Midwest Town Mandates Immigration Check for Renters

rockin'robin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
24,433
Reaction score
544
Far from Any U.S. Border, Fremont, Nebraska, Could Set National Precedent on Immigration

The small town of Fremont, Neb. -- barely 7 miles wide and with a population of 25,000 -- has rarely garnered national attention. But today this Midwestern community sent ripples through the country as voters overwhelmingly voted for a controversial ordinance designed to ferret out illegal immigrants.

The ordinance aims to zero in on illegal aliens in the workplace and at their temporary homes. Under the ordinance, renters would have to apply for a license, which includes a police check of the applicant's legal status. Undocumented aliens would be turned over to the federal government.

Additionally, businesses would be required to check the legal status of their workers through the federal E-verify database and would face penalties for hiring undocumented citizens.

Unofficial results from the Dodge County Clerk's Office showed voters approving the measure 57 percent to 43 percent. With approximately 45 percent voter turnout, 3,906 ballots were cast in favor of the ordinance and 2,908 against it.

With approximately 45 percent voter turnout, 3,906 ballots were cast in favor of the ordinance and 2,908 against it.

The move in Nebraska comes at a time when Washington lawmakers are embroiled in a heated debate over how to proceed with immigration reform . Tensions are high after Arizona enacted a much publicized law that allows police to question people about their immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion."

What's different about the Nebraska ordinance is that it covers a town that is nowhere near a U.S. border and which has only a small immigrant population, mostly Hispanic. According to the U.S. Census bureau, 93 percent of Fremont's population is white and just 7 percent is Hispanic, although that number has grown steadily in the last decade as the city's white population has shrunk.

Many of the immigrants work at the meatpacking plants, the major employers in the area. But few of these meatpacking plants are actually located within the Fremont city limits and may not be subject to the new rules.

Supporters of the ordinance charged that a growing number of illegal immigrants are taking away jobs from locals and costing the city money.

Opponents said Hispanics are being unfairly targeted in a city that doesn't even have an issue with illegal immigrants, and that because many of the meatpacking plants are located outside of Fremont, the new rules won't even impact them.

At about 5 percent, Fremont's unemployment rate is lower than the national rate of about 9.7 percent and at par with the state average.

"What's driving all of this is just fear of the unknown. I think that people are not aware of the complexity of the entire immigration system," said Krista Kjeldgaard, a former teacher and now a volunteer at Fremont One Future, which opposes the ordinance. "I think that's been watered down to be a very simple issue of illegal and legal and it's not that simple. It's far more complex than that."

Supporters argue that there is a need to enforce immigration laws, and if that has to be done at the city level, so be it.

"In principle, a community that has a relatively modest immigration problem is precisely the place where this kind of measure is necessary to make sure it doesn't get to the levels that other communities are facing," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies. "What this really shows is that the public wants some order in the immigration system."

Nebraska may not be a border state but immigration has become an increasingly contentious topic. State Sen. Charlie Janssen of Fremont has said he may introduce a bill in the Nebraska legislature that is similar to the Arizona law.

Nebraska Braces for Costly Fight Over Immigration Ordinance

The city of Fremont is bracing for a costly fight to defend the ordinance. Similar measures passed in Farmers Branch, Texas and Hazleton, Pennsylvania, have been bogged down in costly legal battles for years.

"We don't have any choice. If we are required to fund these efforts to defend the ordinance, we'll do so and try to do so as economically as we can," Dean Skokan, the city's attorney, told ABC News. "It will be a significant budget impact."

The city said it must also factor in costs for police overtime before, during and after the election amid threats of clashes between opposing groups. Based on costs in the other two towns, the city of Fremont estimates paying $3 million, or about $1 million per year, which the city will fund through a combination of tax increases and city job cuts.

The Fremont City Council rejected the immigration proposal in 2008 but the State Supreme Court gave the green light for a vote by the citizens themselves, and supporters raised more than enough signatures to bring the ordinance to the ballot in a special election.

Groups from around the country, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (Maldef) said before the ordinance passed that they were considering legal challenges if it did.

As in the case of Arizona, opponents in Nebraska argue that such laws set by the city or state violate the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, and also violate an individual's due process rights.

The Fremont ordinance sets a "dangerous precedent," said Laurel S. Marsh, executive director of ACLU Nebraska, with the license required by a renter for every move becoming a "handy tracking mechanism."

