Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: AZRedhawk44 on June 18, 2010, 01:52:38 AM
-
http://www.kptm.com/Global/story.asp?S=12656106
FREMONT, Neb. (KPTM)- Close to 150 people rallied against a proposed illegal immigration ordinance in Fremont Tuesday night.
The vote, scheduled for a special election Monday, has already drawn a heavy, early voting turnout, according to Dodge County election officials.
Valeria Marquez, 17, says the ordinance is racist.
"We don't want division, especially towards Mexican and Hispanics where there has been a lot more racism," she told FOX 42.
Others voiced concern the ordinance will end up costing the city countless dollars in court fees.
"More and more people are realizing this law is unconstitutional. We'd spend years in court trying to request the permission to enforce this law," says Kristin Anderson Ostrom, one of the organizers of the group "One Fremont One Future."
Language in the ordinance would require renters in Fremont to obtain an occupancy license from the city. During that process, an applicant's immigration status would be checked. It would also require employers in Fremont to double–check their employees through the federal, E–Verify database.
Although people at Barnard Park were vehemently opposed to the proposal, elsewhere in town it's a far different story.
Andy Schnatz, one of the original supporters of the petition–driven ordinance, says it is long overdue.
"If the government doesn't want to do anything, it's up to the state, and if they don't, it's up to the city," says Schnatz.
Two years ago, the Fremont City Council voted down a similar ordinance. The vote was close, and a number of people who spoke to FOX 42 off–camera say it should've passed.
Schnatz says the motive behind the current proposal has nothing to do with racism, but is instead focused on making sure immigrants are legal.
"How is that being racist?" he asks.
Sigh.
The town WANTS to do SOMETHING, and they are impotent to do anything where the problem is (the US/Mexico border).
So, they come up with this boondoggle.
I applaud the intent (get rid of illegals), but I loathe the "papers please" mentality behind it.
I also loathe the discrimination between renters and property owners. Sounds like a home owner needs not worry about this, but all renters must cope with it.
-
I'm with you. While I appreciate the attempt by the town to crack down on illegal immigration, I hate the idea of letting more government into private contracts. I believe that if I have living space I want to rent out, I should be able to renting it out, or not rent it out, to whomever I choose, whenever I choose and to have the terms be decided entirely between me and the prospective renters.
I give them an A for effort, but when is the last time adding another level of government licensing and permits has actually solved a problem?
-
Oooh! I've see this before! In the USSR it was called "propiska".
The town WANTS to do SOMETHING,
You know, I really wish this idea that something is better than nothing would die a horrible death. Almost every time the "something" is at best ineffective and at worst just evil.
-
Renters are checked now for their credentials. Why should legal residency status not be one more criterion?
Trespass and squatting is not racism.
No one wants more government interference, but there are some areas--sovereignty is one--where government must have a role.
The illegal aliens created this problem, but, unfortunately, they've had a ton of complicity in good Americans who don't care how they make a buck any more.
-
Where does the "racism" part of the immigration argument come from?
We are talking mostly about immigration from Central and South America, are we not? Aren't most of the people from this area of the descendants of south western Europeans mixed in with the aborigines from central and south America? Would one call people from the Iberian peninsula, Caucasians?
So if the above is true, then Hispanics are half "white Europeans"? I ask again where is the racism? Are Portuguese also Hispanic? They share the Iberian peninsula and South America (Brazil) with the Spanish? Really, I am trying to understand topic. It isn't just the illegal immigration from south of our border. There must be illegals from other continents? Just not as many?
My problem with all immigration is that I feel that the population of our part of North America has enough people already (300,000,000+) If this country has so many positive aspects that makes it so attractive to all the other people in the world then let the "market" determine who can afford to live here.
But this is just my opinion.
-
Renters are checked now for their credentials. Why should legal residency status not be one more criterion?
Ah, but in this case we are not talking about a check. Checks for credentials/credit are done by landlords, private entities. This here is a permit, issued by a government entity. A completely different animal.
No one wants more government interference, but there are some areas--sovereignty is one--where government must have a role.
Right. This role does not necessarily have to be one of an arbiter of who may or may not rent a place to live. As a matter of fact, the government already has a role in this area, one it is filling extremely poorly. You know, that whole "guarding the border" thing.
-
Where does the "racism" part of the immigration argument come from?
