| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tom2
Esteemed ChronWatch Old-Timer
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 22724
Location: Texas
|
 Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 9:47 am Post subject: In Fremont (NE), Illegal Aliens Already Are Costly |
 |
|
| John Wiegert, The Fremont Tribune wrote: | 
Illegal immigrants already are costing us
John Wiegert, Tuesday, May 18, 2010 11:01 am
I would like to comment on several statements made by some Fremont city officials about the cost of litigation dealing with the proposed ordinance. One council member said, "This has the potential to be devastating if it were to pass." Another one was quoted as saying, "This could set the city up for numerous lawsuits that could cost us hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars to defend." What these city officials are doing is using scare tactics to make the citizens of Fremont think this will bankrupt the city, and this couldn't be further from the truth.
Our city officials talk about the "$2 million lawsuit" in Hazleton, Pa., but what they neglect to mention is that the $2 million is not what the city has actually spent. It is just what the ACLU is asking for. The city is actually in the black because the mayor of Hazleton has raised more money than what they have spent on their own attorneys.
They also like to talk about the "$3.3 million lawsuit" in Farmers Branch, Texas. This figure is also overblown. I know this to be true because I have contacted the mayor of Farmers Branch, Tim O'Hare, and have discussed this with him, something the Fremont city officials have not done. He explained that the city's lawsuit is not just one big lawsuit. Since Farmers Branch was one of the first cities to enact an ordinance like this, they have had many different organizations coming out and suing them on frivolous lawsuits which were part of this $3.3 million. Most of these lawsuits have been dismissed so this figure they are coming up with is exaggerated. All our city officials have to do is contact these cities to find out this information, but they have shown a tendency to listen to hearsay instead of investigating to verify the facts they are throwing out.
Mr. O'Hare stated that it is more than likely that his city will prevail in 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. He also said he looks at the cost of any litigation as an investment in their city for the future because they are spending more money right now on illegal aliens than they ever would on any lawsuit.
Just look what has happened in Fremont recently.There was an audit at Fremont Beef where 17 people were detained and charged with using stolen identities. We have illegal immigrants misusing social services. When we started our petition in 2008, we received information from the Department of Human Services that for just the month of August 2008 alone, Dodge County had 1,208 households that received $259,648. They are also using our hospital as "their family doctor" costing the Fremont taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars every year as they walk away from their bills. In August 2008, we received information from FAMC that in the years from 2002-2008 the amount of Charity Care and Bad Debt Expense attributable to Hispanic patients had ranged between $300,000 and $500,000 per year. This is a cost that will continue to rise and will be ongoing as long as we doing nothing about our illegal immigration problem. The Fremont city officials always seem to mention the large figures pertaining to lawsuits, but they never mention the millions and millions of dollars it is already costing us and will cost us if we do nothing about this problem. The cost of doing nothing far outweighs the cost of any possible litigation.
The bottom line is it only gets expensive if the ACLU gets involved, and if our city attorney is really serious about avoiding legal expenses then he knows perfectly well how not to bring the ACLU into this matter and what steps to take to keep the legal costs down. But our city attorney has shown a propensity not to listen to good sound advice and to hire outside council who has not done a good job in this case, which in turn has cost the taxpayers already over $33,000 in legal fees fighting a frivolous legal pursuit, something our attorney, Kris Kobach, said from the beginning would not stand up in court. Keep in mind that we are being represented pro bono.
John Wiegert of Fremont is one of three people who circulated the petition to place the immigration ordinance on the June 21 ballot. Community Forum is a regular feature of the Tribune's Opinion page. To participate, contact Tracy Buffington, editor, at (402) 721-5000, Ext. 1436. Source |
Several threads on Nebraska's problem have aged off so I'd opine the biggest problem is the politicians suffer from the "wringing hands syndrome." Many politicians there have joined Mexico in using S.L.A.P.P. (strategic lawsuit against public participation) as a means to intimidation. It usually works. Hopefully it won't this time. Failure to heed this advice dooms the city to the fate suffered by Escondido.
_________________
'58 Airedale
When men were free. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
tom2
Esteemed ChronWatch Old-Timer
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 22724
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Cindy Gonzalez, The Omaha World Herald wrote: | 
Fremont in the spotlight
Cindy Gonzalez, WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER, Sunday May 30, 2010
The Nebraska city of Fremont is snatching some of the national spotlight from Arizona as it ramps up for a special election on a controversial measure aimed at illegal immigrants. Fremont's June 21 vote is believed to be the country's first on an anti-illegal immigration measure since the April passage of the Arizona law that ignited emotional debate and demonstrations across the country and even outside the U.S. National groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, which has challenged the Arizona law, say they are watching Fremont. So are organizations that support tougher immigration enforcement. While Fremont's election results would directly affect only activity within the borders of the city of about 25,000, observers say the outcome stands to have a broader impact for other reasons.
It could set a legal precedent and motivate more towns across the nation to enact similar laws, said Kris Kobach, a Kansas attorney who wrote the Arizona law and who represents the Fremont petitioners. “Many eyes will be on Fremont, Neb., to see what happens,” he said. Kobach said Fremont is just the second American city to take an anti-illegal immigration ordinance to the polls. Many cities have considered similar measures in recent years, but those typically lived or died by a vote of the City Council or other governing body — not by a vote of the people. With November congressional elections approaching and illegal immigration a hot issue in plenty of races, many agree that a popular vote of a Midwestern town like Fremont will be an indicator of public sentiment. “People are looking for barometers of what is going to happen in November 2010,” said Kobach.
The Fremont immigration measure, which emerged in 2008, already has divided the city just west of the Omaha-Council Bluffs metropolitan area. A dramatic tie-breaking vote by the mayor initially rejected the ordinance. Residents then collected more than the 3,000 signatures to put the issue on the ballot, and the Nebraska Supreme Court, while not ruling on the measure's constitutionality, agreed the vote should take place. To be sure, the Fremont city ordinance and Arizona's statewide law, which goes into effect in late July barring a successful legal challenge, differ in several respects, although both aim to clear out illegal immigrants. Fremont's measure is housing- and job-based. It intends to stop illegal immigrants from renting or working in the city limits.
Arizona's Senate Bill 1070, passed by its GOP-led Legislature and signed by the governor, also targets employment but is more police-based. It compels officers to question someone stopped for another reason about his immigration status and detain him if he can't produce proof he's in the U.S. legally. Each law surfaced in places so fed up with the federal government's inability to enforce or change the nation's immigration laws that they, as state and local jurisdictions, took matters into their own hands. In just the few weeks since Arizona passed its law, lawmakers in at least 17 states including Nebraska have said they are considering copycat legislation. In the first quarter of this year, state lawmakers in 45 states introduced 1,180 bills and resolutions related to immigrants and refugees — up from 1,040 during the same period in 2009. Nearly 110 laws were actually enacted by 34 states in that timeframe, beating the 35 laws passed by 25 legislatures the year before.
