Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
peejay

Neb. town to vote on illegal immigration measure

21 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: Country: Belarus
Timeline

Neb. town to vote on illegal immigration measure

By TIMBERLY ROSS Associated Press Writer

June 20, 2010, 5:19PM

FREMONT, Neb. — Angered by a recent influx of Hispanic workers attracted by jobs at local meatpacking plants, voters in the eastern Nebraska city of Fremont will decide Monday whether to ban hiring or renting property to illegal immigrants.

The vote will be the culmination of a two-year fight that saw proponents collect enough signatures to put the question to a public vote. If the ordinance is approved, the community of 25,000 people could face a long and costly court battle. Either way, the emotions stirred up won't settle quickly.

"Even if we say 'no' ... we still need to say, 'How do we get along with each other now?'" said Kristin Ostrom, who helps oversee a campaign against the measure.

Across the nation, people have been outraged by — and demanded action against — the poor enforcement of federal laws to prevent illegal immigration. A law recently introduced in Arizona requires police to question people on their immigration status if there's a "reasonable suspicion" they are illegal.

A man who helped write the Arizona law is helping to fight for the ordinance in Fremont, which has seen its Hispanic population surge in the past two decades. That increase is largely because they were recruited to work for the Fremont Beef and Hormel plants, and the city maintains an enviably low unemployment rate.

Nonetheless, residents worry that jobs are going to illegal immigrants who they fear could drain community resources.

Clint Walraven, who has lived in Fremont all his 51 years, said the jobs should go to legal residents who are unemployed — something he believes the ordinance would help fix. Discussions on the issue can get heated, he said, particularly if racism is mentioned.

"It has nothing to do with being racist," he said. "We all have to play by the same rules. ... If you want to stay here, get legal."

When he worked at the Hormel plant in the 1980s, Walraven said, he had one Hispanic co-worker.

From about 165 Hispanics — both legal and illegal — living in Fremont in 1990, the total surged to 1,085 in 2000, according to census expert David Drozd at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. He said an estimated 2,060 Hispanics lived there last year. In May, Fremont recorded just 4.9 percent unemployment, in line with the statewide rate and significantly lower than the national average of 9.7 percent.

If approved, the measure will require potential renters to apply for a license to rent. The application process will force Fremont officials to check if the renters are in the country legally. If they are found to be illegal, they will not be issued a license allowing them to rent.

The ordinance also requires businesses to use the federal E-Verify database to ensure employees are allowed to work.

Supporters of the proposal say it's needed to make up for what they see as lax federal law enforcement. Opponents say it could fuel discrimination.

Results are expected Monday night.

Ron Tillery, executive director of the Fremont Chamber of Commerce, which opposes the measure, said businesses are concerned the E-Verify system isn't reliable and that they would be subject to fines if forced to rely on it. He pointed out that the main targets of the ordinance — the Fremont Beef and Hormel plants — would not be covered by it anyway because they are located outside the city.

Walraven said the measure is necessary because workers send their salaries to family in Mexico instead of spending it in the city.

"I understand supporting your family," he said, "But it's very much at our expense. We're footing the bill."

Those costs include spending on education and medical care, said Jerry Hart, a Fremont resident who petitioned for the vote. He said the ordinance would help curb that spending and protect jobs.

He said it would also end the divisiveness that's taken over.

"The division is because the illegal aliens are here and nobody's taken care of it," he said. "If it does not pass, it's going to get worse."

The Fremont Tribune has reported several instances of legal Hispanic residents being told to return to Mexico, including a woman who was shoved and yelled at by an elderly white man in a grocery store.

Hart said he's been called a Nazi.

"Fear is kind of guiding," said Ostrom, adding that frustration about immigration issues nationwide ignites a misconception that all Hispanic immigrants in Fremont are illegal.

Sandra Leffler, 69, who owns a downtown antique store with her husband, Marv, said she knows not all Hispanics are illegal immigrants, but that it's hard not to think that way. She said she scrutinizes her Hispanic customers.

"I have to admit, when I see them come into the store ... I can't help wondering if I'm profiling someone who's completely honest," she said.

The Fremont City Council narrowly rejected a policy similar to the proposed ordinance in 2008, but proponents got it to a public vote and the state Supreme Court refused to block it.

The Nebraska chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has threatened a lawsuit, and the city worries about the cost of defending the policy. The city has estimated the legal action would cost $1 million per year to fight — costs that would have to be covered by property tax raises and city job cuts.

