Nebraska City Passes Law that Bans Hiring Or Renting Property To Illegal Immigrants

[bobbyw24]

FREMONT, Neb. — The eastern Nebraska city of Fremont will likely join Arizona at the center of the national debate about immigration regulations after voters approved a ban on hiring or renting property to illegal immigrants, but an expected court challenge could keep the measure from ever taking effect.

The American Civil Liberties Union already has promised to file a lawsuit to block enforcement of the proposal roughly 57 percent of Fremont voters supported Monday.

"In a community of 25,000, it's going to be hard to take on the whole country, and it will be costly to do so," said Fremont City Councilman Scott Getzschman, who opposed the measure but said city leaders would support the results.

Fremont's vote is the latest chapter in the tumult over illegal immigration across the country, including a recently passed Arizona law that will require police investigating another incident or crime to ask people about their immigration status if there's a "reasonable suspicion" they're in the country illegally.

The Fremont measure will require would-be renters to apply for a license from the city, which must then check to make sure applicants are in the country legally. Illegal immigrants would not be issued a license. The ordinance also requires businesses to use the federal E-Verify database to ensure employees are allowed to work.

The city, which is about 35 miles northwest of Omaha, has watched as its Hispanic population surged in the past two decades, largely due to the jobs available at the nearby Fremont Beef and Hormel meatpacking plants.

Supporters argued the measure is needed to make up for what they see as lax federal law enforcement. Opponents said it could fuel discrimination.

Linda Nafziger said she voted for the ordinance because she doesn't think the community should be supporting illegal immigrants. But she acknowledged the measure won't end illegal immigration.

"They'll just move somewhere else and be somebody else's problem," she said.

Story continues below

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/22/nebraska-immigration-law_n_620528.html

[virgil47]

I hope other cities and then states follow suit.

[MelissaWV]

Another imposed-by-Government excuse to check everyone's paperwork.

E-verify? Required.

License to rent? Required.

Incomplete characterization of Arizona law? Included.

[John Taylor]

Another imposed-by-Government excuse to check everyone's paperwork.

E-verify? Required.

License to rent? Required.

Incomplete characterization of Arizona law? Included.

States and their political subdivisions have the plenary police powers to require that people be legally in the country if they are going to gain the protection and benefit of the individual community.

By securing the border and dismantling the welfare/warfare state, this entire crisis could be mitigated. Oh well... instead we have hundreds and hundreds of OTM's, from the middle east and central asia flooding across near Nogales.

[MelissaWV]

Licensures and additional layers of bureaucracy are not an efficient means of doing anything except wasting money. Why not leave this up to individual businesses and landlords? Oh, wait, because we have no faith in individual businessowners and landlords, plus people are too stupid to boycott, plus this wouldn't justify more Government jobs and intrusion.

People need to stop thinking that just because something is supposed to "curb illegal immigration," it's a good idea.

[John Taylor]

Licensures and additional layers of bureaucracy are not an efficient means of doing anything except wasting money. Why not leave this up to individual businesses and landlords? Oh, wait, because we have no faith in individual businessowners and landlords, plus people are too stupid to boycott, plus this wouldn't justify more Government jobs and intrusion.

People need to stop thinking that just because something is supposed to "curb illegal immigration," it's a good idea.

Leave this to individual landlords and businesses? Because we have a welfare/warfare state subsidizing the presence of these illegals--- a subsidization which distorts the market. We need to remove the entire welfare/warfare state apperatus prior to allowing unfettered immigration.

Sorry. Another FAIL for the open borders crowd.

[MelissaWV]

Leave this to individual landlords and businesses? Because we have a welfare/warfare state subsidizing the presence of these illegals--- a subsidization which distorts the market. We need to remove the entire welfare/warfare state apperatus prior to allowing unfettered immigration.

Sorry. Another FAIL for the open borders crowd.

I am not a part of any "open borders crowd." FAIL for you.

If subsidization is the problem, then please check for legality there, not when someone is transacting with a private business. I'm certainly in favor of checking for citizenship when someone is trying to obtain Government services; that only makes sense. The Government can have its glorious "No Work" list for its own workers, too, to be sure they aren't hiring illegals, either. Schooling, foodstamps, welfare, assistance programs, grants, and so on... those are Government services. Buying something, working, renting, etc., should be between an individual of any citizenship status and the person doing the selling/hiring/renting.

That's all, of course, in an ideal world. I'm silly like that. If the problem is welfare, I don't understand why one would tackle the problem by mandating businesses use e-verify. Isn't that, by default, causing more illegals to seek out welfare, which they can still obtain fraudulently with very little trouble? Overwhelming welfare tends to make them even less likely to verify one's claims. This seems like it actually has the potential to backfire.

[John Taylor]

I am not a part of any "open borders crowd." FAIL for you.

HAHAHA, sure! :rolleyes: Tell me another whopper!!