Most but not all local actions were aimed at getting rid of illegal immigrants. A Washington law, for example, called for the creation of an education program for vulnerable youth including immigrants. The flurry of local legislation is adding to the pressure on Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform and avoid adding to a hodgepodge of laws regulating immigration. “There is real frustration because our immigration system is broken,” said Michele Waslin of the Washington-based Immigration Policy Center. “But you also need to look at what this type of legislation says about you as a city.” Fremont petitioners view the proposed ordinance as a means to curb public health, law-enforcement and education costs they say are rising because of illegal immigration.
Andy Schnatz Sr. of Fremont believes enactment of the ordinance also would free up low-wage jobs he says have been taken by illegal immigrants. He says it would return the “rule of law” to his hometown. “I'm 72 years old,” said Schnatz. “I served in the military, paid my debts, my bills. Don't I deserve a better life? We're fed up with people coming in, breaking our laws and the government not doing anything about it.” Nebraska-born Latinos like Virgil and Angie Armendariz, on the other hand, cringe at a neighboring community being cast in the same light as Arizona, which has created an image-boosting commission to counter boycotts and loss of tourism and other business due to negative publicity over the law. The Armendarizes in the wake of Arizona's new law canceled a vacation to the state that they'd planned for years. Like President Barack Obama, the couple fears the new Arizona law could violate civil rights and lead to racial profiling. “I remember a time when we had to live with this kind of fear,” said Virgil Armendariz. “I can't go back to that.”
Jonathan Blazer of the National Immigration Legal Center predicts at least one thing: laws like the one in Arizona send an unwelcome message that drives out immigrants both illegal and legal. For cities like Fremont — where growth this decade has been 85 percent foreign-born — that would signal a radical change in complexion and population. Today, immigrants make up 4.4 percent of Fremont, compared to 1.1 percent in 1990. Put another way, Fremont added more than 900 Hispanics since 2000 while the white non-Hispanic numbers dropped by about 550. Lourdes Gouveia, a University of Nebraska at Omaha sociologist, said promoters of the Fremont ordinance are scapegoating immigrants for a recession-driven decline in their quality of life. Instead, she said, they should be addressing their failed economic development policies. “This discontent has been brewing for a long time,” Gouveia said. “Unless we look at the root, we won't understand why.”
From Michael Nolan's point of view, the matter is purely financial. As the overseer of the municipal risk pool that would pay lawsuit fees for Fremont, he is concerned that Fremont's costs could soar into the millions faced by some other cities that have tried similar measures. The local ACLU said it is likely to file legal action if the Fremont ordinance passes, and past court decisions don't bode well for the ordinance, Nolan said. “I can't tell my client, Fremont, that there will be coverage,” said Nolan, director of the League Association of Risk Management, which is affiliated with the League of Nebraska Municipalities.
While national eyes are turning in to Fremont, Blazer of the National Immigration Legal Center said that his organization is puzzled over why Fremont is pushing a housing-based approach that has been struck down elsewhere. Even William Gheen of the Americans for Legal Immigration PAC said his group has shifted its national efforts away from city ordinances like Fremont's and toward state legislation like Arizona's. “Courts have been more favorable to the states having the authority” to enact immigration-related laws, Gheen said. Yet Kobach — who has represented high-profile cases that are on appeal in cities including Farmer's Branch, Texas, and Hazelton, Penn. — said he is confident courts will view Fremont's case differently. He said his Fremont clients already have trudged a dramatic course. And he wants an attack on illegal immigration from all government levels. “I take it as a challenge when people suggest it can't be done,” Kobach said. Source |
This Fremont thing just keeps going and going. I've lost track of how many years so far. Several threads have aged off. This time, the people get to speak to the issue. Of course, Californians also have spoken before and seen their voice reversed by liberal politicians who believe they know better. It's clear this movement isn't driven by the recession because it began long before the commies moved into the White House.
_________________
'58 Airedale
When men were free. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tom2
Esteemed ChronWatch Old-Timer
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 22724
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 10:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Fremont Times wrote: |
I find no factual basis in these cases
Jerry A. Hart, Fremont, Friday, June 4, 2010 11:05 am
I looked at the Hazleton, Pa., and Farmers Branch, Texas, websites. I studied the information on Hazleton's website and there is absolutely nothing that states, infers or otherwise indicates the city budget deficit, the use of one-time revenue sources to balance the budget or plans to sell the City Authority are the result of lawsuits. In fact, lawsuits are not even mentioned. I also found Hazleton is building a solar power plant, a positive fact. Using information on this website to infer that city's budget deficit, its use of one-time revenue sources to balance its budget or its plans to sell the City Authority are in anyway related to lawsuits has absolutely no factual basis.
In regards to Farmers Branch, I studied all of the budgets listed on Farmer Branch's website and legal fees are listed in the general fund and approximately $100,000 of these legal services are for prosecutors costs. The budgets do not state or indicate what the balance of these legal fees are for. They could be for any number of things. These budgets do not state, indicate or in any way infer these legal costs are associated in with immigration lawsuits. The city also has a legal defense account under special revenue funds to accept donations to defray legal costs associated with its immigration initiative. As of March 10, the city has received $43,460 of donations.
These budgets do not mention anywhere that Farmers Branch owes $500,000 to groups that sued it. Farmer Branch's property tax rate has increased 5 percent for fiscal year 2009-2010. But the budgets do not relate this increase in any way, shape or form to litigation costs. The budgets do indicate this increase was the result of economic down turn and that it is comparable to other cities. The budgets also indicate property tax rates had not increased since 2005-2006.Based upon this website, inferring this city's unidentified legal fees or its property tax increase is the result of immigration litigation has no factual basis.
As to the Hispanic Charity and Bad Debt expense for FAMC, the Pew Hispanic Center states 47 percent of all Hispanic immigrants are illegal, over 50 percent of Mexican immigrants are illegal and 85 percent of Mexicans coming into the U.S. since 2000 are illegal. That means the Hispanic Charity and Bad Debt expense for FAMC could be anywhere from $141,000 to $425,000. The use of information on these sites by the City of Fremont, One Fremont, One Future or any other group to claim lawsuits will result in $800,000 to $1 million in expense and an increase in property tax is misguided and completely without factual basis. Source |
If you've followed this little war, you'd have seen the open borders crowd drag out the S.L.A.P.P. (strategic lawsuit against public participation) argument several times. They've claimed Hazleton, Farmers Branch and Escondido were brought to the brink of bankruptcy by all the litigation. Baloney. The only thing bankrupt is the intrepidity of OTHER city leaders who haven't the guts to fight this illegal horde as these three cities have. Thus far, Escondido caved but continues the fight from a compromised position. The only way we're gonna' win this war is for local law enforcement to arrest them where they live and work. Deportation is the business of the feds but law enforcement should enforce all the laws -- AND THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO. We should demand it because the feds are woefully and inadequately staffed for such a huge undertaking.