Attorney Kris Kobach, who helped draft the Fremont ordinance and has helped write and defend similar measures around the country as well as the Arizona state law, is confident the ordinance will withstand legal challenges. He cited the example of Valley Park, Mo., where a similar ruling was upheld by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which also covers Fremont.

Kobach said lack of enforcement on the federal level is driving the trend toward states and cities taking immigration matters into their own hands.

"When the federal government is not adequately enforcing the immigration laws, the cost of non-enforcement usually -- predominantly falls at the city and state level," Kobach told ABC News, citing a 2007 study by the conservative Heritage Foundation, which calculated that the fiscal deficit of illegal immigrants totaled $89.1 billion. "It's that cost that drives the cities and states to act. They bear the ultimate burden for the failure to enforce our immigration laws."

Even though a state like Nebraska is not on the U.S. border, said Kobach, it is being burdened by the impact of illegal immigrants who are often smuggled in to work in meatpacking plants.

"Every state is a border state now, to some degree," he said. "You have different states experiencing illegal immigration in a different way."

Immigration Debate Heats Up in Fremont, Nebraska - ABC News
 
you've already made a similar thread to this.. just saying :)

Yea...(and welcome back!)...the other post was similiar, but had not passed the vote....(should I have "updated" the original thread?)....

Anyhow, I said "good for Fremont." Expect to see more cities/state passing the same measure....
 
Yea...(and welcome back!)...the other post was similiar, but had not passed the vote....(should I have "updated" the original thread?)....

Anyhow, I said "good for Fremont." Expect to see more cities/state passing the same measure....

Yea... I used to live near Fremont. Very similar town as Greeley Colorado. Greeley is well known for their meat processing plants and the people who works there. Will be interesting to see how this impacts other towns.

Thanks for the welcome. :)
 
More interesting article.

(CNN) -- Voters in Fremont, Nebraska passed a much-debated measure Monday that would prohibit businesses and landlords from hiring or renting to people who are in the United States illegally.

Election workers told CNN affiliate KETV in Omaha that the unofficial results were 3,906 in favor to 2,908 against the measure; Workers said the turnout was 45.7 percent of registered voters. The results have not been certified.

Ordinance 5165 had divided the community and put the city, just outside Omaha, into national headlines.

A local organization decried the ordinance on its website.

"It is with great disappointment and sadness that tonight we acknowledge a majority of Fremont voters approving this misguided ordinance," the group called One Fremont-One Future said. "In reality, the passage of this ordinance shows that we have much work to do in our community to educate, break down barriers, and build relationships."

Fremont officials told KETV that they have plans in place that involve cuts in city services and tax increases to pay for legal fees associated with the passing of the ordinance.

The American Civil Liberties Union has indicated that it will file a lawsuit -- pending approval by its board.

While the ordinance passed, precedent shows that it will likely be struck down and face years of legal battles. Read more about the vote at CNN affiliate KETV

Similar measures were passed in Hazelton, Pennsylvania, and Farmers Branch, Texas, but they were later struck down by the courts.

In Hazelton, voters in 2006 approved a measure to enact practically the same law that Fremont is looking to take up. But in July 2007, a federal judge found that immigration laws should be left solely to the federal government.

In May of 2008, a federal judge ruled the Farmers Branch measure, which would bar landlords from renting to illegal immigrants, was unconstitutional.


"Those ordinances did not withstand legal scrutiny. They both failed in the courts when they were challenged," said Laurel Marsh, executive director of Nebraska's ACLU.

The reason according to Marsh: Both laws violated the Supremacy Clause and the 14th Amendment. Under the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, state courts may not supersede federal law.

In addition, she said, it's the federal government's responsibility to set immigration policy and "we are not well-served when communities or states try to set policy on their own."

Gregory Minchak of the National League of Cities said that it's the lack of federal immigration policy that is causing these states to take matters into their own hands.

"Because of the absence of the feds doing anything, there's a lot of financial, cultural, political strains that are occurring [in cities and states]," he said. "They are just starting to act on their own."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/22/fremont.immigration.ballot/index.html

In bold, I wouldn't surprise if this new law gets struck down by court.
 
