 53-DOC/GECO: 3/23/16:
http://www.oregon.gov/doc/OC/docs/pdf/IB-53-Quick%20Facts.pdf

U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance, State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), 2015 SCAAP award: https://www.bja.gov/funding/FY-2015-SCAAP-Awards.pdf

David Olen Cross, Salem writes on immigration issues and foreign national crime. He is a weekly guest on the Lars Larson Northwest Show. He can be reached at docfnc@yahoo.com or at http://docfnc.wordpress.com/

Cashing in: Illegal immigrants get $1,261 more welfare than American families, $5,692 vs. $4,431

Illegal immigrant households receive an average of $5,692 in federal welfare benefits every year, far more than the average "native" American household, at $4,431, according to a new report on the cost of immigration released Monday.

The Center for Immigration Studies, in an analysis of federal cost figures, found that all immigrant-headed households — legal and illegal — receive an average of $6,241 in welfare, 41 percent more than native households. As with Americans receiving benefits such as food stamps and cash, much of the welfare to immigrants supplements their low wage jobs.

The total cost is over $103 billion in welfare benefits to households headed by immigrants. A majority, 51 percent, of immigrant households receive some type of welfare compared to 30 percent of native households, said the analysis of Census data.

Immigrants receiving the most in the study of 2012 figures come from Mexico and Central America. Their average annual taxpayer funded welfare collection is $8,251, 86 percent higher than the benefits used by native households, said the report.

"While it is important for Americans to understand the rate of welfare use among immigrants, expressing that use in dollar terms offers a more tangible metric that is tied to current debates over fiscal policy. With the nation facing a long-term budgetary deficit, this study helps illuminate immigration's impact on the problem," wrote the report's author Jason Richwine, a Harvard educated analyst of immigration data.

The new report follows another that found President Obama seeking $17,613 for every new illegal minor, more than Social Security retirees get.

Extradited man pleads guilty to rape

A man extradited from Mexico on charges he raped a child pleaded guilty Tuesday in Marion County Circuit Court.

Raul Xalamihua-Espindola, 29, pleaded guilty to three counts of first-degree rape before Judge David Leith. One count of first-degree rape and first-degree custodial interference will be dismissed as part of the plea bargain.

Xalamihua-Espindola's case goes back to 2007 when the then-19-year-old was accused of taking an 11-year-old girl, whom he called his "girlfriend," to Mexico.

The investigation began on April 6, 2007, when the Keizer Police Department received a report that an 11-year-old girl left a note for her parents saying she ran away with her boyfriend, identified by police as Xalamihua-Espindola...

Xalamihua-Espindola eluded capture until about two years ago.

On Dec. 15, 2015, Xalamihua-Espindola was extradited and taken to the Marion County jail.

During Xalamihua-Espindola's plea hearing, language and cultural barriers were evident. Every word was translated through two translators from English to Spanish to Nahuatl, a language spoken in Central Mexico.

When asked how old he was when the crimes occurred, Xalamihua-Espindola said he didn't remember because he doesn't know if his parents put down his date of birth correctly on his documents...

When Leith asked Xalamihua-Espindola how he pleaded, Xalamihua-Espindola kept answering "yes."

Leith told him that wasn't an answer and he needed to say guilty or not guilty.

"Yes, I am guilty, "Xalamihua-Espindola said.

Xalamihua-Espindola is scheduled to appear in court for sentencing at 9 a.m. June 6.

Raul Xalamihua-Espindola changes his plea to guilty on three counts of first-degree rape of an 11-year-old Keizer girl in 2007. Photographed at the Marion County Courthouse in Salem on Tuesday, May 3, 2016. (Photo: ANNA REED / Statesman Journal)

Are we getting the whole story about refugee resettlement?

News Times

Influx of refugees would affect needy Oregonians

March 16, 2016

by Richard F. LaMountain, a Cedar Mill resident, serves as vice president of Oregonians for Immigration Reform.

The work of Medical Teams International — the Tigard-based group that aids, among other refugees, Syrians who have fled to Greece and Lebanon — merits Oregonians’ support. What does not, however, is the view of Jeff Pinneo, the group’s CEO, that many of those refugees should be brought to America (“Syrian refugees need our help,” News-Times, March 2).

One major reason: destitute Syrians, some 10,000 of whom the Obama administration hopes to resettle in the United States this fiscal year, would compete for the jobs and housing needed by our own poorest citizens. Given Gov. Kate Brown’s recent statement that Oregon “will ... open the doors of opportunity” to those refugees, a good number of them may come here — to a state in which some 16 percent of residents, as the U.S. Census Bureau estimated recently, already lives in poverty.