_________________
'58 Airedale
When men were free. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tom2
Esteemed ChronWatch Old-Timer
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 22724
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leslie Reed, The Omaha World Herald wrote: | 
Key Players
Leslie Reed, Thursday June 10, 2010
Who’s for and who’s against the Fremont effort to crack down on illegal immigrants:
For the ordinance
“It’s all about becoming a legal citizen, learning our language and assimilating to our society; that’s all we want. I don’t want drug dealers at my job; I don’t want other criminals in my town. I don’t want these people here. If they’re here illegally, they’re criminals. They’re breaking the law.” — John Wiegert, petition leader and ordinance supporter
Bob Warner, a former City Council member and retired construction superintendent. He touched off the controversy in 2008 when he proposed the ordinance, which would require Fremont employers to verify new hires’ residency documents and require renters to submit identification to police before they could sign a housing lease. Warner remains active in the campaign to adopt the ordinance through a public vote.
Fremont for Illegal Immigration Enforcement, founded by the leaders of the petition drive that succeeded in putting the proposed ordinance on the ballot after the City Council rejected it. Petition leaders Jerry Hart, a retired Internal Revenue Service worker; John Wiegert, an elementary school teacher; and Wanda Kotas, a nursing assistant, say they so far are relying on word of mouth and letters to the newspaper to get voters out, but they also are raising money to send information to registered voters before Election Day.
Nebraskans Advisory Group (NAG), an Omaha-based group that fights illegal immigration. NAG members assisted Fremont residents with the petition drive. About 20 volunteers are going door to door, making phone calls and handing out voter registration forms to support the Fremont ordinance.
Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which has been involved in similar local ordinance efforts in towns such as Farmers Branch, Texas; Hazleton, Penn.; and Valley Park, Mo. A lawyer from FAIR’s companion legal group, the Immigration Reform Law Institute, Kris Kobach, helped draft the ordinance, defended the petitioners free of charge in the Nebraska Supreme Court case and said that if the ordinance were enacted, he would defend it in court for no charge. Against the ordinance
“It’s a federal issue, and the federal government should take care of it. One of our concerns is it does promote racism. I don’t care what you say, it does promote racism, which is wrong.” — Don Hinds, co-chairman of business-backed committee opposing ordinance
Centsible Citizens say No, a business-backed group planning to mount a TV and radio ad campaign against the ordinance and hold informational breakfasts this week to warn business owners about its potential costs. It is headed by retired real estate agent Don Hinds and attorney Christina Boydston.
One Fremont, One Future, a committee with ties to an immigrant outreach effort, launched a radio ad campaign Tuesday. The campaign grew out of “Nebraska is Home Fremont,” an organization supported by the Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest and led locally by Kristin Ostrom, a lawyer and trained mediator, and Gabby Ayala, an office manager and a Spanish-language interpreter. Ostrom and three other community volunteers are heading up the One Fremont campaign effort.
Bill Ekeler, who is co-owner of a small manufacturing company and was chairman of a task force established in August 2008 by Mayor Skip Edwards. The task force called for all Fremont employers to use the E-Verify system to confirm new hires’ immigration status and for a mostly educational approach to the illegal immigration issue. Ekeler laments that the recommendations approved by the City Council in February 2009 were not fully implemented.
The Fremont Area Chamber of Commerce issued a narrowly drawn resolution opposing the ordinance as “the wrong solution” to a widely recognized problem. Although some of its members are campaigning against the ordinance, the chamber itself is not contributing to the campaign, said executive director Ron Tillery.
The Fremont Area Ministerial Association, a multidenominational group composed of ministers at about three dozen Fremont churches, has issued a public statement against the ordinance. Scott Jensen, a hospital chaplain who represents the group, said the proposed ordinance would be divisive and harmful to the community.
United Food and Commercial Workers Local 22, the union representing workers at the Hormel Foods Corp. pork processing plant. Union representative Mike Marty said the union opposes illegal immigration and the exploitation of workers, but it also thinks a patchwork of local laws across the country will not solve the problem.
ACLU Nebraska opposes the ordinance and has said it will pursue legal action if voters adopt it. Lawsuits challenging similar ordinances in other states have resulted in multimillion-dollar legal bills for the cities involved. Source |
Pretty nice summary of not only who's who but what lies behind this issue. As the lines solidify, I'd bet the hand-wringing will escalate. I doubt these leaders will do anything. This is a career consuming effort. It's been going on for years. I was surprised the local government education union didn't weigh in. I've argued in comments sections with several teachers there who decried the loss of state funds if illegal aliens moved to other cities.
_________________
'58 Airedale
When men were free. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tom2
Esteemed ChronWatch Old-Timer
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 22724
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tammy Real-McKeighan, The Fremont (NE) Tribune wrote: |
Fears have residents on both sides of issue worried
Tammy Real-McKeighan, Fremont Tribune, Saturday, June 12, 2010 3:10 am
Opinions - and the statistics that accompany them - vary greatly in the debate over illegal immigration. On June 21, Fremonters will vote on a proposed ordinance that would ban the harboring and hiring of or renting to illegal immigrants. Ordinance proponents say illegal immigrants are a drain on the economy and fear Fremont will become a safe haven for them if the measure fails. Proponents say the measure, which they believe is based on fear, will continue the division they already see, and cost the city money in lawsuits. Proponents Jerry Hart, Wanda Kotas and John Wiegert filed a petition in 2009 calling for the special election. Hart said the goal would be to get illegal immigrants to leave. "If we can maybe move the illegals out of town and prevent other illegals from coming to Fremont, that would be ideal," he said.
Kotas added: "Making more room for the people who want to come here legally and contribute to our society." How many illegal immigrants are in Fremont? There is no agreement on the answer. The most recent information from Senior Demographer Jeffrey S. Passel - who wrote the 2009 Pew Hispanic Center report, based on U.S Census Bureau data - estimates the number of unauthorized immigrants at 491. Hart contends that even one illegal immigrant is too many and the 491 number is too low. He and other ordinance proponents believe illegal immigrants place a fiscal burden on the city, increasing the demand for and cost of public services and benefits. Regarding public services, Kotas said she found it puzzling when she saw a Hispanic family paying for food with a food stamp card then using $100 bills to pay for beer and other items not covered by that. How does she know they're illegal? "How do you know they're not?" she asked.
The Rev. Scott Jensen takes that idea to task. Jensen is president of the Fremont Ministerial Association, which opposes the ordinance. He cites Pew Center statistics which indicate that about 75 percent of Hispanics in Fremont are here legally as citizens or authorized immigrants. The three proponents contend, however, the ordinance is not about race. "This has nothing to do with racism. We're just against illegal immigration," Wiegert said. Hart agreed. "There's nothing in that ordinance that says race. Illegal isn't a race. It's a crime," said Hart, a former IRS tax auditor. "I'm part Indian. My daughter-in-law is Vietnamese. My brother-in-law is Hispanic and my son-in-law is African American. I'm a pretty diverse family." Wiegert, a school teacher, also points out people who cross the border illegally are breaking the law. "A lot of them are coming here for the American dream and they're causing nothing but an American nightmare to me," Wiegert said.
