Immigrants break into rental house and camp out and police do nothing.

[Perchoutofwater]

Perch can you provide a link to that article? Cause I read it as an ordinance that says that landlords can discriminate based on immigration status. That is patently different then penalizing the businesses that pander to illegals. There is a difference.

 

Do you have the actual ordinance?

 

Here is the link to the article above.

 

Here is an older one form right after the judge struck down the ordinance.

 

Judge Strikes Down Farmers Branch Ordinance

FARMERS BRANCH (CBS 11 News/AP) ―

 

A federal judge has ruled that an ordinance in Farmers Branch, that bans illegal immigrants from renting apartments, is unconstitutional.

 

U.S. District Judge Jane J. Boyle of Dallas ruled Wednesday that the ordinance was an attempt to enforce U.S. immigration laws, which she said was something only the federal government can do.

 

For years, the City of Farmers Branch has been trying to enforce a ban on landlords renting to illegal immigrants and this ordinance was the latest effort. Other versions of have also been struck down by federal courts.

 

Mayor Tim O'Hare, who supports the ordinance, told a North Texas newspaper that he favors appealing the ruling, but said the City Council would have to vote on that.

 

Wednesday afternoon Farmers Branch officials issued a statement that said, "The City of Farmers Branch is obviously disappointed, but respectful of the judge's ruling. The City continues to maintain that a local government has a right and responsibility to work with the federal government in enforcing all of our laws, and that this local ordinance appropriately recognizes the roles and resources of the federal government in enforcing federal law. The Farmer Branch City Council will consult with the city's legal team in determining the basis and merit of any appeal to a higher court."

Link to above

 

And one more for good measure.

 

Farmers Branch votes to appeal immigration ruling

© 2010 The Associated Press

April 20, 2010, 9:44PM

 

 

DALLAS — A Dallas suburb's city council has voted to appeal a judge's ruling that struck down the city's ordinance banning illegal immigrants from renting apartments.

 

The Farmers Branch City Council voted 5-0 Tuesday night to proceed with an appeal with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. City spokesman Tom Bryson says the vote came after just over an hour's discussion between council members and the audience.

 

The Dallas suburb has tried for years to enforce a ban on landlords renting to illegal immigrants, and a similar ordinance had been struck down before.

 

In March, U.S. District Judge Jane J. Boyle of Dallas ruled the latest ordinance was an attempt to enforce U.S. immigration laws, which she said was exclusively a federal duty.

 

She issued a permanent injunction barring the city from enforcing the ordinance.

 

Link

[Duchess Jack]

I see no problem with denying somebody housing based upon their immigration status.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

I see no problem with denying somebody housing based upon their immigration status.

 

 

Do you mean legal vs. illegal? or citizen vs. permanent resident alien vs. temp. visa?

[Perchoutofwater]

Do you mean legal vs. illegal? or citizen vs. permanent resident alien vs. temp. visa?

 

I'm sure he means legal vs. illegal. I'd have a problem if they are were discriminating against legal residents, though I don't call requesting proof of citizenship or legal resident status discriminatory.

[Duchess Jack]

I'm sure he means legal vs. illegal.

correct. one of my right leaning views - I believe that Illegals should have very little if any rights or protections. you want rights - go back home and get them there - or follow our rules and come into the country legally. If you need medical service - we'll give it to you - and send you right back home. If you want to risk dying because of that - that's your own issue and you own choice.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Duchess Jack

[driveby]

The audacity of the dems is breathtaking.

[Duchess Jack]

The audacity of the dems is breathtaking.

perhaps we shouldn't say the audacity of a whole group because of a couple guys' views or bills and say

 

the audacity of Sens. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, and Richard G. Lugar, Indiana Republican

 

its more accurate.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Duchess Jack

[Perchoutofwater]

The audacity of the dems is breathtaking.

 

That is not audacity. They are looking for additional votes because they are going to need them come November.

[bpwallace49]

Here is the link to the article above.

 

Here is an older one form right after the judge struck down the ordinance.

 

 

Link to above

 

And one more for good measure.