How would Syrian refugees impact those neediest Oregonians?

For many in our state, well-paying, full-time work remains elusive. Earlier this year, the Oregon Employment Department reported that 200,000-plus state residents were unemployed, “marginally attached to the labor force” or “employed part-time for economic reasons.” In Washington County, wrote Pamplin Media’s Peter Wong earlier this month, “40 percent of ... jobs are either low-wage or part-time.”

But local refugee-assistance groups, among them the taxpayer-subsidized Immigrant and Refugee Community Organization, work aggressively to place refugees into local jobs. Would it be fair to needy Oregonians, who lack the advocacy and support networks new refugees have, to import Syrians to compete with them for decent livelihoods?

Also consider: Our region is gripped by an affordable-housing crisis. In Portland last year, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported, “the Portland Housing Bureau ... found the median rent for a one-bedroom apartment was $1,182.” The city has a shortage, OPB noted, of some 24,000 units “affordable to the lowest-income renters” (those available for $750 a month or less).

Every night in Portland, The Oregonian reported last month, some 1,900 people sleep on sidewalks, in doorways and under bridges.

And yet, according to the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement, in a recent five-year period close to a quarter of refugees received housing assistance. Do low-income Oregonians need an influx of poor Syrians to vie with them for affordable shelter?

And what of Oregon’s schoolchildren? Late last year, the state legislature’s Joint Special Committee on Public Education Appropriation determined that the 2015-17 elementary and secondary State School Fund, at some $7.4 billion, was almost $1.8 billion short of the amount needed “to reach the state’s educational goals.” Why, then, should we import Syrian children, most of whom would need expensive supplemental English instruction, to siphon off education dollars needed by the state’s American children?

“Since 1975,” notes the Oregon Department of Human Services, “tens of thousands of refugees have resettled in Oregon.” Accepting more today, however, would harm many of our youngest and poorest fellow citizens. Let’s applaud Pinneo’s help for refugees abroad, but resist his suggestion that we bring them here. Instead, let’s work to improve the lives of our own neediest — the fellow Americans to whom we owe our first and foremost responsibility.

Read the original article.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OFIR member Paul Nachman, is a retired physicist, volunteers in a research group at Montana State University-Bozeman and is a founding member of Montanans for Immigration Law Enforcement (www.MontanaMILE.org).

The Missoulian

Be skeptical of refugee supporters' claims

March 17, 2016

Mary Poole of Soft Landing Missoula opened her Feb. 25th opinion (“Facts show Missoula can safely welcome refugees”) by asserting that her subject is “surrounded by a lot of misinformation.” She followed that with her own barrage of misleading information.

For example, on the subject of vetting prospective refugees for the dangers they may pose to us, Poole highlights the “18- to 24-month multi-step process” that’s involved. But as Kelly Gauger of the State Department’s Refugee Admissions office explained last October, “We’re not spending 18 months doing security checks. … At any given time, we’ve got something like a quarter-million people churning through the system.” In other words, it’s like everyone’s experience at the Motor Vehicle Department—you wait in line for an hour, yet your own business takes just a few minutes.

Poole also thinks that the vetting agencies have matters well under control, quoting FBI Director James Comey that “we have gotten much better as an intelligence community at … checking our databases in a way that gives us high confidence.” That’s a very incomplete picture, though, as Comey testified to the House Homeland Security Committee in October: “We can only query against that which we have collected. And so if someone has not made a ripple in the pond … on a way that would get their identity or their interests reflected in our databases, we can query our databases until the cows come home, but nothing will show up because we have no record of that person.”

Beyond the specific matter of refugee resettlement, today’s U.S. government demonstrates seemingly universal incompetence, from Transportation Security Administration airport screeners’ 95 percent failure rate at intercepting test contraband to the slack immigration vetting of San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik to the Environmental Protection Agency’s flooding Colorado’s Animas River with orange, toxic mine waste. So who believes that, with hard-to-investigate refugees, suddenly the feds will perform?

Then there’s the matter of International Rescue Committee’s specific designs on Missoula; Poole reports that IRC considers the city a good candidate to absorb about 100 refugees per year. What the enthusiasts at Soft Landing—and the Missoula County commissioners, who support the idea—might not realize is that, once it’s started, they’ll have zero control over the process. That’ll be up to the State Department and IRC.

