Towns rethink anti-immigrant laws

[Ordie]

I knew this was going to happen.

This is the effects of bad policymaking at all levels in terms of lost revenues, legal costs and lingering negative image.



September 26, 2007

Towns Rethink Laws Against Illegal Immigrants

NY Times

By KEN BELSON (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/ken_belson/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and JILL P. CAPUZZO (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=JILL P. CAPUZZO&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=JILL P. CAPUZZO&inline=nyt-per)
RIVERSIDE, N.J., Sept. 25 — A little more than a year ago, the Township Committee in this faded factory town became the first municipality in New Jersey to enact legislation penalizing anyone who employed or rented to an illegal immigrant.
Within months, hundreds, if not thousands, of recent immigrants from Brazil and other Latin American countries had fled. The noise, crowding and traffic that had accompanied their arrival over the past decade abated.
The law had worked. Perhaps, some said, too well.
With the departure of so many people, the local economy suffered. Hair salons, restaurants and corner shops that catered to the immigrants saw business plummet; several closed. Once-boarded-up storefronts downtown were boarded up again.
Meanwhile, the town was hit with two lawsuits challenging the law. Legal bills began to pile up, straining the town’s already tight budget. Suddenly, many people — including some who originally favored the law — started having second thoughts.
So last week, the town rescinded the ordinance, joining a small but growing list of municipalities nationwide that have begun rethinking such laws as their legal and economic consequences have become clearer.
“I don’t think people knew there would be such an economic burden,” said Mayor George Conard, who voted for the original ordinance. “A lot of people did not look three years out.”
In the past two years, more than 30 towns nationwide have enacted laws intended to address problems attributed to illegal immigration (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/immigration_and_refugees/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), from overcrowded housing and schools to overextended police forces. Most of those laws, like Riverside’s, called for fines and even jail sentences for people who knowingly rented apartments to illegal immigrants or who gave them jobs.
In some places, business owners have objected to crackdowns that have driven away immigrant customers. And in many, ordinances have come under legal assault by immigration groups and the American Civil Liberties Union (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/american_civil_liberties_union/index.html?inline=nyt-org).
In June, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against a housing ordinance in Farmers Branch, Tex., that would have imposed fines against landlords who rented to illegal immigrants. In July, the city of Valley Park, Mo., repealed a similar ordinance, after an earlier version was struck down by a state judge and a revision brought new challenges. A week later, a federal judge struck down ordinances in Hazleton, Pa., the first town to enact laws barring illegal immigrants from working or renting homes there.
Muzaffar A. Chishti, director of the New York office of the Migration Policy Institute, a nonprofit group, said Riverside’s decision to repeal its law — which was never enforced — was clearly influenced by the Hazleton ruling, and he predicted that other towns would follow suit.
“People in many towns are now weighing the social, economic and legal costs of pursuing these ordinances,” he said.
Indeed, Riverside, a town of 8,000 nestled across the Delaware River from Philadelphia, has already spent $82,000 defending its ordinance, and it risked having to pay the plaintiffs’ legal fees if it lost in court. The legal battle forced the town to delay road paving projects, the purchase of a dump truck and repairs to town hall, officials said. But while Riverside’s about-face may repair its budget, it may take years to mend the emotional scars that formed when the ordinance “put us on the national map in a bad way,” Mr. Conard said.
Rival advocacy groups in the immigration debate turned this otherwise sleepy town into a litmus test for their causes. As the television cameras rolled, Riverside was branded, in turns, a racist enclave and a town fighting for American values.
More:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/nyregion/26riverside.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

[PanzerMaster]

Is more racist to underpay and overwork (enslave) a person.

The problem is not the immigration, legal or illegal. But the spoiling of those people.

[shocker1]

So we should just stop enforcing laws and passing them because the ACLU will sue your town. Drain your coffers and label your town a racist enclave. Why did you change the article thread title to read anti-immigration? Your title should read anti-illegal immigration as these laws do not apply to someone with LEGAL status. I have to prove my residency when applying for work, why do people who ignore my nations immigration laws deserve a pass? I will agree though that towns by themselves should not be involved in passing laws and ordinances aimed at illegal immigrants. Passing a law that restrict shelter for someone's head is overboard and out of the realm of town justice. It would be nice if our government would really deal with the problem.

