Texas Voters in Dallas pass anti-ILLEGAL Immigrant rule

Doug.38PR

Moderator
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/13/national/main2795459.shtml
Note my title of the thread and the CBS (liberal) title to the article. Big difference. Small wonder what political agenda CBS has.:D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Texas Voters Pass Anti-Immigrant Rule

FARMERS BRANCH, Tex., May 13, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CBS/AP) Voters in a Dallas suburb became the first in the nation Saturday to prohibit landlords from renting to most illegal immigrants.

The ban was approved by a vote of 67 percent (4,058) to 32 percent (1,941).

The balloting marked the first public vote on a local government measure to crack down on illegal immigration.

"It says especially to Congress that we're tired of the out-of-control illegal immigration problem, that if Congress doesn't do something about it, cities will," said Tim O'Hare, a City Council member who was the ordinance's lead proponent.

The ordinance requires apartment managers to verify that renters are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants before leasing to them, with some exceptions.

Property managers or owners who break the rule face a misdemeanor charge punishable by a fine of up to $500.

Council members approved the ordinance in November, then revised it in January to include exemptions for minors, seniors and some families with a mix of legal residents and illegal immigrants.

Turnout was heavy.

Ofelia Rodriguez, a lifelong resident of Framers Branch and a U.S. citizen, has never voted in an election until now. Hers was a vote against 2903.

"Hey, my one vote might just make a difference this time," Rodriguez told CBS Station KTVT correspondent Stephanie Lucero at one polling place. "So hopefully I'm making a difference today to try and get my city back."

Proponents of the ordinance believed that it would address some of the city's problems.

"We received lots of complaints about overcrowding and lots of cars in front of houses that only have 900 square feet and multiple families in apartments," Ben Robinson told KTVT. "And so I hope this will help. It's something that our citizens have wanted."

Farmers Branch has become the site of protests and angry confrontations, and opponents of the regulation gathered enough signatures to force the city to put the measure on the municipal election ballot.

The city was already facing four lawsuits brought by civil rights groups, residents, property owners and businesses who contend the ordinance discriminates and that it places landlords in the precarious position of acting as federal immigration officers. Their attorneys say the ordinance attempts to regulate immigration, a duty that is exclusively the federal government's. One lawsuit also alleges the council violated the state open meetings act when deciding on the ordinance.

O'Hare contends the city's economy and quality of life will improve if illegal immigrants are kept out.

Around the country, more than 90 local governments have proposed, passed or rejected laws prohibiting landlords from leasing to illegal immigrants, penalizing businesses that employ them or training police to enforce immigration laws.

Both sides say if Congress had already passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill by now, then this debate wouldn't be taking place right now in Framers Branch.

"This is going to be a black stain on the city of Farmers Branch," one opponent to 2903 told KTVT. "This is going to be in the same column as sitting in the back of the bus."

The law will become effective in 10 days (May 22), but opponents say they will challenge it in federal court and are confident it will not become law.

"I think it's interesting when they call themselves 'Let the voters decide' and they get a petition signed to let the voters decide,
and now that it appears that the voters have decided, that's not good enough," O'Hare told KTVT.

Local proposals aimed at regulating illegal immigration often fail to pass constitutional muster, said Muzaffar Chishti, director of the Migration Policy Institute office at New York University School of Law.

"There is significant frustration, so that's what's driving it," Chishti said. "But the simple fact is they cannot do too much other than impress upon the Congress the need for immigration reform."


© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feedback Terms of Service Privacy Statement
 
It's bad law. Why? Because it forces average citizens to become enforcers of United States immigration laws/Border Control agents. That is the job of the fedgov..and perhaps the governments of the States. That burden should never be placed on an individual citizen without their consent.

To make my position a little more clear: I believe all illegal aliens should be rounded up and shipped back to their country of origin. But it is not the responsibility of CIVILIANS to enforce the laws of this nation.
 
We've been relying on the govt. for years now? Its pretty obvious that all it intends to take our taxes and go on nice vacations on our dime. I say its about time that the people started taking some anti imigration measures.
 
Are you not grasping the concept of responsibility? It's NOT the average citizens RESPONSIBILITY to enforce the nation's laws. If he wishes to take on the responsibility..that's one thing. There are ways he can be empowered to do so. But nobody..I mean NOBODY..has the right to FORCE others to take on that responsibility..and that is exactly what this new law does.

Responsibility has to be freely assumed..it CANNOT by it's very nature be imposed.
 
I hope you mean anti-illegal immigration measures there, RedneckFur...

Of course i mean illegal immigration. Legal immigrants arent criminals.


Responsibility has to be freely assumed..it CANNOT by it's very nature be imposed

They werent forced to assume this responsiblility. They obviously CHOSE to do it. I dont see what the issue is.
 
Rule won't stand...Uncle Sam will step on it like the cockroach that rule is...yes...when states or local governments can't do the right thing by their people, they deserve to be tromped on by Tio Sam.
 