There isn't any racism. Calling anything that comes from conservatives racist is just a standard play by the Left to get average people to dislike whatever conservatives are doing without really digging any deeper than MSNBC soundbytes. They know probably less than 1% of average people are actually going to read the law or really try to find out what it's about, so if they can just shout that it's racist loud enough over and over, they know a fair amount of citizens will just believe it.
It goes beyond racism. Attacking any factual argument from the Right with emotional "hate" insults is the workhorse of the Democrat party. Do the math and realize the health care bill will cost more than the Dems say? You just "hate poor people". Think welfare is creating too much entitlement and destroying work ethic? You just "hate minorities". Think we need to spend a lot more time analyzing the climate before spending billions of dollars on unproven "green" designs and giving up liberty? Well that's just because you "hate the environment".
The Left cannot win any argument of pure fact. When actual statistics, historical events, or the physical language of a law are brought to light, the Left's argument withers away. So they try to smokescreen this and hope to keep average Americans from realizing their arguments are factually impossible by stirring up emotions, playing peoples fears and prejudices against each other, and attempting to discredit anyone speaking physical truth by saying that he "hates ______".
-
These laws (this one, Arizona's) wouldn't be necessary if cops would just stop and detain gray-haired grandmothers the way the TSA does.
-
"Racism" argument is hauled out when a position can not be defended. A simple solution would be to make a landlord's due diligence include an everify check of immigration status, assuming fed.gov wanted to participate. Here is another case of the federales and the citizenry (aka subject) going in opposite directions. I chalk up the current proposal's structure to shear frustration by the citizenry. A frustrated citizenry will not remain frustrated indefinitely.
-
A simple solution would be to make a landlord's due diligence include an everify check of immigration status, assuming fed.gov wanted to participate.
Ehhh... You want to obligate private citizens to do the job they already pay FedGov to do?
-
A simple solution would be to make a landlord's due diligence include an everify check of immigration status, assuming fed.gov wanted to participate.
If you replace "make" with "allow," then fine. If you don't want to rent to illegals, there should be a way for you to easily check their immigration status, as long as you have their permission to run the check and are paying the government for processing it for you. If you don't want to live next door to illegals, you should be able to hunt out landlords that e-verify everyone.
I just hate having to obtain government permission for anything, especially for something so basic as renting a home. Where does it stop, really? If you think about it, assuming this passes, some of the illegals affected are going to end up in long term motels, the places where you pay by the week. So what's the city council going to do next year, require hotel permits? Ban long-term stays?
I mean, heck, if you're making sure illegals don't have anywhere to sleep in your town, why not require eating permits? Make every restaurant and grocery store swipe your card before you can buy some hot pockets or a burger.
It's ridiculous to inconvenience so many American citizens in order to push out what can't be more than a few hundred illegals.
-
Where does it stop, really? If you think about it, assuming this passes, some of the illegals affected are going to end up in long term motels, the places where you pay by the week. So what's the city council going to do next year, require hotel permits? Ban long-term stays?
You can be dollars to donuts the local policritters did this at the behest of their citizens. Having seen what high-density lllegal alien habitation up close & personal, the ordinance in question is one of the better, less-invasive ways to address the problem.
Of course, the problem ought to have been addressed at the border or workplace, but people looking at illegal alien bunkhouses in their neighborhoods need some relief, and the unit of gov't closest to them and with the best familiarity with the issue usually is the only one willing to act.
-
You can be dollars to donuts the local policritters did this at the behest of their citizens.
So?
-
You can be dollars to donuts the local policritters did this at the behest of their citizens.
And that is the seriously scary part. It won't be terrorists, illegals, or anybody else that will kill this country. It will be the people that think this is in any way acceptable.
Having seen what high-density lllegal alien habitation up close & personal, the ordinance in question is one of the better, less-invasive ways to address the problem.
A full body cavity search is less invasive than exploratory surgery. I wouldn't want to submit to either.
Of course, the problem ought to have been addressed at the border or workplace, but people looking at illegal alien bunkhouses in their neighborhoods need some relief, and the unit of gov't closest to them and with the best familiarity with the issue usually is the only one willing to act.
If there are actual problems then there are actual laws to take care of it. Bunkhouses are illegal already. Crime is against the law. Do I need to spell out the obvious parallel with gun laws here?