Hart added: "These people coming right now have no intention of being U.S. citizens. They want to remain loyal to their country. They don't want to learn English. They think they have all the rights and we should conform to them." Michelle Knapp would disagree. Knapp is a school teacher and a leader of One Fremont One Future, a grassroots group of local and area residents opposed to the ordinance. "One thing that I wish people would understand is that no one wants to be an undocumented immigrant," Knapp said. "I can tell you from personal experience that people want very much to learn English. I spent 10 years teaching adult English classes. I never had an empty classroom. I frequently had an overflowing classroom." Wiegert talks about interpreters needed by various public entities. "We've got to hire interpreters to interpret for these people," he said. "That's putting a strain on the legal system."
Kotas also noted two interpreters were needed for a kindergarten roundup at one school. Wiegert also contends illegal immigrants cause a burden to the city's educational system, citing the need for teachers, instruction and support services for the Limited English Proficiency program. Jensen, however, cites the Pew Center report which notes that 73 percent of children of unauthorized immigrants are U.S. citizens. "We have an obligation to provide educational resources to a significant number of children who come from homes where their parents were born in a foreign country," he said. Hart pointed out concerns about crime. "The federal law was put into place for a reason - to control how many people come into this country and to regulate the people who come in this country, so they don't have communicable diseases and are not bringing in drugs or having criminal records and these people who are sneaking in - you don't know what you're getting. We could have terrorists and gang members and people involved in drugs," Hart said.
Hart also contends if illegal immigrants break one law, what's to stop them from breaking more? Knapp contends being in the country illegally is a civil offense, not a criminal offense under U.S. law. Therefore, a person who is in the country illegally is not a criminal and is no more predisposed to committing other crimes than anyone else, she said. Kotas, a certified nursing assistant working to become a registered nurse, said she worries about diseases like tuberculosis, measles, mumps and whooping cough that illegal immigrants, who aren't screened for health issues, will bring. She said one of her textbooks stated diseases are coming back due to illegal immigrants.
Data from the Three Rivers Health Department, which serves Dodge, Washington and Saunders counties, states there have been no cases of tuberculosis reported in these areas in 2008, 2009 or thus far in 2010, said Jeff Kuhr, executive director. Kuhr said there were 10 cases of whooping cough (Pertussis) in 2008 and none in 2009 or this year. He also said that's not really a disease that someone brings into a country. It's seasonal like influenza. "It happens enough on its own in a community that I don't really associate it with something being connected with transient populations," Kuhr said. Kuhr also said there is a Pertussis booster shot and next year all seventh-graders will be required to have it. All children must show proof of vaccination. But among his other concerns, Wiegert believes that if the ordinance doesn't pass, it will label Fremont as a safe haven for illegal immigrants.
"What we're seeing now in the city will intensify because they know they're not going to be checking that close and I don't know if people are ready for their city to be labeled as a safe haven for illegals," Wiegert said. Jensen believes this ordinance is based on fear. "This ordinance was born out of the frustration that the federal government is not doing its job to enforce federal immigration laws," he said. "It's also born out of a fear of the unknown in the far distant future, but the facts locally and nationally do not support the idea that we're being flooded with illegal immigrants who are going to take over the country. "This ordinance is about fear and a lack of trust - we don't trust that the people who look different than us are here legally." Such things trouble people like Fremonter Betsy Aldaba, a recent Midland Lutheran College graduate, who was a teen when she became a U.S. citizen. Aldaba is concerned about racial profiling.
"People see an image and they link it to a legal status," she said. And that's already happening, Knapp said. Knapp cites the time a young woman, who was a U.S. citizen born in Mexico, walked into a local store, where she overheard people saying that she should go back to Mexico. "Why should I?" the woman asked. "I'm a U.S. citizen." The other people turned away. Another One Fremont One Future leader, Kristin Ostrom, a mediator, cites an example where a Hispanic woman walked into a grocery store and got a cart. An older white man pushed her aside, took her cart and said "Go back to Mexico." Former school teacher Krista Kjeldgaard of Fremont was driving down the street with her children when she saw a group of teens drive past an elderly Hispanic man who was walking. The teens yelled and waved their fists at him. Another motorist stopped to see if the man wanted a ride. The teens drove off laughing.
Ordinance proponents said they've had their own situations to contend with. Hart said he has been called a Nazi. Kotas said her family's 13-year-old cat was found on their porch with a BB lodged in its spine and had to be put to sleep. She finds that more than coincidental considering the family has lived 10 years at that address without such a thing happening. Besides the cost of community division, opponents cite economic expense they believe will be tied to the ordinance. A fact sheet released by the City of Fremont cites the cases of Farmers Branch, Texas, and Hazleton, Pa., which passed similar ordinances. To date, Farmers Branch has spent $3.2 million defending its case. Hazleton's fees are about $5 million. Both of their insurance carriers denied coverage. The city estimates it will cost at least $3 million if it must defend its case. It also estimates $1 million per future years. To raise the money, the city could increase taxes and fees, cut services or both. To raise that $1 million in property taxes would amount to an increase of about $154 per year on a $200,000 house.
Hart calls these figures a scare tactic and Wiegert mentions a letter from Mountain States Legal Foundation, stating attorneys would defend the city at no charge. The city's fact sheet states it received an e-mail about this, but when Farmer's Branch sought proposals from interested law firms, no one offered to defend that community at no charge. Ordinance proponents said they believe the measure will pass. If it passes, Wiegert said, he hopes surrounding towns will adopt similar ordinances. If it doesn't, ordinance proponents said they won't stop there. "It's not going to stop me from getting rid of people who are here illegally," Hart said. "I'll go after Hormel. I will do what I can to put more pressure on ICE and have payroll records checked. "You're going to have a lot of very angry people in this town if it doesn't pass. We've got a big, silent majority out there and it's boiling under the surface and those people are really against the illegals being here. It's going to come to a head. If this doesn't get resolved, it's going to come to a head some other way."
Jensen has his own concerns if the ordinance passes. "I will be saddened by the damage this ordinance will cause to our community. We will become a community isolated, a community where businesses will not want to locate, a community where people will not want to move to," Jensen said. "My understanding is that even current businesses in our community would look very unfavorably toward their future here in Fremont if the ordinance is passed." Jensen retains his optimism. "I choose to believe the best for our future," he said. "Our country is replete with examples of immigrants coming legally to this country from its very origins to the present moment, who have sought to integrate and pursue the American dream of creating a better future for themselves and for their families." Source |
This struggle has become no less interesting than Escondido, Hazleton and Farmers Branch. The causes are identical. Bureaucrats are afraid that if they enforce the law, they'll lose votes. As the bureaucrats idly wring their hands, the people initiate referenda that force their leaders to enforce the laws. I don't understand why the people don't just throw the bums out but it happens, especially in small communities. As usual here, the education community is a powerful voice, influenced by the need to create more customers, aka students. In this case the customers are illegal aliens. Fremont is a microcosm of the national problem for many reasons. For example, they don't even know how many illegal aliens live there because they believe they cannot ask. Actually they can. They're paying about $15,000 annually just to educate each illegal alien child, no questions asked. And of course the so-called educators there just pound the drum for more money. Anecdotes abound on both sides of the issue and generally accomplish little.
