Posted on 09/30/2006 9:14:20 AM PDT by radar101
I support the efforts of the city to combat the influx of illegal aliens, but the burden should be on the government, not private citizens.
Here's how it works: City official responds to a complaint of multiple families living in a single family dwelling. Illegals respond that they are family members. Officials not allowed to check identity. Case closed.
If the private citizen is the one profiting from the business transaction, why shouldn't the private citizen be responsible for making sure the transaction is legal?
It's not any more difficult than doing the rest of the due dilligence in renting to someone - you are just adding in another step.
Yeah, illegals are really hard to spot. (sarc)
There's still a safety factor that the city has the right to limit the number of people in a building, why is housing different?
I just sent you a freep mail regarding this.
I'm with you. I view this as a government generated problem. All they have to do is turn off the magnet.
They can find ways to go over a fence and under it. The reason WHY they want to come here will not change with the fence.
"Build a fence and you don't have to worry about enacting the other policies, as they wouldn't be here in the first place. Duh..."
===
Exactly! Makes much more sense than to keep trying to pass and enforce unenfoceable laws inside the US, trying to make very citizen into an immigration agent, and threaten them with jail, instead of keeping out the illegals in the first place.
"It is an attempt to shift the burden of enforcement from the government to someone else, complete with penalties.
The government is not doing its job and is trying to dump its responsibility onto property owners."
===
I agree completely. What is surprising that people who say they are conservatives are enthusiastically endorsing this government control of private enterprise.
As someone else said, why don't they build a fence instead.
"If they pass this ordinance then the city needs to provide an office for landlords to come to vet their tennants. Otherwise this ordinance shifts an unfair burden on the landlord. Is it really the landlord's duty to enforce the immigration laws?"
===
My sentiments exactly.
"Yeah, illegals are really hard to spot. (sarc)"
===
As a matter of fact they are.
Note that in CA you can't even ask for ID when voting, so if someone renting is going to start asking for citizenship papers, he'll be sued for discrimination.
And considering that there are millions of legal Hispanic residents, and many illegals also work, it IS hard to spot them.
Suppose the landlord rents to legal residents, he checked out, who, then bring it illegals to live there. What is the landlord supposed to do, go to the house every night, count noses and demand papers?!
"They can find ways to go over a fence and under it. The reason WHY they want to come here will not change with the fence."
No single thing will stop illegal immigration entirely (including a fence). But, a fence will make it much more difficult and reduce the number significantly.
"Proposition 187 .... But after two rounds of litigation in the federal courts, nearly all of its provisions were invalidated."
===
I guess you are not supposed to prevent illegals from getting benefits, but landlords will be thrown in jail, if they rent knowingly or unknowingly to illegals.
Make the fine stiff enough that it wipes out any profits made by hiring illegals and cheating the system. Al Capone went to jail for tax evasion, not for any of the other stuff he did - good precedent.
The tatics you outline would go a long way towards keeping out the illegals who only come here for the benefits, but they will not do anything to stop terrorist and drug runners from crossing over. A fence would go a long way in helping to stop terrorist and drug dealers from crossing, plus we need to enforce our existing laws on immigration to the max and stop our catch and release policies.
agreed..a fence would help, but for how long and how effectively? People can go around, under and through fences, unless we have guardsmen every 100 yards to watch it..my point is to take away the incentive for them to come here..
terrorists and drug runners will certainly try and come in with or without a fence..they'll come in boats, planes etc..
The ordinance provides for the city to vet tennants upon request of the landlord. It can be found online by going to:
http://www.ci.escondido.ca.us/government/agendas/PublishedMeetings.htm
Choose the 10/4/2006 meeting, scroll down to the 7pm session, then click on the link for the ordinance. It'll pop up on the right in the form of a large .tif file.
The local 'open borders' crowd have been going all out to defeat the measure, including death threats to Council members, boycotts of Council member's businesses, and imported professional agitators. Council meetings are usually polite affairs, attended by staff and a few interested citizens. That's all changed. This week's routine meeting featured half a dozen plain clothed police officers acting as bodyguards for the Council members. Typical leftist tactics, when your position has no rational merit, threaten those who don't agree.
Those in northern San Diego county who wish to attend the meeting at 7pm on Wednesday night should plan to come early, since the illegals generally try to pack the chambers. The meeting will also be streamed to the net at: http://escondido.12milesout.com/Escondido/Default.aspx
I urge anyone who has the slightest doubt about the need to control our borders to tune in.
Probably but a lack of a fence did not create this problem.
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.