In the experience of many small cities around the country (e.g. Amarillo, Texas; Springfield, Massachusetts; Manchester, New Hampshire), the resulting local impacts can be daunting and onerous. After a spell, they find their schools and social-services agencies begging for relief from the influx.

Consider the ordeal of Lynn, Massachusetts, a city of 90,000 just north of Boston with a school district serving 15,000 students. Lynn’s schools took in about 500 students from Central America between 2011 and 2014. One might think such an increase in school population of “only” 3.5 percent wouldn’t be a big deal, but that’s not how it’s worked out for the city.

As Mayor Judith Kennedy told an audience at the National Press Club in August 2014, her health department had to curtail inspection services to afford the surge in immunizations needed by the schools’ new arrivals. She had to end an effective, gang-suppressing community-policing program to free up resources for the schools. With many of the arrivals illiterate in any language, the schools needed many more classroom aides along with interpreters. (The school district’s website broadcasts the availability of translation services in Arabic, Creole, Khmer and Spanish.) Altogether, Kennedy had to shrink every other department’s 2015 budget by 2 to 5 percent from its 2014 level to accommodate a 9.3 percent increase in school funding.

(Lynn’s influx includes—besides refugees—illegal aliens and ordinary immigrants, but all three categories of arrivals from third world countries impose comparable burdens on taxpayers.)

Such costs for translators and interpreters are an unfunded mandate the national government levies on states and localities, applicable to court proceedings, too. The requirement is open-ended. For example, in 2014 Manchester, New Hampshire, got in trouble with the feds in a school-expulsion case by failing to provide an interpreter for Dinka, the language of South Sudan.

For these and other reasons, Montanans might view Soft Landing’s proselytizing for refugee resettlement with great skepticism.

Read the original article.

 

Tax payments by illegal aliens do not justify their employment

The pro open-borders lobby touts payment of taxes by illegal aliens as a positive contribution to our economy, but closer examination of the facts shows how shallow and erroneous the claim is.  Even discounting the overall damage that violation of immigration law causes a society, it’s ridiculous to think that the tax payments of illegal aliens make illegal immigrants valuable to the country. 

In this brief commentary, a researcher at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, demolishes the argument of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a group which claims its “mission is to ensure that elected officials, the media, and the general public have access to accurate, timely, and straightforward information that allows them to understand the effects of current and proposed tax policies. …”
 
Think again, ITEP! 
 
 
March 15, 2016 By Jack Martin, Federation for American Immigration Reform
 
The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) has updated its estimate of the “contribution” of illegal aliens to the economy. In The Nation, Michelle Chen writes on March 14 that ITEP credits illegal aliens with adding $11.6 billion annually in tax payments – nearly $7 billion in sales and excise taxes and $3.6 billion in property taxes. Note that neither of those amounts are ones that can be avoided by working ‘off-the-books’, which allows them to avoid payments for income taxes, Social Security, and unemployment insurance.
 
But is this significant? The answer is that the ITEP estimate is irrelevant because it ignores that the same amount, or more, would be contributed by legal workers if the illegal workers were unavailable. Legal workers would be much less likely to be working off-the-books and would, therefore, be contributing to the other programs that illegal workers often evade. In addition, because legal workers are much less likely to be sending remittances out of the country, their spending in the United States would be greater and generate more sales tax receipts. Further, if employers did not have a ready supply of exploitable illegal workers, they would have to offer higher wages to attract legal workers. The result would reduce legal worker unemployment, social assistance dependence and poverty.
 
So when you hear someone citing the ITEP estimate, think about how it documents the failure of the country’s immigration enforcement operations and the social and fiscal consequences that result from that failure. 
 

1,019 refugees received in Oregon in 2014

The Federation for Immigration Reform has issued a new 2-part report on distribution of refugees in each state in the U.S. from Oct. 1, 2013 through Sept. 30, 2014.

The report is based on statistics from federal sources. FAIR prepared charts showing the distribution in each state 

Below is FAIR’s chart of the 1,019 refugees admitted to Oregon, showing the country of originClick here to see the chart.

The page about Oregon is shown on page 29 of the 50 pages in FAIR’s summary. Because Delaware, Montana, and Wyoming have not yet received any refugees, they are not included in the list.