However I am sick of all the guilt trip articles like this that threaten you with economic collapse and boarded up hair salons. In order to scare you into ignoring the problem. Trying to make you feel like racist scum for wanting laws enforced. I think it is only fair to expect my government to enforce laws already on the books. Just as they would enforce laws I break. None of these articles talk of solutions. Only how ignorant and radical Americans are for expecting law enforcement. How you will collapse as an economy if you do not let illegals alone.:roll:

We should cut this off right now. Offer a legal resident status to those that file taxes and otherwise obey the law. Also a temp worker permit for those that have seasonal work. Those that want to fly under the radar, get paid under the table and run Hispanic gangs should be deported right now. That would leave most illegal immigrants here and make them immigrants. The rest that want to avoid the legal path should not have a future here. Some would call that Amnesty, maybe so put if we really enforce our border integrity then this is a good idea. If the current level of incompetence is kept we will be giving a pass to millions every 10 years or so along with the criminals fleeing from justice in their home country. All I ask is to obey the law like I have to.

[Mastermind]

Man, is this article a fluffy little bag of lies and exaggferations all trying to push the pro-illegal-immigration stance. First of all, there is no economy that is going to crash if the US enforces it's border laws. The recent bloody murder, in New Jersey, of some LEGAL citizen high school kids by thug illegal aliens should have awakend people to what's really going on with illegal immigration. We can live without a few hair salons, nail salons and Mexicans traping up and down our neighborhoods mowing lawns...Get them the hell out and have them come back legally...but, the ILLEGAL LABOR employers still refuse to give up their little slave market habits. And the air head, self serving, to-hell-with-the United-States politicians just don't give a damn.

[mi35d]

Shocker - dead on. My feelings exactly! We're not speaking as some xenophobic racists - we're simply saying that these are laws that are on the books - enforce them.

EVERY other country in the world has some sort of law preventing illegal immigration but some how we're evil scumnuggets if we ask them to obey the most basic of our laws.

[vryhpyammoadded]

I’ve always loved the “Don’t rock the illegal immigration boat, you’ll ruin the economy” fallacy used in conjunction with the “If you enforce “legal” immigration on illegal’s and punish those who hire, house, school, etc… them, you’re a hate mongering racist” attack. The whole process takes on a different light when you replace “illegal immigrant” with “slave”. The parallels to historical arguments are eerily similar.

And, just as with past American history, the government attempts to appear dealing with it while behind the scenes the powers that be have turned it into yet another demographic piece of vote meat for the political dogs to tear at. Eleven million votes sure looks like a major sweep for whoever wins them to me.
The last time something like this got out of hand, Senators where beating each other on the floor, dueling and there constituents began shooting things across the Mason Dixon.

This whole issue is waste deep in hypocrisy and propaganda and yet another reason why I want the two America’s to either dump the greedy hypocrites in a historical mass grave somewhere or get moving along together on the road to the future.

[Mastermind]

From Vry~ above "This whole issue is waste deep in hypocrisy and propaganda and yet another reason why I want the two America’s to either dump the greedy hypocrites in a historical mass grave somewhere or get moving along together on the road to the future." Damn...that's good!

[Ordie]

Offer a legal resident status to those that file taxes and otherwise obey the law. Also a temp worker permit for those that have seasonal work.

I agree.......

[shocker1]

I agree.......
I knew you would. It is only fair as our nation's inept ability to provide a rational immigration process that supplies the needs of the nation lured people into an illegal status. Not to mention ignoring a thriving criminal industry attached to illegal immigration. In that spirit I support a means for those who love this country to rise above the illegal stigma and become something legal and maybe citizens. I think that only when we do this can we really crack down and avoid netting up good people caught in between wanting something better and an angry nation. I know my rant sounded a little angry and I apperciate you finding the common ground in there.

[Chulo]

stupid article.. they make it sound like illegals caused the econmic decline of the city, while at the same time it says that the lawsuits have drained it of most of the money.. so its not the illegal people leaving, but rather the idiots that support them that would be the cause of the econimic decline

[Ordie]

I think it's bad local policymaking trying to take on an issues beyond their scope.

Most City Managers and Lawyers tend to recommend the City Councils not to engage on major issues on the premise of funding, code enforcement, budgetary impacts and damaging the city's image.

In passing un-enforcible ordinances, the city of Hazelton eventually became a target for lawsuits, negative media attention, a very public court case, losing the court case and setting a legal precedent.

Thus preventing other cities from doing the same.