Kansas City, Mo.-based attorney Kris Kobach, who worked on the Arizona law and has been in legal battles over local ordinances elsewhere, said Valley Park, Mo. paid between $250,000 and $300,000 in legal fees in a similar case. Valley Park, like Fremont, is covered by the 8th Circuit.

State Sen. Charlie Janssen of Fremont, who has said he may introduce an Arizona-style bill in the Legislature next session, said it's unfortunate residents have to decide how to vote amid threats of a lawsuit. He has declined to give his position on the ordinance, saying residents need to decide on their own.

"A vote for or against the ordinance does not make you more or less patriotic," he said in a posting on his legislative blog. "Just as a vote for or against the ordinance does not make you racist or not."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/7063280.html


"Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave."

"...for the system to be credible, people actually have to be deported at the end of the process."

US Congresswoman Barbara Jordan (D-TX)

Testimony to the House Immigration Subcommittee, February 24, 1995

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Other Country: Afghanistan
Timeline

Given you can be charged with harboring for having illegals as tenants I would think this is a smart move. Of course state's like California put landlords in a catch22 where they can't legally ask about legal status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Farmers Branch, TX a nice little suburb of Dallas, pushed hard for a similar "measure". Voters approved and it passed then this: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-FBsuit_25met.ART.Central.Edition1.4c77c2c.html

Farmers Branch now has predominately Mexican areas that are just growing and you can clearly see the effects. The quality of schools are changing very fast, too.

Edited by Shal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Country: Belarus
Timeline

The point I made in the title post...why not make E-Verify mandatory for all employers? This was promised 25 years ago in exchange for the 1986 amnesty and still the usual suspects undermine and block its implementation at every turn. Unreliable my azz! They don't want anything that won't let them continue with the status quo. Which is to employ illegal aliens and conveniently point out that they were duped with fraudulent ID when hiring them. They do not want to be forced use E-Verify because they won't be able to hire illegal aliens anymore.

And the ACLU is more about left wing ideology than protecting civil liberties. Ditto for the SPLC. They are open borders advocates and illegal alien cheerleading organizations. Their record in such matters stands on itself.

Obama doesn't want E-Verify so he can protect his pet illegal aliens and future Democrat voters.

Edited by peejay

"Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave."

"...for the system to be credible, people actually have to be deported at the end of the process."

US Congresswoman Barbara Jordan (D-TX)

Testimony to the House Immigration Subcommittee, February 24, 1995

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Other Country: Afghanistan
Timeline

So whats unconstitutional about this law? It requires all renters get a license to rent in the area. Thats valid isn't it? It requires people show proof of US residency to get the license. Thats valid right? The dmv does it. I don't see any opportunities for racial profiling either if everyone must show the proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It passed.

woot!


"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies."

Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006



barack-cowboy-hat.jpg
90f.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Philippines
Timeline

So whats unconstitutional about this law? It requires all renters get a license to rent in the area. Thats valid isn't it? It requires people show proof of US residency to get the license. Thats valid right? The dmv does it. I don't see any opportunities for racial profiling either if everyone must show the proof.

good points.




Life..... Nobody gets out alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Country: United Kingdom
Timeline

Of course state's like California put landlords in a catch22 where they can't legally ask about legal status.

What happens if they ask? It's not like the illegal is going to sue them for discrimination.


biden_pinhead.jpgspace.gifrolling-stones-american-flag-tongue.jpgspace.gifinside-geico.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Country: England
Timeline

Summary of the Truly Agreed Version of the Bill

CCS SS HCS HB 1549, 1771, 1395 & 2366 -- ILLEGAL ALIENS AND

IMMIGRATION STATUS VERIFICATION

This bill changes the laws regarding illegal aliens and

immigration status verification.

ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS (Section 43.032, RSMo)

The Superintendent of the State Highway Patrol is required,

subject to appropriations, to designate some or all members of

the patrol to be trained in accordance with a memorandum of

understanding between Missouri and the United States Department

of Homeland Security concerning the enforcement of federal

immigration laws during the course of their normal duties in

Missouri.