-
Many of you are missing the point. It's all well and good that the problem should first be mitigated at the border, but what do you do about the millions of illegals already in the country, already trying to rent places to stay? How do you stop that process?
Requiring an e-verify check by landlords seems like a simple, non-invasive solution.
-
Many of you are missing the point. It's all well and good that the problem should first be mitigated at the border, but what do you do about the millions of illegals already in the country, already trying to rent places to stay? How do you stop that process?
Requiring an e-verify check by landlords seems like a simple, non-invasive solution.
And many of you have a rather creative definition of "non-invasive". Would you consider a requirement to run every private sale of a gun through NICS non-invasive? How about internal passports?
Look, I will spell it out again - this is a scheme that is borrowed wholesale from Soviet Russia, and to a large degree remains in modern Russia. I am not kidding and I am not exaggerating. I did not want to live there, so I came here. You want to live in a place where the government has to approve apartment rentals - there are places that do that already. Look at them closely. Hell, go take a vacation there. Then talk to me about advantages of government-supplied rectal illumination.
-
Moscow ain't made of rubber, aye Horseradish?
-
Okay. What is your solution, White Horseradish?
-
Okay. What is your solution, White Horseradish?
This is the same logic gun control proponents use:
"So, you don't want to ban the AK-47s gangsters use to slaughter our little children? Well, Mr. Smartypants, how are you going to solve the violence crisis then? Huh? "
-
The question stands, Micro. You and WH take strong issue with the notion of e-verify. Do you have a better idea, then?
-
The question stands, Micro. You and WH take strong issue with the notion of e-verify. Do you have a better idea, then?
The AK-47 question is older. You got an answer for that one we can pass to Brady?
Incidentally, I did give an answer. Did you not notice? Or is it that you don't accept it?
The answer is - enforce existing laws.
You got 18 people to a bedroom? There is a law for that. Landlord loses occupancy permit. Go get him.
You have migrants from the said bunkhouses causing problems - arrest them for whatever it is they are doing wrong. There are laws for that.
The migrants turned out to be illegal? Guess what? There is a law for that, too.
How do you do this? Well, you could start by funding INSBCIS rather than spending money on DHS and TSA and reorganizations. Stop sending money to Turks and Arabs and whoever. Or, maybe use some of the money and manpower from the War on (some) Drugs, which was lost before it began.
Face it, none of the administrations in recent memory have any real interest in securing the border. Turning US into USSR will not fix this.
Incidentally, I see you have avoided all of my questions. They still stand. How about it? Is NICS for private sales invasive? It's for the children.
Moscow ain't made of rubber, aye Horseradish?
Haven't you heard? It isn't Moscow, it's been renamed Nerezinovka. :)
-
The question stands, Micro. You and WH take strong issue with the notion of e-verify. Do you have a better idea, then?
Step 1: Control the border. Build and mine a wall. Shoot people with weapons.
Step 2: Make the consequences of hiring illegals bad enough to ruin a buisness, and render the owner/operator destitute.* Make some examples.
Step 3: Make State funded programs (WIC, Sec 8 housing, Chip, Medicaid) dependent on being here legally, and proving it. Enforce that.
Step 4: Offer free transportation back to Mexico.
Step 5: Take a long hard look at whether our current setup for allowing foreign workers to come in is serving us well. We might need immigration reform, but we need to stop illegal immigration** first, then work on the reform.
THEN, see if the bunkhouse problem is so bad as to need to infringe on Americans lives in any way.
*This is actually very similar to the housing thing, but the difference is 1.) the government is already heavilly involved in employment, and 2.) employment is one of the causes of illegal immigration. Two my knowledge folks don't flock here from mexico because of our abundance of overcrowded cheap housing.
** I know we can't completely stop it, but we need to bring it to a reasonable level so that LE isn't tasked with pushing a proverbial boulder uphill eternally.
-
As an addendum:
This law has the added benefit of government intervention that won't work.
You're supposed to prove legality to work, yet illegals find jobs.
You're supposed to prove legality (or the ability to pay) to get health care, yet illegals see doctors.
You're supposed to prove legality to register a car, yet illegals drive all the time.
What possible effect on the underlying problem do you see added one more place they need to show fake paper, or scam through, to the already long list of places they scam/show fake paper?
