Posted on 06/11/2004 12:33:19 PM PDT by John Jorsett
After nine years of not doing so, Los Angeles housing officials plan to begin enforcing a federal rule that will ban thousands of undocumented immigrants from subsidized housing.
The change in policy means that thousands of undocumented immigrants who receive housing assistance will lose their monthly subsidy or face higher rents. The regulation, which has existed since 1995, prohibits undocumented immigrants from receiving assistance in public housing developments or through Section 8, a federal program that provides help with monthly rents.
Since its inception, officials in the Housing Authority of the city of Los Angeles had applied the regulation only to new participants in the programs. In May, however, officials notified families who were already receiving assistance in 1995 that the rule would be applied to them as well.
The Housing Authority's failure to implement the regulation in the past constituted a violation of federal policy, said David Clark, acting director of Section 8 for the Housing Authority.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Excellent suggestion, let me work it in. Actually, perhaps a 50% tax on wire transfers with the revenue going to border protection. Probably most of the money transferred was earned "under the table." Or, am I being too cynical?
Who cares why! If anything it proves elections are very useful to wake up politicians!
If Judges felt their authority threatened by elections would judges outlaw elections?
Lacking that, impeachment is the only recourse, and the Congress has become notoriously lame in that regard. Revitalizing the process should be a line item in a new "Contract with America."
Last year, late October or sometime in November I believe...
Two groups of slave traders - oops, undocumented laborer transportation coordinators - had a running gun battle over a cargo while driving north between Casa Grande and Chandler, AZ.
It was the catalyst for increased border enforcement in southern Arizona.
"we want them to come here to work, but we kick them out of their apartments."
Speak for yourself!
Round every last one of them and kick them out of the country!
If it's just a sham to get past the election and not a real policy change, then it means we'll be going right back to where we were.
If it's just a sham to get past the election and not a real policy change, then it means we'll be going right back to where we were.
"Round every last one of them and kick them out of the country!"
Is that politically possible?
If we started arresting corporate executives for immigration violations, are there going to be protests in the streets? The only downside is the pressure they'll put on those who receive their bribes/campaign contributions.
If you make it perfectly clear that it's a choice between votes and campaign contributions, I'm sure most politicians will choose the votes.
After we get serious about arresting or at least fining employers, the pressure not to deport illegal aliens will be a lot less. And, it will be politically possible.
I'm with you,kick the illegals out.
I think the illegal problem is tied in with the obesity epidemic.
We should all do our own housework and yardwork!
Two problems solved!
"If you make it perfectly clear that it's a choice between votes and campaign contributions, I'm sure most politicians will choose the votes."
I let all my gov reps know in no uncertain terms that if they support illegls in any way other than work to deport them I will vote against them.
A tax would be in order if proper identification were not furmished. A 50% tax sounds about right but there are problems with imposing a tax.
For the tax to be given over to border enforcement, the tax would have to be a federal tax. The Congress would have to authorize it and administer that tax. Since the tax would be received at primarily small retail outlets, the administration of the tax would not be straightforward, e.g. there is no current tax taken in on a daily basis that is federal in scope. State sales taxes could be imposed though with a federal surcharge for lack of proper ID.
Local 'Checks Cashed' and 'Dinero a Mexico' wire services could circumvent the tax by having a front person with proper ID sned the cash. That would then be a tax enforcement problem.
It may be easier to administer without tax by requiring retail outlets only to keep photostats of IDs with copies of wire transfers. A random audit of records could then assess whether the business outlet was in compliance. Fines and penalties or threat thereof should keep retail shops inline.
Of course there can be no perfect system but the idea is to make it increasingly harder for illegals to profit from jumping the border and also funding the next batch of border violators.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.