According to this chart, the percentage distribution of refugees by country of origin that were received in Oregon from Oct. 1 2013 to Sept. 30, 2014 are as follows:

Iraq - 28%

Somalia - 21%

Burma – 19%

Bhutan - 10%

Dem Rep Congo - 7%

Iran - 4%

Ukraine - 2%

Afghanistan - 2%

Other - 7%  (includes Cuba, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Moldova, Sudan, Russia, Vietnam, Belarus, China, and Kazakhstan)

For more detailed information about issues related to refugee resettlement in the United States and our national security,  please visit the CAIRCO website

Just two weeks left to take advantage of your Oregon year end tax credit

Alert date: 
2015-12-16
Alert body: 

December is half over and we are now in the last two weeks where you can take advantage of Oregon state's political tax credit for donations to the OFIR Political Action Committee.

We encourage you to send a contribution to OFIR PAC before year's end. Please don't forget - write your check today or go to the OFIR website and contribute to the OFIR PAC. If you don't use your political tax credit before December 31 - the state will use the money for its own purposes. You have a choice and we hope you will choose the OFIR PAC.

If you are unfamiliar with the Oregon Political Tax credit, let me explain. Oregon residents can make a contribution to one Oregon Political Action Committee per year. Through Oregon's political tax credit, married couples filing joint Oregon Income Tax Returns receive a dollar for dollar credit of up to $100 - (it's $50 for singles and married couples filing separately) - for contributions to a Political Action Committee like OFIR PAC. This is your opportunity to divert a portion of your tax obligation to OFIR PAC and not to the State's coffers.

This is not a tax deduction but a credit. If you owe money on a joint tax return, you would owe $100 less as a married couple filing jointly. Of course, you may contribute in excess of the deductible amount, and we encourage you to do so, but you may deduct only the allowable limit.

Please write your check to OFIR PAC, or visit the OFIR website and donate online at http://www.oregonir.org/donate-ofir. If you click the DONATE button on this email and fill out the form, your contribution will automatically be credited to the OFIR PAC.

Checks can be mailed to OFIR PAC, PO Box 7354, Salem OR 97303.

Checks must be made to OFIR PAC - checks made out simply to OFIR are not eligible for the state income tax credit and, under IRS rules, are not tax-deductible, but we would still welcome your contribution to OFIR!

All OFIR officers and Board members are volunteers serving without pay and we have no paid employees other than a part-time bookkeeper. As one of the most active immigration organizations in the country, we must have funds for necessary expenses such as email and website services, printing and postage, annual fees to Oregon SOS and DOJ, meeting room expenses, reimbursement for gasoline and other miscellaneous expenses incurred for travel within the state.
 
Mounting initiatives involves large expenditures for printing, postage, websites, fees to lawyers and accountants, and more, yet we have much to gain from successful initiatives. Our winning Protect Oregon Driver Licenses campaign has been a template for other successful ventures across the country. OFIR has attracted the attention and interest of many state activist groups as well as national immigration organizations.
 
We are currently facing extremely dangerous threats related to immigration here in Oregon and across the country. A healthy, robust budget is a basic requirement for continued efforts to establish sensible immigration policies that serve the public interest and well being.

As you may remember, a matching grant offer is now in effect; whatever you give will be matched dollar for dollar, by a generous donor, up to $15,000.

I can truly say OFIR couldn't have accomplished what we have without the help, support and cooperation of each and every one of you. I wish I could personally thank each of you.

If you have not yet contributed to OFIR and the work we are doing - please consider doing so before the end of the year so that you can take advantage of the Oregon Tax Credit. We need all hands on deck at this time. Please, give generously but only what you can afford!

Remember to make your check out to OFIR PAC!  Thank you!

TAKE ACTION! Tell Your State Representative to Support Official English for Oregon

Alert date: 
2015-03-17
Alert body: 

State Representative Sal Esquivel has introduced HB 3078, an official language bill in the Oregon House of Representatives. This bill would require that all official business of Oregon be conducted in English. Rep. Esquivel is a strong supporter of assimilation and understands how knowing English is the key to success in this country.

"There are at least 138 languages spoken in the State of Oregon," Esquivel said. "The State should dedicate itself to assisting people in attaining fluency in English, rather than attempting to learn and do business in the language of individual immigrants.”

Robert Vandervoort, Executive Director of ProEnglish, said "Making English the official language of Oregon will help the taxpayer and promote assimilation."

Contact your Oregon State Representative today. Tell your Representative to support HB 3078 and vote YES when the bill goes to the House floor.

ProEnglish is a self –governing project of U.S., Inc., a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization and the nation’s leading advocate of official English.