 

 

 

Link

 

So it is illegal to "discriminate" against individuals as per the housing ordinance, but how does that penalize the businesses that create the jobs for illegals? Regulating and penalizing businesses in a state would fall under the STATE, correct? (btw, I think that non-citizens here illegally really should be prevented from housing, just another way to eliminate the problem)

 

So if the STATE passed a law saying that you get fined 1000 bucks a month for every illegal you hire, wouldnt that be kosher? (BTW perch, I know you are obsessed with the fed gubmnet, but how can this approach NOT be a state issue?) Eliminate the jobs that illegals have, and then you wont have to worry about them living there either . .

Edited April 22, 2010 by bpwallace49

[Duchess Jack]

So it is illegal to "discriminate" against individuals as per the housing ordinance, but how does that penalize the businesses that create the jobs for illegals? Regulating and penalizing businesses in a state would fall under the STATE, correct?

 

So if the STATE passed a law saying that you get fined 1000 bucks a month for every illegal you hire, wouldnt that be kosher? (BTW perch, I know you are obsessed with the fed gubmnet, but how can this approach NOT be a state issue?) Eliminate the jobs that illegals have, and then you wont have to worry about them living there either . .

I think he's suggesting that the fed government would shoot it down. I think it is a state issue - but it does not seem like the states are allowed to do what they need to do to fix this problem.

 

I hope that is not the case - but it sounds like it.

[bpwallace49]

The audacity of the dems is breathtaking.

 

The co sponsor is a republican. But way tp post a misleading topic heading polkaset!

[Perchoutofwater]

So it is illegal to "discriminate" against individuals as per the housing ordinance, but how does that penalize the businesses that create the jobs for illegals? Regulating and penalizing businesses in a state would fall under the STATE, correct? (btw, I think that non-citizens here illegally really should be prevented from housing, just another way to eliminate the problem)

 

So if the STATE passed a law saying that you get fined 1000 bucks a month for every illegal you hire, wouldnt that be kosher? (BTW perch, I know you are obsessed with the fed gubmnet, but how can this approach NOT be a state issue?) Eliminate the jobs that illegals have, and then you wont have to worry about them living there either . .

 

Immigration is immigration, what is the difference if it is employment or housing, city or state? US district court said immigration and laws associated with it fall under the Federal government not local (or state governments), which is what I was questioning when you originally were saying the states should be tougher on employers. Based on the US District courts ruling, it does not appear as though they can.

 

And again this is something the Constitution mandates the federal government to do, unlike providing health care or unemployment benefits.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[bpwallace49]

Administration increases penalties for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants

 

Employers blast latest crackdown on undocumented workers

 

 

10:30 PM CST on Friday, February 22, 2008

By DAVE MICHAELS dmichaels@dallasnews.comand DIANNE SOLÍS dsolis@dallasnews.com

 

 

The Bush administration has announced higher monetary penalties against businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants, the first increase in such fines in nearly a decade.

 

With no immigration legislation on the horizon, Friday's decision is the administration's latest attempt to clamp down on the flow of unauthorized workers into jobs.

 

"This is a way to keep that pressure up, to make sure people are complying with the law," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said.

 

Employers in Texas, many of whom blame Congress for failing to update immigration laws last summer, are angry and frustrated.

 

J Allen Carnes, head of the Texas Vegetable Association, said the decision is the government's latest attempt to foist responsibility for immigration laws onto businesses.

 

"You are talking about a workforce that has infiltrated our society because of a failed immigration system," said Mr. Carnes, a 33-year-old farmer in Uvalde who supports a legalization program. "Now you want to make the employers the police, and we are going to be the fall guy for something our government didn't solve for a long time."

 

Under the plan, which becomes effective March 27, the minimum penalty for willingly hiring an unauthorized worker would go from $275 to $375. The maximum penalty will jump from $2,200 to $3,200, and the maximum for multiple violations will increase from $11,000 to $16,000.

 

Stephen Yale-Loehr, an expert on immigration law at Cornell University Law School, said the fines don't look like onerous increases. But combined with the rising number of criminal prosecutions for those violating immigration laws, they could make a difference, he said.