This law IS remarkably similar to failed gun laws, and is destined to be followed by more intusive, failed laws just as gun control is.
-
You're supposed to prove legality to register a car, yet illegals drive all the time.
Heh.
Years ago I was at the DMV in Brooklyn. There was a guy ahead of me who wanted to get a license. The girl at the counter told him she could not accept his SS card as ID because it was fake. The following dialog ensued:
-"I'm sorry, sir, this card is no good"
-"But it's got to be good! I paid $200 for it!"
-
Incidentally, I see you have avoided all of my questions. They still stand. How about it? Is NICS for private sales invasive? It's for the children.
And where was it you specifically asked me those questions? In a previous post? You didn't, so don't accuse me of evading them.
Okay, since you obviously equate the e-verify system with a permit system (not sure how you leaped to that conclusion), that's right out. Yet many of the existing laws you listed sound similar in their level of invasiveness.
What is the solution, aside from enforcing the existing laws that aren't working for various reasons? Or aside from the laws that the government refuses to enforce at the national level?
-
Heh.
Years ago I was at the DMV in Brooklyn. There was a guy ahead of me who wanted to get a license. The girl at the counter told him she could not accept his SS card as ID because it was fake. The following dialog ensued:
-"I'm sorry, sir, this card is no good"
-"But it's got to be good! I paid $200 for it!"
At the Oregon DMV, if an illegal handed the clerk their Mexican Matricula Consular card, they received a drivers license if they passed the appropriate driving skills tests. They were even handed voter registration forms, thanks to the Motor Voter law.
Our fearless Governor, Ted Kulongoski, claimed in 2009 that he was going to issue an executive order ending that process. The predictable hue and cry was raised by the usual suspects. I don't know whether he ever did issue the order.
-
And where was it you specifically asked me those questions? In a previous post? You didn't, so don't accuse me of evading them.
Can I accuse you now? You know, since it was directed specifically at you in a previous post, the one you refer to above? Or do I have to address you by name and submit my request in triplicate with notarized signatures?
Once again. Are you, RocketMan, OK with NICS checks being required for every private gun sale? Do you, RocketMan, seriously think that either one of these would affect anyone but law-abiding citizens?
Okay, since you obviously equate the e-verify system with a permit system (not sure how you leaped to that conclusion), that's right out. Yet many of the existing laws you listed sound similar in their level of invasiveness.
What is invasive in your world? Where do you draw the line?
"permits" are what the original post is about. Just because you make this permit electronic does not make it anything other than a permit.
What is the solution, aside from enforcing the existing laws that aren't working for various reasons?
Which of these laws do not work because of intrinsic flaws rather than lax enforcement?
Or aside from the laws that the government refuses to enforce at the national level?
If it doesn't work, we should get a new one. These guys are elected, not put in charge by divine power.
-
So what do you do when government won't enforce existing laws?
-
So what do you do when government won't enforce existing laws?
You start with the first of the three boxes.
You make it a point to explain in clear, reasonable terms to everyone you meet how important it is to elect folks who will enforce the rule of law.
You pray to the God of your choice that it stops at the ballot box, as the alternitive is really, really bad.
Sometimes you make a carrer of vague, apocoliptic predictions on internet forums.
-
You start with the first of the three boxes.
There were four boxes last I counted. =D
Soap
Ballot
Jury
Ammo
-
Step 3: Make State funded programs (WIC, Sec 8 housing, Chip, Medicaid) dependent on being here legally, and proving it. Enforce that.
which of those can an illegal get?
-
Step 3: Make State funded programs (WIC, Sec 8 housing, Chip, Medicaid) dependent on being here legally, and proving it. Enforce that.
which of those can an illegal get?
WIC - yes
Section 8 Housing - no
Medicaid - no
Dunno what Chip is .
-
And that is the seriously scary part. It won't be terrorists, illegals, or anybody else that will kill this country. It will be the people that think this is in any way acceptable.
Get thee to a fainting couch, I fear you're having a case of the vapors.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.poppingbubbles.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F05%2F485771225_3acec53df2_o.jpg&hash=02b912800c0ed45c90b3536a6cc04f64f75f7ce1)
If there are actual problems then there are actual laws to take care of it. Bunkhouses are illegal already. Crime is against the law. Do I need to spell out the obvious parallel with gun laws here?
