Posted on 11/14/2006 7:27:17 AM PST by LouAvul
FARMERS BRANCH, Texas (AP) -- This Dallas suburb became the first Texas city to pass tough anti-immigration measures, prompting fears of sanctioned discrimination and racism.
City Council members unanimously approved fines for landlords who rent to illegal immigrants, making English the city's official language and allowing local authorities to screen suspects in police custody to check their immigration status.
The council made the series of 6-0 votes without discussion Monday night and took comment from the public afterward. A proposal to penalize businesses that employ undocumented workers was not voted on during the meeting.
Hundreds of opponents of the ordinances gathered in the City Hall lobby and a parking lot outside, waving American flags and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in English before the votes were taken.
Inside, supporters clapped as the votes were tallied in favor of the measures and later thanked council members for their action.
Attorneys with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, a civil rights advocacy group, told council members before the vote that the proposals could violate federal housing laws preventing discrimination and the First Amendment.
One of the ordinances would force untrained business owners and landlords to evaluate a wide array of immigration documents to determine if the person carrying them is legally in the country, said Marisol L. Perez, a defense fund staff attorney.
"It puts the landlord in a very difficult position. You're putting them in the shoes of an immigration officer," Perez said.
The group said it would evaluate the measures to determine their legality.
"We passed this expecting to be sued," council member Tim O'Hare said after the vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Ya gotta love that emotionally ladened and prejudicial spin. (sarcasm=off)
Good going, Dallas. I hope DC learns something.
GOOD!!!!
Uhhhhhh, only if you're a CITIZEN.....
Repeat after me................
More people have been the victims of violent crime committed by illegal aliens than have been killed by terrorists in this country.
I am moving down there...6-0..my kind of town
"Uhhhhhh, only if you're a CITIZEN....."
Or a verifiable green card carrier.
I will put this town on my list of places to move MY BUSINESS!!!!!
That's unfortunate, but the root cause is the failure of the federal government to put enough immigration officers in the shoes of immigration officers actually doing the work of immigration officers and controling people passing into our borders.
It's not the whole city of Dallas, just Farmers Branch. It has been a pretty hot topic for a little while now. Many people are coming from other areas to shop at Farmers Branch, because the businesses were threatened by a boycott by the Mexicans.
The Councilman on the Farmers Branch, TX City Council who led this effort was interviewed on a local talk radio station in Houston this morning (KPRC AM 950). He said that a community near Houston has consulted him and he predicted the community would soon vote on similar ordinances. He would not disclose the name of the Houston suburb. I hope this is a trend that catches on in Texas.
I hope this is a trend that catches on in America.
KTUL, a station here in the Tulsa area, did an informal poll asking citizens what they considered to be the most important issues, today.
Of the 21,524 respondants, 18% said crime, 13% said education, 13% said the economy, and a whopping 53% said illegal immigration.
You're exactly right. Before we pop the champagne corks, we should take pause at the more insidious trend this reflects: the pushing off of governmental responsibilities onto private citizens. This is happening more and more, mostly to property owners. Whether it's requiring apartment complex owners to hire private security guards, or to screen for illegal aliens, or to improve property appearances beyond what the economics of an area normally provide for, it is a disturbing phenomenon. Don't like a situation? Just make it illegal! This is not a good thing. You are basically criminalizing property ownership. How, exactly, does an apartment owner screen for illegals? By asking hispanic people to show proof of citizenship? Is the city council going to pay for their attorneys fees when they're sued in federal court for housing discrimination? Just because a city council declares somthing mandatory, doesn't mean that has any binding force on any greater jurisdictional authority. Property owners--who conservatives should be protecting--are being victimized here. Build the fence. Deport illegals. But don't criminalize the conduct of private citizens in a free society because of the failure of or lack of any policy to control the problem at its source.
I'm all in favor of that. Privatize the enforcement. Give police powers, similar to reserve officers, to allow volunteer citizens to monitor businesses that hire illegals.
Ditto landlords and Harry Homeowner.
Hello BIG GOVERNMENT
Yes. Not because hiring illegal aliens is great, but because it is simply a way the government pretends to be doing something when really they are just passing the buck. And it's not a proposal. It's been the law for twenty years. If we had come out and strongly opposed employer-fines in the eighties on the grounds that illegal immigration needs to be stopped at the border by the government, maybe we'd have a fence by now. It's one of those bromides politicans and bureacrats love, because it not only increases governmental authority, it removes or dilutes governmental responsibility.
And this is not "privatizing enforcement." Don't fall into that trap. See how far an employer or landowner gets in trying to actually enforce immigration laws. And see how fast they get thrown in jail if they take some illegal and drive him down to the border to push him back. This is simply burdening citizens with the problem under the pretense of "cracking down," but not giving them any real authority to deal with it. To show how absurd this is, who should be considered more responsible? The government who refuses to seal off the border? Or the employer who gives some guy a low-paying job? The apartment owner who leases out a vacant unit? Or the government that requires public schools provide taxpayer funded eductions to illegal alien children?
The government should be deporting illegal aliens. Instead, for political reasons, it would rather criminalize employers and property owners.
Yes. Not because hiring illegal aliens is great, but because it is simply a way the government pretends to be doing something when really they are just passing the buck. And it's not a proposal. It's been the law for twenty years. If we had come out and strongly opposed employer-fines in the eighties on the grounds that illegal immigration needs to be stopped at the border by the government, maybe we'd have a fence by now. It's one of those bromides politicans and bureacrats love, because it not only increases governmental authority, it removes or dilutes governmental responsibility.
And this is not "privatizing enforcement." Don't fall into that trap. See how far an employer or landowner gets in trying to actually enforce immigration laws. And see how fast they get thrown in jail if they take some illegal and drive him down to the border to push him back. This is simply burdening citizens with the problem under the pretense of "cracking down," but not giving them any real authority to deal with it. To show how absurd this is, who should be considered more responsible? The government who refuses to seal off the border? Or the employer who gives some guy a low-paying job? The apartment owner who leases out a vacant unit? Or the government that requires public schools provide taxpayer funded eductions to illegal alien children?
The government should be deporting illegal aliens. Instead, for political reasons, it would rather criminalize employers and property owners.
Yes. Not because hiring illegal aliens is great, but because it is simply a way the government pretends to be doing something when really they are just passing the buck. And it's not a proposal. It's been the law for twenty years. If we had come out and strongly opposed employer-fines in the eighties on the grounds that illegal immigration needs to be stopped at the border by the government, maybe we'd have a fence by now. It's one of those bromides politicans and bureacrats love, because it not only increases governmental authority, it removes or dilutes governmental responsibility.
And this is not "privatizing enforcement." Don't fall into that trap. See how far an employer or landowner gets in trying to actually enforce immigration laws. And see how fast they get thrown in jail if they take some illegal and drive him down to the border to push him back. This is simply burdening citizens with the problem under the pretense of "cracking down," but not giving them any real authority to deal with it. To show how absurd this is, who should be considered more responsible? The government who refuses to seal off the border? Or the employer who gives some guy a low-paying job? The apartment owner who leases out a vacant unit? Or the government that requires public schools provide taxpayer funded eductions to illegal alien children?
The government should be deporting illegal aliens. Instead, for political reasons, it would rather criminalize employers and property owners.
More people have been the victims of violent crime committed by WASPS than have been killed by illegal aliens in this country.
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.