 

"The combination of the two could be a deterrent for employers," said Mr. Yale-Loehr, who also warned that higher fines could scare employers away from any foreign employees.

 

The jump in fines follows a series of moves by the federal and state governments to get tougher on employers. Arkansas, Arizona, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Colorado and West Virginia have all approved laws that crack down on employers.

 

The number of workers arrested at worksites by federal agents increased again last year. Arrests for criminal violations – mostly identity theft – rose from 716 in 2006 to 863 in 2007, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Last year's total included 92 employers and 771 workers.

 

The number of employers arrested was slightly less than in 2006, but it far exceeded the three who were arrested in 2005.

 

 

 

Bill Hammond, president and CEO of the Texas Association of Businesses, said the government's action is misguided.

 

"We feel strongly that it is inappropriate to punish employers when they are doing their best to uphold the law," Mr. Hammond said. "We are certainly going to make our feelings known to the Texas congressional delegation."

 

Tom Landis, who has six restaurants in the Dallas area, responded with anger and sarcasm.

 

Mr. Landis said he carefully checks documents and fills out the government employment form, known as the I-9, created under the last big overhaul of immigration laws in 1986.

 

"Let's go to every building being built in America," he said. "Let's go to every restaurant in America. Let's go to every hotel in America. They will have to fine everyone in America. It is the dumbest rule. It just shows how out of touch everyone is."

 

Mr. Landis favors a legalization program for those in the U.S. illegally, in part, so that they can get political and voting rights, he said.

 

U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey said this year the government "would increase criminal prosecutions against the most egregious employer offenders."

 

On Thursday, a federal judge in Arizona rejected a request from business groups to put Arizona's employer sanctions law on hold.

 

Under that law, the state can suspend and even revoke the business license of an employer caught hiring an illegal immigrant. The new law also requires bosses to verify Social Security numbers in a federal database, known as E-Verify.

 

Mr. Chertoff said Friday that more than 53,000 employers are using the database, more than twice the number who participated in 2006. The government will propose that federal contractors be required to use the database, Mr. Chertoff said.

 

"We are beginning to see that illegal workers are picking up and leaving because they recognize this system is an impediment to their continued illegal employment in this country," Mr. Chertoff said.

 

Mr. Chertoff also trumpeted progress on the U.S.-Mexico border fence. He said the government had issued final approval for a 28-mile virtual fence of radars and surveillance cameras, while chastising opponents of the physical fence – many of them in Texas – who have refused to let federal officials survey property that could be bisected by the wall.

 

Mr. Chertoff indicated that the administration would continue to make progress toward fencing 670 miles of the southern border by the end of 2008.

 

"We are not willing to have endless debate," he said. "We are not willing to kick the can indefinitely down the road."

 

So this WAS started on both the federal and state level during shrub. Well done! I think that the fines could easily be doubled to enhance the deterrent. The federal gubmnet needs to step up, but this shows that states can get into the action as well. Of course businesses are against it, cause hring illegals at pennies on the dollar is very profitable to them, but this policy could easily be increased by states.

[driveby]

BP is happy about this right?

 

The legislation, sent to the Republican governor by the GOP-led Legislature, makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. It also requires local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants; allows lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws; and makes it illegal to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them.

 

"It's going to change our lives," said Emilio Almodovar, a 13-year-old American citizen from Phoenix. "We can't walk to school any more. We can't be in the streets anymore without the pigs thinking we're illegal immigrants."

[SEC=UGA]

BP is happy about this right?

 

 

 

"It's going to change our lives," said Emilio Almodovar, a 13-year-old American citizen from Phoenix. "We can't walk to school any more. We can't be in the streets anymore without the pigs thinking we're illegal immigrants."

 

Hey, Emilio, you dumbass, little thug, they prefer to be called cops or police officers...

 

My question here is, hey, if you have all your documents, what's the problem? "Oh, no, they're gonna hassel me!!!" Big, big hassel, asking to see your I.D. Reminds me of going to the grocery store to buy beer, god I wish they'd quit hasselling me to make sure I'm of legal age to buy beer.... I can't stand being profiled because I look so young.