Yes, there are actual laws, some of which are enacted at the municipality in our constitutional, federal system. See, that's the beauty of a federal system. The state & DC tell them to piss off, but they have enough influence at the local level to make them listen.
Your "obvious parallel" is more a perpendicular being twisted around.
This is the same logic gun control proponents use:
"So, you don't want to ban the AK-47s gangsters use to slaughter our little children? Well, Mr. Smartypants, how are you going to solve the violence crisis then? Huh? "
Uh, no.
First off, non sequitur much?
Second, AK47 gangsters are not slaughtering our wee ones. Illegal aliens bunking up in high density are ruining neighborhoods. Fundamental reality does not favor your or the Brady argument.
Third, such ordinances are in-line with the US Const, the various state consts, and the city charters. From both a common-sense "they mean what they say" reading and litigation-wise.
Fourth, housing criminals like cord wood is no where enumerated in any of the aforementioned charters. The RKBA (and its ultimate purpose) is. RKBA was specifically taken out of the realm of small-d democratic debate by the COTUS. Illegal alien housing, OTOH, is in that realm. Some polities will come down in favor of such laws, others not so much. Long live federalism.
"You want to do X!?!? They did X in the Soviet Union! <gasp>"
Sorry, that argument is bunk. The logic is pathetically juvenile and easily punctured.
For instance, I hear tell they tracked down, arrested, and tried rapists. Ditto for murderers. They also drank milk and ate cabbage, the rumors go.
WIC - yes
Section 8 Housing - no
Medicaid - no
Dunno what Chip is .
At Parkland & many other hospitals, illegal aliens are even less on the hook to pay their way than those on Medicaid. First & foremost, they can't be denied emergency care. Second, once the illegal alien & hispanic population is large enough, they can vote in folks who stick it to the taxpayers and pay for the non-emergency care of illegal aliens.
-
Fourth, housing criminals like cord wood is no where enumerated in any of the aforementioned charters.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is an argument they specifically shot down back in 1791.
-
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is an argument they specifically shot down back in 1791.
You deliberately leave out the rest of my point four, which eviscerates your response.
All this sort of thread illustrates is the difference between people who believe in a federal, constitutional order for liberty and those who would impose an extra-constitutional utopian libertarian dictatorship on all. The difference between the latter and an extra-constitutional utopian progressive dictatorship pales relative to their similarities.
-
You deliberately leave out the rest of my point four, which eviscerates your response.
The reason I omit your point because it's not a point. "Stacking criminals like cordwood" is not what this is about, and you know that quite well.
-
Sometimes you make a carrer of vague, apocoliptic predictions on internet forums.
I see what you did there!
:P
-
Sometimes you make a carrer of vague, apocoliptic predictions on internet forums.
Dogmush, stop living up to your name. Trading gratuitous personal jabs is not the way of this forum.
-
Incidentally, I did give an answer. Did you not notice? Or is it that you don't accept it?
Went back through the thread. No, you did not, at least until you said this, right under the above in your reply #20:
The answer is - enforce existing laws.
I would answer that existing laws do not work, either because they are poorly written, or the federal government refuses to enforce them. Hence this town's attempt to deal with a problem that has gotten out of hand.
Like you, I'm not a fan of a permit system. However, calling an e-verify system the same as a permit system is just too big a leap, IMO.
-
I will answer the question noone will touch...
how do we stop the wee-ones from getting lit up by AK47 wielding gangsters? Arm the wee-ones so they can shoot back of course!
-
WIC - yes
Section 8 Housing - no
Medicaid - no
Dunno what Chip is .
Chip is the child care health thing that Bush expanded.
It is a part of medicaid.
Anchor babies do get chip, so it is defacto free health care for the children of poor illegals.
http://www.chipmedicaid.org/english/qualify.asp
Who qualifies?
To qualify for CHIP or Children's Medicaid, a child must be age 18 or younger, a Texas resident and a U.S citizen or legal permanent resident. The citizenship or immigration status of the parents does not affect the children's eligibility and is not reported on the application form.
-
I will answer the question noone will touch...
how do we stop the wee-ones from getting lit up by AK47 wielding gangsters? Arm the wee-ones so they can shoot back of course!
or we could train and arm there mothers and grandmothers. >:D "i pity the fool" and all that.