Here is what I dont understand. Here in Houston, any time anyone goes to rent and sign a lease on a place the agent always does a background check. You have to give your ID and pay a processing fee ($15-$35) and wait three to four days for the result. Then if you have a cirminal background or somehow lied on your application, you strike out. The rent place is covered from a lawsuit because it has proof of your deception (plus they keep your $$$). Now if you dont have an ID, too bad. If you have a fake ID, you will be caught in a lie. Result....nothing for you to rent!!! Go elsewhere (perhaps HOME!!!).
 
Here is what I dont understand. Here in Houston, any time anyone goes to rent and sign a lease on a place the agent always does a background check. You have to give your ID and pay a processing fee ($15-$35) and wait three to four days for the result. Then if you have a cirminal background or somehow lied on your application, you strike out. The rent place is covered from a lawsuit because it has proof of your deception (plus they keep your $$$). Now if you dont have an ID, too bad. If you have a fake ID, you will be caught in a lie. Result....nothing for you to rent!!! Go elsewhere (perhaps HOME!!!).

Most places do that but there are exceptions. Personally I would check just to make sure I didn't have complete losers living on my property.
 
Yes, I do like the criminal/felony background checks....but here's what a lot of illegals do...someone that has no record, will rent a house....then allow 10-15 illegals to live there with them....this happened in a neighborhood where I lived before.....I've seen it first-hand....where the real big work van pulled up at that house, around 15 of them got out and went into the house. They only came out at night, standing in the yard.
I moved!
 
Here is what I dont understand. Here in Houston, any time anyone goes to rent and sign a lease on a place the agent always does a background check. You have to give your ID and pay a processing fee ($15-$35) and wait three to four days for the result. Then if you have a cirminal background or somehow lied on your application, you strike out. The rent place is covered from a lawsuit because it has proof of your deception (plus they keep your $$$). Now if you dont have an ID, too bad. If you have a fake ID, you will be caught in a lie. Result....nothing for you to rent!!! Go elsewhere (perhaps HOME!!!).

It is the same here, for every place I have rented (despite I feel that one of them took the cash, but never really checked). I think the difference here is can/should to “Must or loss of business license”.

Personally I feel this should be mandatory for more than just immigration law reasons, but to find people hiding from warrants and other bigger issues.
I think they should mandated to use some way to make the records of the renting and hiring places available for crosschecking with the city/state to allow for double checking, but at the same time making it simple for checking.

I don’t feel like these laws are trying to compete with federal law, they are refining a broader mandate that is already established. As long as it is not trying to write in something that is in direct opposition of what is in the federal law, but is more “filling in the holes” I think they should be fine..
…. But I am no lawyer..
 
Yes, I do like the criminal/felony background checks....but here's what a lot of illegals do...someone that has no record, will rent a house....then allow 10-15 illegals to live there with them....this happened in a neighborhood where I lived before.....I've seen it first-hand....where the real big work van pulled up at that house, around 15 of them got out and went into the house. They only came out at night, standing in the yard.
I moved!

And this is where it comes down to the the police enforcing it. If say a complaint is made to management of 15 people living above you, then a call to the police, the police check with management for a record of action. If the record of action is filed, the renter gets a black mark on whatever system that renters are getting checked on for renter’s history. (with options of dispute ect.. ). This will stop those that rent one place tell they get kicked out, then move on to another. Enforcement on the renter places would be fear of renting to said renters.. in fear that THEY would lose their license.
If none is marked, then it becomes the job of management to remedy the problem. Meanwhile the police report is logged. If say a renting management place gets more the a set amount of these reports in a set time, or a larger number total, then the renting management would lose their business license ect.
Not sure if that makes any sense, but you get the idea… Form a way to punish the renting places for “repeat offences” and blacklist the above “legal renter” that KNOWS he is dishonest when renting these places, that is what renter’s history is for, to protect renting places from bad renters.
 
Yes, I do like the criminal/felony background checks....but here's what a lot of illegals do...someone that has no record, will rent a house....then allow 10-15 illegals to live there with them....this happened in a neighborhood where I lived before.....I've seen it first-hand....where the real big work van pulled up at that house, around 15 of them got out and went into the house. They only came out at night, standing in the yard.
I moved!

BTW, it happened to me too, right above me. We called the police, and the land lord more than a few times.. and despite this, nothing happened until we moved out due to one of the residents above was a firebug and almost burnt the building down.. Twice. After we found out that he STILL lived there (by the second report/fireman running down our stairwell to that same unit), we and a few others moved in fear of loss of life.
 
Back
Top