[bpwallace49]

BP is happy about this right?

 

 

 

"It's going to change our lives," said Emilio Almodovar, a 13-year-old American citizen from Phoenix. "We can't walk to school any more. We can't be in the streets anymore without the pigs thinking we're illegal immigrants."

 

You really want to go down this route? The people hollering "freedom! Free us from the tyrannical rule of gubmnet!" Now wants to empower cops to stop anyone for any reason to see their "papers"? This doesnt sound like the USSR to you?

 

You REALLY dont get it at all . . .. but I would expect nothing less from you driveby. I have been asking and supporting going after WHY they come to America in the first place . . . JOBS. Without jobs and employers that routinely cheat the system, then they WONT COME HERE. Your article does not state how severe the penalities are for hiring or transporting illegals, but I can guaran-damn-tee they are not high enough to stop people from hiring. the GOP simply wouldnt allow common sense to get in the way of business.

 

Driveby, how do you think the state of Arizona will pay for an increase in jailed immigrants considering they cannot deport them?

 

They took what could have been a solid idea and an example to other states and went in exactly the wrong direction with it. very typical of politicians . . .

 

has anyone here seen Food Inc? There is a GREAT section on how US companies recruit illegals IN MEXICO to be employed in the US . . pretty much without penalty.

[driveby]

You really want to go down this route? The people hollering "freedom! Free us from the tyrannical rule of gubmnet!" Now wants to empower cops to stop anyone for any reason to see their "papers"? This doesnt sound like the USSR to you?

 

You REALLY dont get it at all . . .. but I would expect nothing less from you driveby. I have been asking and supporting going after WHY they come to America in the first place . . . JOBS. Without jobs and employers that routinely cheat the system, then they WONT COME HERE. Your article does not state how severe the penalities are for hiring or transporting illegals, but I can guaran-damn-tee they are not high enough to stop people from hiring. the GOP simply wouldnt allow common sense to get in the way of business.

 

Driveby, how do you think the state of Arizona will pay for an increase in jailed immigrants considering they cannot deport them?

 

They took what could have been a solid idea and an example to other states and went in exactly the wrong direction with it. very typical of politicians . . .

 

has anyone here seen Food Inc? There is a GREAT section on how US companies recruit illegals IN MEXICO to be employed in the US . . pretty much without penalty.

So I think that's a no then?

 

It's a start though isn't it? Whatever penalty you want to pin to this law I'm in favor of.

 

Obama want's to rescind this law, you in favor of that?

[bpwallace49]

So I think that's a no then?

 

It's a start though isn't it? Whatever penalty you want to pin to this law I'm in favor of.

 

Obama want's to rescind this law, you in favor of that?

Driveby could you answer my question of what Arizona will do with (and fund) thousands of illegal immigrants overloading their jails considering the state of Arizona does not have the power to deport people? there are over 400K illegals estimated in Arizona. What is the plan to deal with them if they catch them?

 

What are the penalties for this? Is it just a financial shakedown of illegals? (which will generate revenue) or are these jailable offenses? Are the fines on businesses severe enough to discourage the hiring of illegals? Is the penalty for hiring/transporting illegals enough?

 

The dumbass "let me see your papers" is really the best that the "freedom lovin GOP" could do??? All this did is purposefully ignite feelings AGAINST this, and somewhat rightfully so. if the legislation was actually geared toward stopping the problem versus creating negative publicity, then it wouldnt give illegals (and their advocates) a leg to stand on.

 

heck, you could have extremists start making connections to how Jews had to wear stars of David on their clothes to differentiate themselves from the "true German" citizens. I am surprised acvocates havent done so already.

 

i dont think illegals should have almost guaranteed jobs here. That leads to free education, health care, etc. I dont think this bill actually tackles the cause of illegal immigration. I really wish it did. the feds havent been exactly proactive on this issue, and the states cant offend the mighty local businesses, so no comphrensive action will ever be taken.