The fact is illegal aliens need to be identified, counted and dealt with -- one way or the other. And the S.L.A.P.P. (strategic lawsuit against public participation) threat should have no place in the argument. Civil rights should be an issue that applies both ways. The feds should help these little towns being assaulted by the likes of ACFLU, SPLC, LULAC, MALDEF, PRLDEF, La Raza, Mexica, MEChA, Mexico and all the rest. Make no mistake, these crumbs will be there on the day after this ordinance passes. There are many proponents on both sides of the issue. Thus far, we've had our collective head in the sand. We want our federal, state and local leaders to confront and solve the problem. If they're to be granted amnesty, those leaders need to face us and say it. If not, they need to join the other side. The lies and permissiveness in this issue must stop. The pressure soon will be on the citizens who will face three awful alternatives. They can abandon their home town. They can surrender and learn to live with and pay for it. Or they can move underground to continue the fight.
_________________
'58 Airedale
When men were free. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
picker
Esteemed ChronWatch Old-Timer
Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Posts: 11636
Location: Vermont
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tort reform, tort reform, tort reform!!! How how long will the effort to do what is right be held hostage to the threat of expensive, unafordable lawsuits?
_________________
Truth is quiet. Truth is brief. Truth is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tom2
Esteemed ChronWatch Old-Timer
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 22724
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Cindy Gonzalez, The Omaha World Herald wrote: |
Fremont impact study debated
Cindy Gonzalez, WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER, Wednesday June 16, 2010
A city analysis of the illegal immigration ordinance to be voted on Monday in Fremont, Neb., tells residents they could be dealt a double-digit increase in city property taxes if the measure passes. Or they could see up to 15 percent of their city workforce cut, or some combination of the two, the analysis says, to pay for anticipated legal and other costs the city faces if the legislation is adopted and then challenged. Some supporters of the Fremont measure have taken issue with the analysis published on Fremont's official website. City government leaders also submitted the “immigration ordinance fact sheet” to the local paper, which posted it online.
Omahan Susan Smith, of the anti-illegal immigration group called NAG (Nebraskans Advisory Group), called the city's analysis biased, misleading and a scare tactic to sway voters. Fremont City Attorney Dean Skokan said, however, that “great pains” were taken to simply present a factual account of how the ordinance might affect the city's 25,000 residents. Intended to stop illegal immigrants from renting or working in Fremont, the measure would punish landlords and employers for doing business with people who cannot prove their legal status.
Skokan said the city analysis — presented in a question-and-answer format with 33 footnotes indicating sources of information — was not intended to support either side. It was, he said, an attempt to answer the most common questions city officials were fielding and was based largely on what city researchers said has happened in two towns that passed similar ordinances. Those cities, Hazleton, Pa., and Farmers Branch, Texas, face paying millions of dollars to defend themselves in suits filed by the ACLU and other opponents, the city said. ACLU Nebraska has warned Fremont that it is considering similar action. “The budget team is going on the assumption that total costs (legal fees, overtime, computer software, etc.) will average $1 million per year if the ordinance passes,” the city analysis said.
To raise that kind of money, the document said, Fremont could raise taxes and fees, trim city services and workers, or do a combination of the two. The city analysis did note that Fremont received an e-mail in 2008 from the Mountain States Legal Foundation saying its attorneys would defend the city at no charge. The analysis said the city would solicit requests for proposals, including one from that foundation, if litigation was necessary. If Fremont had to pay its own legal costs and relied only on property taxes to cover costs, the analysis said, the city's portion of the rate would increase by about 24 percent. That means an owner of a $200,000 house would pay about $154 more in city property taxes per year. State Sen. Charlie Janssen of Fremont issued a statement Tuesday saying it was unfortunate that the people of Fremont were being “threatened by outside forces with higher taxes and lawsuits if the ordinance gets passed.”
He encouraged people to vote. “We need to let the people of Fremont vote on this calmly and rationally, without creating a circus atmosphere,” Janssen said in his statement, adding: “The federal government is either unable or unwilling to do anything about” illegal immigration. The three Fremont petitioners who led the call for the ballot issue did not return phone calls. But Smith, who is working with them, said she was considering filing a complaint with the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission. Skokan, in response, said city leaders were cognizant of the law that prohibits city resources from being used to advocate either for or against a ballot issue. “The city went to considerable pains and effort to determine the fact sheet was: a) factual, and b) did not advocate either for or against the ballot ordinance,” Skokan said.
State Accountability and Disclosure Commission Executive Director Frank Daley declined to say whether he thought the city's statement was within legal bounds. He said the full commission would weigh in if a formal investigation was launched. Contrary to what the city said in its analysis, however, Daley said he hadn't received a list of questions from Fremont officials. He said he has probably had conversations with Fremont administrators, as he often does with other officials grappling with ballot issues. “But if there is some sort of implication that these questions were submitted in writing to us, that did not happen,” Daley said. The city analysis starts off by saying it is not intended to be a comprehensive analysis. It says the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission was unable to provide an opinion without full deliberation. Source |
No surprise the open borders folks roll out the S.L.A.P.P. (strategic lawsuit against public participation) argument just a few days before the referendum. The fact is these folks can vote for the ordinance or watch their property values plummet as crime and social services begin to dominate their lives. They need to enforce the law or -- well -- not enforce the law. The study seems to have focused on the cost of litigation. In other words, it seems to discourage enforcement because they might be sued for it. The law seems to be upside down. The bad guys are supposed to be punished -- not the good guys. You'd think even liberal judges would grasp that basic concept.
_________________
'58 Airedale
When men were free. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tom2
Esteemed ChronWatch Old-Timer
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 22724
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Cindy Gonzalez, The Omaha World Herald wrote: |
Immigration legislation explored
Cindy Gonzalez, WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER, Sunday June 20, 2010
At least 40 cities across the country have considered illegal immigration laws similar to the one to be voted on Monday by the people of Fremont, Neb. In most cases, the measures died before they got out of City Council chambers or later were repealed. Two high-profile ordinances that did advance — in Hazleton, Pa., and Farmers Branch, Texas — have yet to be enforced because they've been tied up in costly court battles for four years. So without a U.S. town that actually has gone the distance and implemented a local immigration law dealing with housing or employment or both, Fremont essentially is in uncharted territory. City leaders can only estimate costs to taxpayers based on unsettled experiences in other cities. Residents can only guess at the results the law might have on the community of 25,000 just west of Omaha.