SANCTUARY POLICIES (Section 67.307)

Any county, city, town, or village is prohibited from enacting a

sanctuary policy. Any municipality that enacts a sanctuary

policy will be ineligible for money provided through grants

administered by any state agency or department until the policy

is repealed or is no longer in effect. Upon complaint by any

state resident or before the provision or award of any funds or

grants to any government entity, agency, or political

subdivision, any member of the General Assembly may request that

the Attorney General issue an opinion as to whether the

government entity, agency, or political subdivision has a

sanctuary policy. County and municipal law enforcement officers

must be notified in writing of their duty to cooperate with state

and federal agencies and officials regarding matters of

immigration.

PUBLIC BENEFITS (Section 208.009)

Aliens unlawfully present in the United States are prohibited

from receiving a state or local public benefit unless it is

offered under 8 U.S.C. 1621(b). Documentary evidence accepted by

the Department of Revenue for obtaining a driver's license will

suffice as proof of citizenship, permanent residency, or lawful

immigration status when applying for benefits. Individuals can

temporarily receive state or local public benefits for up to 90

days while obtaining the necessary documentation or indefinitely

if the applicant provides a copy of a completed birth certificate

application which is pending. Nonprofit organizations regulated

by the Internal Revenue Service are not required to enforce these

restrictions, nor are they prohibited from providing aid.

Agencies administering state or local public benefits must assist

in the procurement of the required documentation for those

persons who will be temporarily receiving benefits after signing

an affidavit attesting to their lawful presence in the United

States.

MISCLASSIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES (Sections 285.309 and 285.500 -

285.515)

Employers with five or more employees are required to file

federal 1099-miscellaneous forms with the Department of Revenue

within the same deadline as the filing of Missouri Form 99

miscellaneous forms. On or after the fifth violation, an

employer will be fined up to $200 for each additional violation.

Employers are prohibited from knowingly misclassifying a worker

as an independent contractor by failing to claim the worker as an

employee when the employer knows that the worker is an employee.

The Attorney General is given certain investigative and

prosecutorial powers regarding misclassification of workers.

Anyone violating this provision will be subject to a fine of $50

per day per misclassified worker up to $50,000.

FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION (Sections 285.525 - 285.555)

Business entities and employers are prohibited from knowingly

employing, hiring, or continuing to employ illegal aliens to

perform work in Missouri. Participation in a federal work

authorization program which enables employers to electronically

verify employment eligibility is required for all public

employers and business entities receiving a state contract or

grant in excess of $5,000 or a state-administered tax credit, tax

abatement, or loan from the state. Participation in a federal

work authorization program is an affirmative defense to an

allegation that a business entity knowingly hired an illegal

alien.

A general contractor or subcontractor will not be held liable

under the provisions prohibiting employment of illegal aliens,

even if the general contractor's or subcontractor's direct

subcontractor hires an illegal alien, if the contract binding the

contractor and subcontractor states that the direct subcontractor

is not knowingly in violation of the prohibition and will not

violate the prohibition and the contractor or subcontractor

receives a sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury attesting to

the fact that the direct subcontractor's employees are lawfully

present in the United States.

Failing to provide identity information on employees within 15

business days after receipt of the request by the Attorney

General will result in the suspension of a company's applicable

local licenses, permits, and exemptions until the information is

supplied.

Knowingly employing an illegal alien will result in the

suspension of a company's applicable local licenses, permits, and

exemptions for 14 days. A second violation will result in

suspension for a period of one year, and a third or subsequent

violation will result in permanent suspension.

A violation of the prohibition against employing illegal aliens

by a business entity awarded a state contract or grant or

state-administered tax credit, tax abatement, or loan from the

state will result in the termination of the contract and the

suspension or debarment of the business entity from doing

business in this state for a period of three years. A second or

subsequent violation will result in the termination of the

contract and the permanent suspension or debarment of the

business entity from doing business in this state. The state may

withhold up to 25% of the total amount due to the business entity

upon termination of the contract.

Any person who files a frivolous complaint not shown by clear and

convincing evidence to be valid will be liable for the actual,

compensatory, and punitive damages to the alleged violator.

Only the federal government can determine whether a worker is an

unauthorized alien.

The Attorney General must maintain a database documenting any

business entity whose license, permit, or exemption has been

suspended or whose state contract has been terminated.

Failure by a municipality or county to suspend any applicable

license or permit of a violator as directed by the Attorney

General within 15 business days after notification will be deemed

a violation of Section 67.307 governing sanctuary cities and will

subject the municipality or county to the specified penalties.