[shocker1]

It is just frustrated Americans trying to change things where they can. At the local level people can move things more so than in DC. However to allow unelected legal non-profit groups to come in and decide policy for citizens with overt threats is a slap in the face. It even borders on a mobster mentality. It only serves to anger Americans more.

[Ordie]

However to allow unelected legal non-profit groups to come in and decide policy for citizens with overt threats is a slap in the face. It even borders on a mobster mentality. It only serves to anger Americans more.

You're right, but its politics.

It's no different than a small group of NIMBY's* showing up at a public hearing influencing the outcome of a project that otherwise would benefit everyone.

If the NIMBY's lose one round, they take it to the courts.

The outcome depends on whether or not each side has a 'war chest' for legal fees.

Cities and municipalities have a tight budget and limited staff, therefore they are limited in fighting an immigration battle while filling potholes at the same time.

For NGO's such as the ALCU, they are primed and ready to fight it to the end and don't have to worry about potholes.

Guess who wins???

There's nothing that precludes cities from playing the same game. They can hire lobbyist to influence policymakers at the state and federal level to fight thier battles.


*NIMBY= Not in my backyard
In reference of people who are generally supportive of projects except when it is next to their backyard.

[Tokamak]

We should cut this off right now. Offer a legal resident status to those that file taxes and otherwise obey the law. Also a temp worker permit for those that have seasonal work. Those that want to fly under the radar, get paid under the table and run Hispanic gangs should be deported right now. That would leave most illegal immigrants here and make them immigrants. The rest that want to avoid the legal path should not have a future here. Some would call that Amnesty, maybe so put if we really enforce our border integrity then this is a good idea. If the current level of incompetence is kept we will be giving a pass to millions every 10 years or so along with the criminals fleeing from justice in their home country. All I ask is to obey the law like I have to.

Totally agree with this!. It's also a shame that people from Central and Southamerica have to leave their contries in first place.

[WARPIG]

It's both sad and funny to hear both sides of the issue come up with the same ideas to "fix" immigration, but for wholly different reasons. Immigration in our country is broken. Both sides know this. Politics is the reason it's broken. The one real difference between the two debates is that one side basically wants to see a Mexican round up and get rid of all the immigrants. (I'm being a bit dramatic of course.) But, just like politicians, the rest of us can't see that we have the same goal but prefer to bicker about the semantics. We can keep blaming the immigrants and the people who employ, or cater to them. Or.. we can place blame where it belongs.. with the politicians. Should I repeat the mantra? Enforce the laws! No need to make up new ones to "go after" the illegals. No need to change them to be more accomodating to people who don't respect our laws. Just enforce the ones we have for a start.

[shocker1]

No need to change them to be more accomodating to people who don't respect our laws. Just enforce the ones we have for a start.
I agree mostly but there are those we should give a break to IMO. We have let it go on so long that to round up every illegal immigrant and deport is beyond Impossible. I would also be ashamed by it. There are those that went to the trouble to get an FTN and pay taxes. There is a large portion of these folks that have become an essential part of our society. It is a hard issue and some people are going to be hurt by a solution. I am like you though enforce the damn law and we would not have this issue. even if enforcement is an ugly business.

[WARPIG]

I agree mostly but there are those we should give a break to IMO. We have let it go on so long that to round up every illegal immigrant and deport is beyond Impossible. I would also be ashamed by it. There are those that went to the trouble to get an FTN and pay taxes. There is a large portion of these folks that have become an essential part of our society. It is a hard issue and some people are going to be hurt by a solution. I am like you though enforce the damn law and we would not have this issue. even if enforcement is an ugly business.

No.. we're on the same page. I don't see enforcement as rounding up all the illegals and deporting them. I think enforcement is a secure border and working to document the immigrants as much as possible. Preventing illegals from renting homes legally, working legally, or driving legally isn't going to prevent them from doing it under the radar. All we cause is a larger underground. Our immigration process is completely inadequate and need to be overhauled in a big way. But, that's not going to happen unless we stop seeing the trees for the forest.

[shocker1]

No doubt, a lot of the issue on American's side is blind nationalism. I am guilty of it to a degree as most Americans should be, it is a natural protection reaction. The politicians play off the black and white and give us piss poor government. The border is the source of the problem, fix that and then deal with the other issues. Though as a business guy I want those employing illegally dealt with now also.