“It would be a real learning curve for us,” said Fremont City Council President Gary Bolton. In an effort to shine more light on the impact such a law might have, The World-Herald looked into the experiences of three cities that have gone the furthest to adopt laws aimed at clearing their communities of illegal immigrants. Hazleton is considered the granddaddy, as it was the first U.S. city in 2006 to pass a local illegal immigration ordinance, said Mayor Louis Barletta. City leaders, he said, acted out of frustration. “The federal government has failed to enforce immigration laws,” Barletta said. “And the burden falls to the local government that must provide services at the expense of taxpayers in that community.” The American Civil Liberties Union and Latino groups swiftly challenged Hazleton's law, which would punish landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and rescind business licenses from firms that hire illegal immigrants.
A district court judge struck down the ordinance as unconstitutional. Lower courts generally have ruled that immigration enforcement is the express duty of the federal government, not localities. Hazleton has appealed to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. So far, the city has tapped private donations to pay $500,000 in legal defenses. Barletta said the city's costs could rise at least another $2 million if it loses at the federal appeals court level. Hazleton's insurance carrier has denied coverage, but the city is suing to make it pay. The mayor said he has no regrets. He said the expense of the legal battle is small compared with costs of illegal immigration, which he said are reflected in English as a Second Language programs in public schools, hospital emergency room costs and law enforcement. Since the discussion began, national publicity has converged upon the town of about 23,000. Barletta said he has watched many illegal immigrants leave — “some in the middle of the night.”
Opponents of the law, including businessman Amilcar Arroyo, said Barletta, who is running for Congress, is driven by political aspirations. Arroyo, who started his Spanish newspaper seven years ago, said the ordinance in its early years divided Hazleton and scared Latino immigrants. Some closed businesses; some moved away. More recently, he said, the Latino community has galvanized. Today, Arroyo counts about 100 Hispanic-owned businesses, up from about 40 in 2006. The Latino population has grown to about one-third of the city of 32,000. That count includes some who are here illegally, the mayor and Arroyo said. “We are not scared anymore,” Arroyo said. “Latinos are working with the white community to minimize segregation and racism.”
The Dallas suburb of Farmers Branch also launched its immigration ordinance in 2006 and has racked up legal fees of $3.4 million, said finance director Charles Cox. With its case also before a federal appeals court, Cox said, costs may continue to climb. A third of the costs are opposition lawyer fees, he said, and the rest is related to the city's defense. About $43,000 of the tab has been paid through donations. The remainder, Cox said, has been absorbed by the city's general fund. Mayor Tim O'Hare was on the City Council when the ordinance originally passed. “If the difference you're hoping to make is keeping illegal aliens from moving into your town, it has made a difference already,” he said. The latest version of the ordinance focuses on housing and contains language similar to Fremont's rental licensing provisions. O'Hare said that since 80 percent of the city's tax base is from businesses and corporations, the town did not try to impose penalties on employers who might hire illegal immigrants.
“We've got a huge business base,” he said, “which makes trying to enforce something like that very difficult.” O'Hare attributes changes such as the drop in the uninsured accident rate (from 33 percent to 4 percent) to the ordinance. He said civic engagement and participation in city elections has never been better. Former City Councilwoman Carol Dingman has a different take. “It has pretty much destroyed civil discourse in every election since,” she said. “It has caused some people to paint every Hispanic with the same brush, even those who were born here.” Dingman said she is opposed to illegal immigration but is dismayed that her town of 28,000 is paying for a fight that should be waged on Capitol Hill. “They're using our towns as laboratories to write different kinds of anti-immigration legislation — to see what sticks and what doesn't,” she said.
ACLU attorney Jennifer Chang Newell, who has helped fight ordinances like those in Hazleton and Farmers Branch, said that no U.S. court has upheld a law that bans housing to undocumented workers. She and others pointed to Valley Park, Mo. Leaders there dropped housing restrictions. The 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals later upheld the remaining employment provisions, which threatened to yank operating licenses from businesses that hire illegal immigrants. Despite Valley Park's multi-year battle, which cost more than $250,000, the St. Louis suburb never implemented its law. That's because the Missouri Legislature adopted one for the state that superseded the city's, said City Attorney Eric Martin. Other states have passed similar legislation that calls for the use of the Internet-based E-Verify to ferret out undocumented workers.
Arizona's employer law is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. Nebraska in 2009 passed similar legislation, although narrower in scope, that mandates the use of E-Verify by public agencies and their contractors. It excluded private employers but created incentives for them to participate. Two years ago when Fremont started its discussions, Council President Bolton told supporters that he'd be more comfortable waging a battle for an employment-based ordinance. He said then that the housing piece had not withstood legal challenges. Fremont voters Monday will vote on a proposal to do both: punish employers who hire illegal immigrants and landlords who rent to them. Interviewed last week, Bolton did not want to say anything to sway the election. But he noted that housing restrictions still had not been upheld. “That's been bothering me since the get-go,” Bolton said.
Even Sen. Charlie Janssen of Fremont — who supported the ordinance in 2008 while then on the Fremont City Council — acknowledged last week that taxpayers likely will see legal challenges and higher taxes if the measure passes. Fremont officials have estimated that taxpayers could face $1 million a year in court costs, based on what happened in Hazleton and Farmers Branch. The Nebraska ACLU has indicated it will fight Fremont's effort. If the law is ultimately upheld, Fremont would invest another $200,000 annually to cover staff needed to execute it. City officials called that a very rough estimate.
Fremont was behind the wave of cities that, mostly in 2006 and 2007, considered passing local immigration laws targeting employers and landlords. Most decided to step back and watch how the higher courts decide ongoing cases, said Cox, the finance director of Farmers Branch. Nevertheless, concerns about the potential for “copycat” ordinances in cities and towns across the state prompted the board of the League of Nebraska Municipalities to contribute to opponents the largest donation reported in Fremont: $25,000. For all of the unknowns, at least one thing is certain: A lot is at sake for cities that want to curb illegal immigration themselves. “No matter how you look at it, $3.4 million is a lot of money,” Cox said, referring to his town's price tag. “Cities and counties and states don't take that kind of expense lightly.” Source |
Oh yeah, now comes the compulsory intimidation of voters. The headline is misleading and should say, "Voters Who Resist Illegal Aliens Face Bankruptcy!" If the S.L.A.P.P. (strategic lawsuit against public participation) argument has successfully forced town councils all over the nation to table proposed ordinances, why wouldn't it also work on the voters? If the stream media have their way, it will work. The feds will have to take a stand somewhere and hopefully it'll happen before the Mexicans control everything west of the Mississippi and isolated states secede from the communists. In the mean time, small communities will suffer financially, with neither financial nor law enforcement assistance from the feds. At the end, this worn out argument says, let the criminals go because enforcement costs too much. Perhaps it's time the citizens of this great nation taught the feds how to enforce the law.