If the federal government discontinues or fails to authorize any

work authorization program, Sections 285.525 - 285.555 will be

reviewed by the General Assembly to determine if they need to be

repealed.

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA) TRAINING

(Section 292.675)

Contractors and subcontractors who contract to work on public

works projects must provide a 10-hour OSHA construction safety

program, or similar program approved by the Department of Labor

and Industrial Relations, to be completed by their on-site

employees within 60 days of beginning work on the construction

project. Contractors and subcontractors in violation of this

provision will forfeit to the public body $2,500 plus $100 a day

for each employee who is employed without training. Public

bodies and contractors may withhold assessed penalties from the

payment due to those contractors and subcontractors.

DRIVER'S LICENSES (Sections 302.063, 302.720, and 578.570)

The Department of Revenue is prohibited from issuing driver's

licenses to illegal aliens and persons who cannot prove lawful

presence in the United States. Missouri will not extend full

faith and credit to out-of-state driver's licenses issued to

illegal aliens.

The commercial driver's license written test must only be given

in English. Translators will not be allowed for applicants

taking the test.

Penalties for driver's license fraud are established. A person

is prohibited from:

(a) Assisting any person during a driver's license, nondriver's

license, or instruction permit examination process when that

person knows or recklessly disregards the truth that a fraud or

deception is being committed;

(b) Assisting any person in applying for a driver's license,

nondriver's license, or instruction permit when that person knows

or recklessly disregards the truth that the application contains

or is substantiated with false or fraudulent information or

documentation, conceals a material fact, or is otherwise

fraudulent; or

© Engaging in a conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts

or aiding or abetting in the commission of any of the acts.

Any person who violates a provision of the bill regarding

driver's license fraud will be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

BAIL (Section 544.470)

If a judge reasonably believes that a person is an illegal alien,

bail will be denied at least until the person can provide

verification of lawful presence in the United States, at which

time a judge must determine whether release on bail is otherwise

warranted. If lawful presence verification cannot be provided, a

person must be held in custody until discharged by due course of

law.

TRANSPORTING ILLEGAL ALIENS (Section 577.722)

The crime of knowingly transporting an illegal alien in this

state for the purpose of trafficking in violation of Sections

566.200 - 566.215, drug trafficking in violation of Sections

195.222 and 195.223, prostitution in violation of Chapter 567, or

employment is created. Any person committing this crime will be

guilty of a felony punishable with imprisonment for not less than

one year, a fine of not less than $1,000, or both.

IMMIGRATION STATUS VERIFICATION UPON ARREST (Section 577.900)

An arresting law enforcement agency is required to verify within

48 hours through the United States Department of Homeland

Security the lawful immigration status of a person charged with a

crime and held in confinement if verification cannot be made from

documents in the possession of the prisoner or after a reasonable

effort by the arresting agency. Upon verification that the

prisoner is an illegal alien, the arresting agency must notify

the federal department. Until August 28, 2009, this provision

will only apply to officers employed by the State Highway Patrol,

State Water Patrol, Capitol Police, State Fire Marshal's Office,

and Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control within the Department

of Public Safety.

COMMUNICATION WITH FEDERAL OFFICIALS (Section 650.681)

No government entity or official or political subdivision can

prohibit or restrict any other government entity or official from

communicating or cooperating with federal officials on the

immigration status of any person in this state. No person or

agency can prohibit or restrict any public employee from

communicating or cooperating with local, state, or federal

officials on the immigration status of any person in this state.

Upon complaint by any state resident or before the provision or

award of any funds or grants to any government agency or

political subdivision, any member of the General Assembly may

request that the Attorney General issue an opinion as to whether

the government agency or political subdivision has policies

prohibiting or restricting public officials or employees from

communicating or cooperating with local, state, or federal

officials on the immigration status of any person in this state.

The provisions regarding sanctuary policies, federal employment

authorization, and communication with federal officials become

effective January 1, 2009, and the provisions regarding OSHA

training become effective August 28, 2009.

Missouri House of Representatives

And here's one that was prepared earlier ... in Missouri.

Why isn't the administration challenging this one in the Courts?

Edited by Pooky

Don't interrupt me when I'm talking to myself

2011-11-15.garfield.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Other Country: Afghanistan
Timeline

And here's one that was prepared earlier ... in Missouri.

Why isn't the administration challenging this one in the Courts?