[Perchoutofwater]

bp, the legislation is a start. Sadly it wouldn't be needed at all if the federal government would do what it is Constitutionally mandated to do, instead of wasting all our money on a bunch of social programs, FDR, LBJ, GWB, and BHO have dreamed up. You don't even know what the penalties for businesses are, yet you are sure they are not stiff enough. Aren't any penalties better than what Arizona had in place before? Arizona has basically done what you wanted, yet it isn't good enough. I laugh at the comparison between this law and laws under the USSR, (I actually had a liberal friend on face book compare it to Nazi Germany). Like someone already says, we already profile anyone who may be under age trying to buy booze or tobacco. I don't see this as any different.

 

Your stance on this is all over the place. "stop complaining about the federal government not doing anything, since states aren't doing anything". "The state of Arizona is going to far, though I think the fines on the businesses are too low, though I admittedly don't know what they are.".

 

Again all of this is a result of a failure of the federal government to one of the few things it is actually supposed to do.

 

ETA: I don't think you were here, but there were a number of libs on this board along with some conservatives that were very upset with GWB over contracting out port security over to some middle east country (I think it was Dubai), claiming it was a breach of national security and it would make it easier for terrorist to ship contraband into the US. Well our borders are much more vulnerable. If you are a terrorist and you actually had a nuke (which would be the most valuable weapon your cause has ever had) are you going to let it out of your sight? Are you going to ship it, or are you going to personally transport it, so you can keep an eye on it?

Edited April 27, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[driveby]

Driveby could you answer my question of what Arizona will do with (and fund) thousands of illegal immigrants overloading their jails considering the state of Arizona does not have the power to deport people? there are over 400K illegals estimated in Arizona. What is the plan to deal with them if they catch them?

 

What are the penalties for this? Is it just a financial shakedown of illegals? (which will generate revenue) or are these jailable offenses? Are the fines on businesses severe enough to discourage the hiring of illegals? Is the penalty for hiring/transporting illegals enough?

 

The dumbass "let me see your papers" is really the best that the "freedom lovin GOP" could do??? All this did is purposefully ignite feelings AGAINST this, and somewhat rightfully so. if the legislation was actually geared toward stopping the problem versus creating negative publicity, then it wouldnt give illegals (and their advocates) a leg to stand on.

 

heck, you could have extremists start making connections to how Jews had to wear stars of David on their clothes to differentiate themselves from the "true German" citizens. I am surprised acvocates havent done so already.

 

i dont think illegals should have almost guaranteed jobs here. That leads to free education, health care, etc. I dont think this bill actually tackles the cause of illegal immigration. I really wish it did. the feds havent been exactly proactive on this issue, and the states cant offend the mighty local businesses, so no comphrensive action will ever be taken.

I don't know what they are going to do with them and frankly don't care. Like perch said this is a step in the right direction. I'm sure Ariizona will work out the details when this actually becomes law.

 

Nice of you to trot out the Nazi reference btw. You guys must have all gotten the same fax.

 

Cardinal Roger Mahony wrote in a blog post, “I can’t imagine Arizonans now reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques.” The president of the Hispanic Federation said the law “reminded me of Nazi Germany.” Cooler heads merely compared it to apartheid or 1960s-era civil-rights abuses.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

Like someone already says, we already profile anyone who may be under age trying to buy booze or tobacco. I don't see this as any different.

 

Really? You don't see the difference? Please explain to me the racial profiling that occurs during the purchase of alcohol or tobacco (without the Colt 45 jokes, though I don't think it's your style).

 

Because that is what the opponents of the Arizona law are talking about, racial profiling.

[Perchoutofwater]

Really? You don't see the difference? Please explain to me the racial profiling that occurs during the purchase of alcohol or tobacco (without the Colt 45 jokes, though I don't think it's your style).

 

Because that is what the opponents of the Arizona law are talking about, racial profiling.

 

I may be wrong, but I think the same federal statute that protects against racism protects against ageism. So I don't see carding a minor or someone you think might be a minor any different than carding (or otherwise verifying citizenship) of someone who appears as though they might be illegal. Frankly I think that rather than profile at all, you make it to where you have to have proof of citizenship to get a drivers license, and if you get stopped with out a license you got to jail, and then your citizenship is determined.. Make it to where you have to have a license to purchase a home, rent, etc...Then you don't have any profiling at all.