We work through the courts and in the court of public opinion to defend English’s historic role as America’s common, unifying language, and to persuade lawmakers to adopt English as the official language at all levels of government.

Learn more about ProEnglish.

There Is No Executive Order for Amnesty! - It Is Far Worse

NOTE:  DHS issued ten memorandums to implement Obama's executive amnesty.

As we enter the last two years of the Obama Administration, the outlook on immigration issues is as bleak as it is complex and potentially overwhelming.

No, there is no Executive Order for amnesty for illegal aliens. The media coverage of President Obama’s “executive order on amnesty” has been loud, repetitious, and wrong. Many news organizations have used the terms “Executive Order” and “Executive Action” and “Executive Memorandum” interchangeably, and incorrectly.

As of January 23, the White House website for Executive Orders1 shows no amnesty for illegal aliens.

What is being done is far worse for our country and our culture.

On the day of the President’s supposed Executive Order, November 20, 2014, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Jeh Johnson issued ten memorandums.2

The timeline of what happened: The news reported President Obama’s impending announcement on “executive order amnesty” for over a week.

At 8:00pm ET on November 20, 2014, President Obama did give a speech3 that was filled with lies and misinformation. He lied about border security and the number of illegal aliens entering our country. He repeated the idiocy about how our immigration system is “broken.” He made the same claim in his January 20 State of the Union address to Congress. (Just how the system is broken, nobody has ever honestly or accurately described.)

Obama surrendered on enforcement:

…tracking down, rounding up, and deporting millions of people isn’t realistic.

He also called it, “impossible.” But, nobody could know what is possible or “impossible” because real enforcement hasn’t been tried in decades.

No “Executive Order Amnesty” was announced on November 20, only the usual shibboleths about immigration.

However, earlier in the day Secretary of DHS Jeh Johnson issued ten memorandums dealing with legal and illegal immigration, immigration enforcement, prosecutorial discretion, DACA, etc.4

On Friday, November 21, President Obama traveled to Las Vegas, gave a speech, and signed two Presidential Memorandums, not Executive Orders as the media, once again, erroneously reported.5

In the first memorandum, “Modernizing and Streamlining the U.S. Immigrant Visa System for the twenty-first century,”6 Obama twice invokes the “broken” lie and says;

We have worked to simplify an overly complex visa system, one that is confusing to travelers and immigrants, burdensome to businesses, and results in long wait times that negatively impact millions of families and workers. But we can and must do more to improve this system.

Translation: “Even though the United States lets in more legal immigrants per year than almost all the rest of the countries in the world added up…we are going to accelerate the process.” In the second memorandum, “Creating Welcoming Communities and Fully Integrating Immigrants and Refugees,”7 Obama provides an overview of the plan to accelerate legal immigration and to naturalize over 13 million Legal Permanent Residents before the 2016 Presidential election....

[Read the original article for an explanation of each of the ten DHS memorandums]

Wall Street Set to Cash-In on Obama Amnesty

Last week IRS Commissioner John Koskinen testified before Congress that illegal aliens who benefit from the Obama amnesty will also be in line to collect money from the Treasury in the form of retroactive Earned Income Tax Credits.

Guess who else is getting on the amnesty gravy train? According to a report by the McClatchy News Service, Wall Street is set to cash-in on what long-time open borders advocate Frank Sharry describes as “the biggest (immigration) program they’ve ever had to implement” (not to mention an unconstitutional one as well). McClatchy reports that big processing contracts to handle to flood of applications are now being passed out. “It starts with the banking firm of J.P. Morgan Chase, which will be paid to open envelopes, scan applications and deposit checks at centers in Dallas and Phoenix,” states the report.

This should not come as a big surprise. After all, big business interests have invested millions of lobbying dollars in the effort to gain amnesty for illegal aliens and flood the already saturated U.S. labor market.

The McClathchy report also should put to rest any notion that the Obama amnesty will be anything other than a massive rubberstamping operation. The National Council of La Raza (NCLR), whose former vice president is Obama’s chief domestic policy advisor, is demanding that the approval process be expedited in order to convince as many illegal alien as possible to step forward and take advantage of the program. “If it takes six months for anybody to get approved, that’s going to affect participation,” said Charles Kamasaki of NCLR. “If they are getting approvals in two to three months, then the skeptics are more likely to come forward.” Under this administration, what NCLR wants, NCLR generally gets…and so does J.P. Morgan Chase.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - taxes