Because its solidly written like....was it Virginia? and California. All three states check immigration after arrest (though California obviously doesn't follow through). Seriously if Arizona had removed just a few tiny words there is nothing Obama or some damned Mexican official could say.

I'm proud of my home state, its a well written law.

Edited by Sousuke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Country: England
Timeline

Because its solidly written like....was it Virginia? and California. All three states check immigration after arrest (though California obviously doesn't follow through). Seriously if Arizona had removed just a few tiny words there is nothing Obama or some damned Mexican official could say.

I'm proud of my home state, its a well written law.

Apparently, the Federal government thinks the lawful stop part is well-written, too, because that's not why they're challenging the Arizona law ...

Sources: Justice Department to File Lawsuit Against Arizona Immigration Law, Likely Next Week

June 22, 2010 7:07 AM

Obama administration sources tell ABC News that Attorney General Eric Holder is expected to file a lawsuit against the state of Arizona for its immigration law, likely next week.

The suit has been expected for some time now. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a South American television interviewer that the president had told the Justice Department to file the suit on the basis that it's the constitutional responsibility of the federal government -- not states -- to set immigration policy.

"President Obama has spoken out against the law because he thinks that the federal government should be determining immigration policy," Clinton told the interviewer on station NTN 24. "And the Justice Department, under his direction, will be bringing a lawsuit against the act.”

Holder is expected to also claim in his suit that the Arizona law will be enforced in a way that could cause discrimination based on race and nationality.

- Jake Tapper

ABC News

Just my opinion, but the first part fails because this law does not set immigration policy, it enforces existing Federal policy at a local level, before turning over those identified as illegal immigrants to the proper Federal authorities for processing. And the second part fails because the law was amended to remove ambiguity in the circumstances for enquiring about someone's status and added legal safeguards to protect those stopped against discrimination and racial profiling.

And the Mexican government adding its name to a suit against this law is only going to make public support for Arizona stronger Arizona's defence that much easier. :thumbs:

Edited by Pooky

Don't interrupt me when I'm talking to myself

2011-11-15.garfield.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Country: United Kingdom
Timeline

Holder is expected to also claim in his suit that the Arizona law will be enforced in a way that could cause discrimination based on race and nationality.

You can't overturn a law based on something that may or may not happen.

There must be an aggrieved party - someone who was harmed by the law in question.


biden_pinhead.jpgspace.gifrolling-stones-american-flag-tongue.jpgspace.gifinside-geico.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Country: England
Timeline

2 Riverside County cities vote to support Arizona's anti-illegal immigration law

June 22, 2010 | 10:14 pm

The city councils of Hemet and Lake Elsinore, both in Riverside County, approved proclamations Tuesday in support of Arizona’s controversial anti-illegal immigration law.

The Yorba Linda City Council in Orange County approved a similar resolution earlier this month, countering actions taken by leaders in cities such as Los Angeles, who voted to boycott doing business with Arizona companies in protest of the law.

The law tells police officers to check the immigration status of people they have stopped for another reason and reasonably suspect are in the U.S. illegally.

The Hemet City Council unanimously approved the measure, proposed by Mayor Eric McBride. Dozens of residents testified throughout the evening, with supporters praising the council for taking a stand against illegal immigration and for the rule of law, and opponents accusing the council of fostering racial profiling and discrimination. Residents on both sides criticized the White House and Congress for failing to address the issue.

“It may not be perfect, I’m sure it’s not,” Councilman Robert Youssef said of the Arizona law. “But it’s a step in the right direction.”

In Lake Elsinore, a 28-mile drive west of Hemet on Highway 74, a similar scene played out before that city’s council, which approved a resolution in favor of the Arizona law 4 to 1.

“It doesn’t have to do with your nationality or where you come from. It has to do if you’re here legally or not,” said Mayor Melissa A. Melendez.

Melendez, who said she has relatives of Mexican and Peruvian descent, also criticized illegal immigrants for disregarding the nation’s laws and flaunting their allegiance to Mexico.

“Don’t come into my country wearing a Mexican flag. It’s insulting,” she said.

-- Phil Willon in Riverside County

LA Times

This is the part of the story most people don't get to hear about. It's not LA, but more and more of the communities surrounding LA are coming out in official support of Arizona.

I particularly like the closing quote. :thumbs:


Don't interrupt me when I'm talking to myself

2011-11-15.garfield.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...