[bpwallace49]

Perch . . . ahve you READ the new law? cause I have.

 

Illegal immigrants can get fines between 1000 and 5000 bucks a day. people that "impede the flow of traffic" to pick up immigrants can get fines as well.

 

Businesses get PROBATION for knowingly or unknowlingly employing illegal immigrants, and a suspension of licenses specific to the job site that had an illegal working until the business fires the illegal immigrant and files an affidavit that they were fired. Oooooh!! Way to be tough on the CAUSE of why the illegal immigrants are here! Way to be tough Arizona!! there are also lengthy sections protecting businesses against "entrapment" and listing the rights available to businesses that hire illegals. Gotta protect those businesses! So basically all you have to do is say "I am sorry, I have fired those illegals and wont do it again" and you get a free pass. However, if you meet a 2 page list AND the sheriff decides to pursue the action, you can also get a fine after an official complaint form is files, it is investigated by the attorney general, and all extenuating circumstances are considered, including "good faith" by the business and "the degree of harm from the violation".

 

Some good parts are requiring all employers to verify legal status by using the federal everify program and keep records for at least 3 years if they want economic grants or business from the state and federal gubmnet businesses in Arizona. This excepts taxes, and specifically referrs to grants or subsidies.

 

They also threw in some crap in this bill saying that the state of Arizona can impound any vehicle if your license is suspended or revoked and you are driving (not sure how this applies to immigration). So basically you can now be pulled over even if you are obeying every traffic law so cops can "verify" your immigration status, and seize your vehicle if your license is suspended. I could be wronmg, but doesnt this blur the definition of "search and seizure"??

 

All these fines on desitute illegal immigrants funds the "gang and Immigration Intellegence fund" which . . . cracks down on illegal immigrants. Self-fulfilling prophecy. Its funding is dependent on continually finding and fining illegals.

 

If illegals are caught, they are turned over to ICE, after paying their fines of course . . . Isnt this done NOW? So states dont turn illegals over to federal agents when they are caught or in the commission of a crime??

 

This could have been much, much better if it attacked the cause of why they are here in a more systematic way. I do not like forfeiting more civil liberties to the police than have already been done, and I am surprised that West Virginia hasnt weighed in here yet. It is a step in the right direction, but poorly done. If I was New Mexico/Texas/California, I would take this as a template on how to draft a law that will actually address the cause of them coming here (JOBS) in a more concrete fashion.

 

Perch . . . you dont think that empowering the cops to stop anyone, anytime, and require them to show "immigration papers" isnt the antithesis of America? You REALLY dont have a problem with empowering the cops with limitless power to investigate anyone?

[bpwallace49]

I don't know what they are going to do with them and frankly don't care. Like perch said this is a step in the right direction. I'm sure Ariizona will work out the details when this actually becomes law.

 

Ignorance is bliss is your defense driveby? I am really not surprised.

 

Perch the threshold to get a drivers license /state ID is a great idea, and SHOULD have been included. Eliminates profiling in most cases.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

I may be wrong, but I think the same federal statute that protects against racism protects against ageism. So I don't see carding a minor or someone you think might be a minor any different than carding (or otherwise verifying citizenship) of someone who appears as though they might be illegal. Frankly I think that rather than profile at all, you make it to where you have to have proof of citizenship to get a drivers license, and if you get stopped with out a license you got to jail, and then your citizenship is determined.. Make it to where you have to have a license to purchase a home, rent, etc...Then you don't have any profiling at all.

 

Your reply points out the very problem with the Arizona law. Each of your statements points out an example of people voluntarily going to buy something or receive a service, license, or what have you. If you don’t have the legally required documentation to purchase the goods or service then you don’t get it.

 

The Arizona law is completely different. Under the law individuals can be approached by the police based merely on their appearance and hauled off to jail if they cannot provide the proper documentation. No probable cause unless you consider someone’s appearance probable cause.

 

BTW, here is SC you do have to prove citizenship or legal resident status to obtain a driver’s license. That being the case, a driver’s license should be considered enough proof that someone is here legally. I hope it stays that way.