[Mastermind]

I disagree about the "Blind Nationalism". There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to protect the national borders and to protect the concept of citizenship. If a nation allows just any prog to rample through the borders, set up shop and get treated as an equal citizen, then you have lost the national identity...there is no such thing as the concept of "nation" when that happens. Where does the loyalty to the national ideal then come from? Gathering workers and loving the neighbors works great in times of peace and plenty. But, when the times go harsh, what happens then? How do you care for you real citizens, and ignore the ones who are here illegally? It's just not possible. What about times of war and national crisis? How do you weed out the infiltators or the enemy that has blended with the millions of illegals? Without proper documentation of immigrants, you have chaos and a very serious threat to the nation.....so, failure to protect the borders is a failure to protect the nation.

"Blind Nationalism" is not a dirty word. It is a form of patriotism. It is a notch better than blind national hatred, which seems to be running rampant now days among the elite members of our society and even many politicians.....might be we need a lot more nationalism.

[shocker1]

"Blind Nationalism" is not a dirty word. It is a form of patriotism. It is a notch better than blind national hatred, which seems to be running rampant now days among the elite members of our society and even many politicians.....might be we need a lot more nationalism.
Oh good grief. I said we are all guilty of it and should be. It is part of being an American. However some take it and show ignorance, thereby diluting the effort for change.

[WARPIG]

I disagree about the "Blind Nationalism". There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to protect the national borders and to protect the concept of citizenship. If a nation allows just any prog to rample through the borders, set up shop and get treated as an equal citizen, then you have lost the national identity...there is no such thing as the concept of "nation" when that happens. Where does the loyalty to the national ideal then come from? Gathering workers and loving the neighbors works great in times of peace and plenty. But, when the times go harsh, what happens then? How do you care for you real citizens, and ignore the ones who are here illegally? It's just not possible. What about times of war and national crisis? How do you weed out the infiltators or the enemy that has blended with the millions of illegals? Without proper documentation of immigrants, you have chaos and a very serious threat to the nation.....so, failure to protect the borders is a failure to protect the nation.

"Blind Nationalism" is not a dirty word. It is a form of patriotism. It is a notch better than blind national hatred, which seems to be running rampant now days among the elite members of our society and even many politicians.....might be we need a lot more nationalism.

Wow.. real citizens vs the "progs?" Don't get this twisted. I just said that most of us want to see our borders secure. But, don't forget that those random progs that strolled in from other countries to set up shop... sort of founded this country. We are a nation of immigrants. And.. before you "go off"... I'm not suggesting we give all the immigrants a freebie and make them all citizens. There is a process to become residents and citizens in this country.. it just needs to be followed. If there are people in our country that want to be here and are willing to do what it takes.. I really don't give a crap how they got here. On the contrary.. I have more respect for the citizen that had to earn it than the spoiled, whiney, selfish masses that we call Americans today. That "blind nationalism" might as well be called what it is.. bigotry. Patriotism might be the word we were looking for... but the past few years have proven that Americans are patriotic when it's fashionable.

[Mastermind]

Frm WP above-"Patriotism might be the word we were looking for... but the past few years have proven that Americans are patriotic when it's fashionable."

Quite true...But, open borders weaken any nation. And, we find that although "illegals" did found this nation, once it became a nation..the rules changed. I expect next, we will begin hearing much more about the North American Union and it's beautiful attributes of brotherhood...we might as well get used to it, because there is nothing going to be done in the forseeable to restore United States Soverignty and the goodness of our unique citizenship. Already, the illegals are a protected class and are being deeply catered to by politicans who see them as a voting block...as incredible as that seems. Now, if they are numerous enough to be a political force...how long before they are able to establish their own declarations of parity and start changing the immigration laws for their own purposes? It's one thing to have illegals...and completely another to have a recognized and catered to voting block of illegals.

[CPL Trevoga]

One town can't do anything. It's has to be addressed on the Federal level, but too many people are reaping big profits from slave labor.

[Ordie]

Good comments overall, I may not agree with them but I respect the various points of views.

Immigrants tend to move towards areas with new money and economic opportunities. In recent times these areas include Northern Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas. (New South)

Unlike the West, Northeast, and Midwest, with exception of Florida the the New South has not seen a wave of international immigration since the founding of the country. Many of the issues revolve around the initial culture shock, perceptions and fear.

I believe that many of the local ordinances to restrict goods and services is a social kneejerk reaction to changes. However, denying services and access may infringe on Federal civil rights laws and impede economic development.