_________________
'58 Airedale
When men were free. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tom2
Esteemed ChronWatch Old-Timer
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 22724
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Cindy Adams, The Examiner wrote: | 
Nebraska town of Fremont approves ban on hiring or renting property to illegal immigrants
Cindy Adams, US Headlines Examiner, June 22, 12:34 AM
On Monday, about 57 percent of the voters in Fremont, Nebraska chose to ban the hiring or renting of property to illegal immigrants. According to the Associated Press, this is the latest in a number of immigration regulations that communities around the country have adopted. The AP reports that the small town has seen a rise in its Hispanic population due to the local Fremont Beef and Hormel meatpacking plants.
Despite its extremely low unemployment rate, those in Fremont fear their jobs are going to illegal immigrants who they believe may “drain community resources.” The measure will require a license to rent prior to being allowed to rent property. Part of the application process will force Fremont officials to check immigration status. If an individual is found to be an illegal immigrant, that person will be unable to obtain a license to rent. In addition, the regulation will require employers to check a federal database -- E-Verify -- to ensure all workers are in the country legally. Those who support the measure, such as Trevor McClurg, say its fair because it only targets those who are in the country illegally. “I don’t think it’s right to be able to rent to them or hire them… They shouldn’t be here in the first place,” said McClurg.
Another Fremont resident, Clint Walraven said the regulation has nothing to with race or racism as some believe. “We all have to play by the same rules… If you want to stay here, get legal,” he said. Those against the ban such as Rachel Fleming argue that “This country was founded on waves of immigration… I just think it’s [the ordinance] contrary to the spirit of the country.” The American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska plans to sue to ensure the measure is not enacted. “Our goal would be to bring an action to ensure that there is not even one day that the law can go into effect,” said Amy Miller, the ACLU of Nebraska’s legal director. The AP reports that before the ordinance becomes law, it must be certified by the Dodge County election commissioner, and then be approved by the City Council. Source |
After two years of bickering and hand-wringing, this battle is done. But the war has just begun. Like Hazleton and Farmers Branch, the people have spoken but the judiciary will have the last word.
_________________
'58 Airedale
When men were free. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tom2
Esteemed ChronWatch Old-Timer
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 22724
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chris Zavadil, The Fremont Tribune wrote: |
Kobach offers to defend ordinance for free
Chris Zavadil, Fremont Tribune, Wednesday, June 23, 2010 11:02 am
Kris Kobach, the attorney who wrote Fremont's illegal immigration ordinance, said he will offer the city his services free of charge to defend the ordinance. Fremont voters approved the ordinance in a special election Monday. Dodge County Clerk Fred Mytty said he plans to provide official election results to the city next Monday. In that case, the city council's Tuesday agenda could include certifying those results, city clerk Kim Volk said, adding that city administrator Bob Hartwig would decide whether to include it on the agenda. If not, it would likely appear on the council's July 13 agenda. The ordinance would take effect 15 days after publication of the results and the ordinance, Hartwig said. What impact any potential lawsuits against the ordinance could have on the process are speculative at this point, Hartwig said in an e-mail Tuesday.
Kobach said he will offer his assistance to Fremont "free of charge" to defend the ordinance in court. "It's important that Fremont have legal counsel with experience in this area," Kobach said. "Obviously I've defended these statutes all over the country." Kobach further said the city's insurance provider, the League Association of Risk Management, will also cover the city in legal representation. "It seems to me that the city is going to be fine in terms of having representation because I'm willing to do it for free and they have a second option as well," Kobach said. LARM representatives, however, said at a June 9 press conference that Fremont's coverage excludes injunctive relief, and defending Fremont's ordinance could be provided with a "reservation of rights," in which the LARM board would ask the city to reimburse costs. Executive director Mike Nolan reiterated Tuesday that LARM's position has not changed, pointing out there are many variables to a potential lawsuit.... Continued |
The price is right and the expertise is as good as it gets. But the bad guys are paid by the taxpayers whether they win or not. That needs to be stopped or at least capped.
_________________
'58 Airedale
When men were free. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tom2
Esteemed ChronWatch Old-Timer
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 22724
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 08, 2010 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Omaha World Herald wrote: |
Fremont set to certify immigrant law
Thursday July 8, 2010
FREMONT, Neb. (AP) — The Fremont City Council is set to vote next week on whether to approve election officials' certification of a measure approved by voters that would ban the hiring or renting of housing to illegal immigrants. If the council approves the certification Tuesday night, the law could go into effect this summer — but only if it survives a promised legal challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union.
Voters approved the measure June 21 by a 4-to-3 ratio, according to a report from Dodge County Clerk Fred Mytty attached to the council agenda released Thursday. Mytty certified the vote June 29. With the vote, the community of 25,000 about 35 miles northwest of Omaha joined the national debate over immigration laws. Supporters say the measure needs to compensate for what they see as lax federal enforcement in dealing with a surge of illegal immigrants in Fremont. Opponents contend it could fuel discrimination. Discussion of the ordinance before the vote Tuesday is unlikely, said City Council President Scott Getzschman. “I don't know that there's anything to discuss,” he said. “All we can do is ratify and certify the information given to us by the voting board. They say the votes are what they are, and we certify them, and that's it.”
While the council has discretion to vote against recognizing the certified vote, that “most certainly will not happen,” Getzschman said. “It'd be definitely a legal can of worms if we said no,” he said. Once approved by the council, the ordinance will be posted by the city clerk and will go into effect 15 days later, Getzschman said. The Nebraska ACLU will try to ensure that doesn't happen. Amy Miller, the group's legal director, said the ACLU will file a lawsuit and an injunction to block enforcement of the ordinance before it can take effect. “We don't want this law to be in effect for even one day,” Miller said Wednesday. The legal fight could drag on for years, as it has in Hazleton, Pa., which in 2006 became one of the first U.S. cities to pass an ordinance targeting illegal immigrants.... Continued |
Hopefully the compulsory injunction will happen fast and they can get on with the appeals.
_________________
'58 Airedale
When men were free. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tom2
Esteemed ChronWatch Old-Timer
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 22724
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 08, 2010 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CNBC wrote: | 
Former Neb. senator fighting immigration policies
Thursday, 8 Jul 2010 | 6:13 PM ET
LINCOLN, Neb. - A former state senator who was the main force behind a bill allowing some illegal immigrants to get in-state college tuition is trying to build a fund to fight immigration-related policies she says are divisive. In a letter sent Thursday to supporters of the Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest, former state Sen. DiAnna Schimek of Lincoln says policies such as Fremont's crackdown on illegal immigration "simply can't continue." "You've seen over the past few months a few members of our state and communities have pursued misguided and harmful public policy designed to create fear and division and turn neighbor against neighbor," Schimek writes.