I am sure that all owners of rental property did not vote in favor of this law. Therefore..those that did are attempting to force that responsibility on those that did not.
 
Pratically every law forces someone to do something they dont like, or at least something they dont agree with. You may like to drive fast, but if your neighborhood decides it wants a 15 mph speed limit, then tough cookie. You have a 15mph speed limit. And to me, this issue is no more important than a 15mph speed limit.

If they are here illegally, then they are criminals. I dont want 'wanted' criminals living next to me either.
 
Rule won't stand...Uncle Sam will step on it like the cockroach that rule is...yes...when states or local governments can't do the right thing by their people, they deserve to be tromped on by Tio Sam.


How's that? They have provided for the legal residents of their town, the federal govt has provided a system to check the legal status of an individual. They are simply requiring landlords to use a system that was put in place by the federal govt. They have done right by "their people". And before you start the you're all racist game check out the last name of this person who was interviewed and voted for the law. I'm pretty sure he's not Irish.


"Hey, my one vote might just make a difference this time," Rodriguez told CBS Station KTVT correspondent Stephanie Lucero at one polling place. "So hopefully I'm making a difference today to try and get my city back."
 
RedneckFur

I don't disagree with your last statement..but unlike other laws..this attempts to make private citizens responsible for something that is NOT their responsibility. That is the distinction. Period.
 
I don't disagree with your last statement..but unlike other laws..this attempts to make private citizens responsible for something that is NOT their responsibility. That is the distinction. Period.


I take it you're also in favor of not holding employers responsible for obeying the law against hiring illegal aliens?
 
I hadn't considered it Don..but I appreciate that you ask as it gives me something to think about.

No..I don't support such laws. I don't support any laws that attempt to restrict what a person can do with their own property..be that real estate or a business.

I don't believe that any person or government has any right to tell another person what they can do with THEIR OWN PROPERTY.
 
Hey Danzig, the idea of leasing or renting to illegals is you're aiding and abetting. They're not telling you what you can do, only that you're breaking the law by doing it.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde
 
I hadn't considered it Don..but I appreciate that you ask as it gives me something to think about.

No..I don't support such laws. I don't support any laws that attempt to restrict what a person can do with their own property..be that real estate or a business.

I don't believe that any person or government has any right to tell another person what they can do with THEIR OWN PROPERTY.


No problem, I was just curious because I don't view it as asking these people to enforce immigration laws. I see it as asking them to obey immigration laws. I'm not big on forcing people to do something with their private property, but I also believe we have to balance that with the common good.
For example, I detest home owner's associations, however I believe to a certain degree they are good because some people just don't have the common sense to mow their grass. Will I ever live in a HOA area. No, but I also take my chances of getting "that guy" living next door to me and hoping the city/county will enforce their rules.
 
Lets say i live next to the muncipal water supply.. and I decide i want to dispose of large ammounts of pesticides on my property. Would you agree with that? The potential poiosoning of a town? After all, it IS my property.

I'm in favor of relaxed laws, when it comes to propterty ownership. But there comes a point when some laws are needed. Why not drive your car while stone drunk? It is your property isnt it?
 
My solution to the problem of illegal immigration (and I think it's the only sane and reasonable solution):

Eliminate welfare. Those that come for a handout will no longer have that incentive. Only those who have a desire to work need come to my country. And if there are no handouts I believe that our attractiveness to illegal aliens will be lessened dramatically.

I am not against immigration at all. I think anybody who wants to come to this country to better themselves and our country should be welcome. But there are legal methods to enter our country..use them or get the hell out.

But that responsibility cannot be laid upon those who do not wish it. And the law must not be taken into one's own hands except in defense of life, liberty, or property.
 
Good law.

Want to solve the immigration problem?

Make it a felony to knowingly employ an illegal alien. Make it a felony to knowing perform banking services for an illegal alien (make it broad enough to include Western Union).

Bust some high profile employers and banks. Watch illegal imiigration dry up.

WildandclosethebordersAlaska
 
Don, I agree with many of your sentiments..but they should never be used as a reason to infringe upon freedom.

Don and RedneckFur, That is so what the free market and court systems are for!!! If someone dumps toxic waste on his property and it affects me..I will take him to court and sue..and I will win. Unless it's a blatant case where my life or that of my family is at stake..then "none of these rules are intended to deny you your basic right of self defense" as we say in the Army. I think that if a person realizes that if he dumps toxic waste he will lose everything he has..then he will be less apt to do it. No law necessary. But then, laws often do not stop people from doing things just like that now do they? If the judicial system can be made to work properly...and that guy is GUARANTEED to lose everything..then I believe he won't do it. Unlike in today's system..where he can "buy" his way out of the consequences of his actions

Don, I hate HOAs..but at least they are a voluntary contract in so much as if you don't like the rules or just plain don't want to belong to an HOA..pick somewhere else to live. (unless of course the HOA is created AFTER you move in..then you are screwed!)
 
Back
Top