Supporters defend the policies Schimek is criticizing, saying they are designed to keep illegal immigrants from receiving public benefits and to slow illegal immigration because the federal government has failed to do so. Schimek is asking for donations to the Appleseed Center, which advocates for the poor, to help ensure no other cities pass laws like the Fremont ordinance that would ban illegal immigrants from being hired or renting homes. Voters approved that ordinance last month and is expected to go into effect this summer provided it survives a legal challenge by the Nebraska ACLU. Schimek also criticizes two developments: the government's decision against restoring state-funded prenatal care to hundreds of women including illegal immigrants, and the effort to enact an Arizona-style immigration law in Nebraska.
During the last legislative session, Gov. Dave Heineman and a majority of lawmakers opposed efforts to restore state-funded prenatal care to about 870 illegal immigrants and 750 legal residents. Those recipients lost the care in March after the federal government told the state to end its decades-long policy of allowing unborn children to qualify for Medicaid. "I strongly disagree with Nebraska Appleseed and ... DiAnna Schimek in their desire to provide taxpayer-funded benefits to illegal individuals," Heineman said in a statement. Schimek also mentions plans by state Sen. Charlie Janssen of Fremont to introduce an immigration-related bill during the legislative session starting in January. Janssen says he doesn't yet know what the bill might contain. But he said it would likely include components of the Arizona law, which directs police to question people about their immigration status during traffic stops or other suspected violations if there is "reasonable suspicion" they are in the country illegally.
"It's incredibly misleading," Janssen said of Schimek's description of his efforts as designed to create fear, "and she's using her points to raise money for an organization that basically supports illegal immigration." Becky Gould, Nebraska Appleseed's director, said immigration reform should be handled at the federal level, and efforts such as the Fremont ordinance indicate "a sort of toxic culture starting to take hold" in the state. Gould said money raised with Schimek's help would help generate awareness of the Fremont ordinance's detrimental effects. She didn't rule out a legal challenge of the prenatal care decision. She wouldn't say how her group might try to counter an Arizona-style immigration law in Nebraska, except to say, "There's a range of strategies we're looking at." Source |
Nothing like a conservative issue to make the cuckoos screech. Hopefully her constituents will toss her back into the liberal abyss.
_________________
'58 Airedale
When men were free. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tom2
Esteemed ChronWatch Old-Timer
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 22724
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KMTV TV 3 Omaha wrote: | 
Fremont Council Certifies Illegal Immigration Election Results
Jul 13, 2010 10:58 PM CDT
Fremont, NE -- For the last 50 years, Fremont City Council members routinely certify election results. Always unanimously, but never in front of this kind of crowd. With seven little green lights, Fremont officially bans illegal immigrants from working and living in the city. "My wife is an immigrant. She came here and went though the system and she is a citizen now. I feel if we can do it, why can't the rest of them," says Andy Schnatz of Fremont. The ordinance started two years ago with former city councilman Bob Warner. Former Fremont City Councilman Bob Warner say, "The footing has been laid for illegal enforcement and now we have to build the structure." When the city council voted down the Warner's proposal, a petition kept the effort alive.
"They did not want this to go to the vote of the people. Fortunately we got it to the vote of the people and we succeeded," says John Wiegert who helped start the illegal immigration petition. Of course not everyone is happy with the new rules. "Now that it is here and it has happened, if we don't' stand up now for what message this sends, we don't know what the outcome will be," says Krista Kjeldgard of Fremont. Some believe it promotes racism. "Person calls me names and something like that, I just say, God bless you. That is all I have to say. I am not going to be on their side because I can show him that I have more education than him," says Edit Santos an illegal immigrant living in Fremont. The ordinance will go into effect on July 29th. At that point employers and landlords must electronically verify a person's legal status before renting or hiring. "The voters of Fremont says yes we want it, now we have to get it through the court of law," says Warner. Source |
No surprise. Now the libs will rush in to file endless lawsuits, crow about the injunctions, start the S.L.A.P.P. (strategic lawsuit against public participation) arguments that threaten Fremonters' financial well-being and generally delay any action for years and years. Eventually, the SCOTUS will dawdle its way, consider the issue and if we're lucky, they'll hear it. Oh, regarding Edit Santos? They oughta' deport that guy today or at least put his photo on the front page with the caption "ILLEGAL ALEIN." The chutzpah of these lawbreakers is beyond disgust.
_________________
'58 Airedale
When men were free. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tom2
Esteemed ChronWatch Old-Timer
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 22724
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KETV TV 7 Omaha wrote: | 
Latino Group Sues Fremont Over Immigration Law
10:15 am CDT July 21, 2010
OMAHA, Neb. -- A Latino civil rights group is suing the city of Fremont to stop enforcement of the eastern Nebraska city's new illegal-immigration ordinance. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed the lawsuit Wednesday in federal court "to protect immigrants from unlawful, local regulation of immigration, contravening constitutional and federal authority." The lawsuit targets the city's voter-approved ordinance that bars residents from hiring or renting homes to illegal immigrants. The ban, which was approved by voters in June, is set to go into effect on July 29. The American Civil Liberties Union also has promised to challenge the ban in court, but had not filed a lawsuit by Wednesday morning. Source |
I'm surprised it took so long to file this compulsory lawsuit. These creeps already have the boiler-plated words on file and needed to change only the name of the defendant. Because the taxpayer funds all these lawsuits, they usually come in swarms with armies of lawyers. Common sense dictates that one lawsuit with one lawyer should suffice, but I guess the trial lawyers need to help spread what's left of OUR wealth.
_________________
'58 Airedale
When men were free. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tom2
Esteemed ChronWatch Old-Timer
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 22724
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Margery A. Beck, The Associated Press wrote: | 
ACLU sues Neb. city over illegal-immigrant law
MARGERY A. BECK (AP) – 4 hours ago
OMAHA, Neb. — A second federal lawsuit has been filed against a Nebraska city to stop its new ordinance that bans hiring and renting to illegal immigrants. The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit Wednesday. Earlier in the day, the Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund filed a similar lawsuit against the ban. Fremont city attorney Dean Skokan (skoh-KAN') says he couldn't comment because he hadn't yet seen either lawsuit. ACLU Nebraska legal director Amy Miller says the law "encourages discrimination and racial profiling against Latinos and others who appear to be foreign-born, including U.S. citizens." Her organization will also seek a preliminary injunction to try to stop the ordinance from taking effect on July 29 as scheduled.... Continued with the MALDEF lawsuit |
Right on schedule, here's the ACFLU with lawsuit number two. Because it's such a little town with so few dollars, the open borders nuts may stop with this one. After all, if they spread what's left of OUR wealth too thinly, individuals on their side might not become millionaires this year. Besides, a number of other cases are on the horizon and they might hold more potential wealth.
_________________
'58 Airedale
When men were free. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
ChronWatch
FAQ
Memberlist
Usergroups
Search
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