If subsidization is the problem, then please check for legality there, not when someone is transacting with a private business. I'm certainly in favor of checking for citizenship when someone is trying to obtain Government services; that only makes sense. The Government can have its glorious "No Work" list for its own workers, too, to be sure they aren't hiring illegals, either. Schooling, foodstamps, welfare, assistance programs, grants, and so on... those are Government services. Buying something, working, renting, etc., should be between an individual of any citizenship status and the person doing the selling/hiring/renting.

The presence of the entire apperatus of the post New Deal welfare state is what restricts businesses and directs them towards the hiring and use of illegals. It is things like the minimum wage which create a market for illegal immigrant labor, and facilitate their presence here. With workman's comp laws and unemployment benefits, American workers and given a disincentive to labor, and thus the demand for unskilled labor rises yet further. We need to stike the root of these causes, the welfare state, prior to allowing millions of people who will vote to turn Nebraska into L.A. before we can build the support to overturn the apperatus in place.


That's all, of course, in an ideal world. I'm silly like that. If the problem is welfare, I don't understand why one would tackle the problem by mandating businesses use e-verify. Isn't that, by default, causing more illegals to seek out welfare, which they can still obtain fraudulently with very little trouble? Overwhelming welfare tends to make them even less likely to verify one's claims. This seems like it actually has the potential to backfire.

In the interium between today (when those espousing the freedom philosophy lack the political muscle to destroy the welfare/warfare state), and tommorow (when we do), we must not unwittingly create a new crisis by allowing unfettered immigration to on one hand aleviate the economic consequences here of the welfare/warfare state, and on the other by bringing in new redistributionist voters.

[MelissaWV]

Please post any sort of evidence to back up the idea that I'm for open borders.

I'll wait, but I won't hold my breath.

I wonder what you gain by completely and totally misrepresenting the viewpoints of other posters? You've done that twice in under 24 hours with me. It's unamusing, and it wastes copious amounts of time.

[erowe1]

Leave this to individual landlords and businesses? Because we have a welfare/warfare state subsidizing the presence of these illegals--- a subsidization which distorts the market. We need to remove the entire welfare/warfare state apperatus prior to allowing unfettered immigration.

Sorry. Another FAIL for the open borders crowd.

So wait. Are you saying that you're ok with laws requiring us to enforce immigration laws by figuring out whether or not the people we do business with are here legally?

It's none of the government's business. I should be able to do any business I want without having to tell the government I do it at all, much less having to tell them the details of my business transactions. If they want to have some law about who can and cannot be within the borders, they have no right to conscript me into helping them enforce their laws without my consent.

[John Taylor]

So wait. Are you saying that you're ok with laws requiring us to enforce immigration laws by figuring out whether or not the people we do business with are here legally?

It's none of the government's business. I should be able to do any business I want without having to tell the government I do it at all, much less having to tell them the details of my business transactions. If they want to have some law about who can and cannot be within the borders, they have no right to conscript me into helping them enforce their laws without my consent.

I've nowhere said that I favor laws conscripting people into ICE or the border patrol. This ordinance in Nebraska is directed at housing, and it only seeks to prevent criminals from residing within the town.

[erowe1]

I've nowhere said that I favor laws conscripting people into ICE or the border patrol. This ordinance in Nebraska is directed at housing, and it only seeks to prevent criminals from residing within the town.

I thought it was both housing and employment?

But be that as it may, even if it's just for housing, I don't see how it's not a case of the government conscripting people (such as landlords) into enforcing the law for them.

If I want to rent out a room in my house to someone for cash without asking them questions about where they come from, that's my right. It's my property and it's a transaction between me and that person that is none of anyone else's business. If you support a law that requires me to collect additional information from that person and check it against some government database to see if they are approved by the government to rent my room from me, then yes, you do support the government conscripting me into enforcing its immigration laws for it without my consent.

[MelissaWV]

I thought it was both housing and employment?

But be that as it may, even if it's just for housing, I don't see how it's not a case of the government conscripting people (such as landlords) into enforcing the law for them.

If I want to rent out a room in my house to someone for cash without asking them questions about where they come from, that's my right. It's my property and it's a transaction between me and that person that is none of anyone else's business. If you support a law that requires me to collect additional information from that person and check it against some government database to see if they are approved by the government to rent my room from me, then yes, you do support the government conscripting me into enforcing its immigration laws for it without my consent.

It's not "housing." It's rentals. If you have the money to buy a property outright, I don't think they give as much of a flip about your legality ;)

The Government disagrees with the bolded part, and they'll install a licensing procedure to let you know to whom you can rent that room.

[specsaregood]

Why not leave this up to individual businesses and landlords? Oh, wait, because we have no faith in individual businessowners and landlords,

How exactly could a landlord do this on their own and not risk the wrath of violating the Fair Housing Act? Do landlords have access to an immigration/citizenship database that I don't know about?

[phill4paul]

More mandated BS from the Majority Rule crowd restricting individual property ownership. First no smoking bans in rental properties. Now no illegals. :rolleyes:
This errant belief that the majority vote trumps individual rights will be the fall of the U.S.

[MelissaWV]

How exactly could a landlord do this on their own and not risk the wrath of violating the Fair Housing Act? Do landlords have access to an immigration/citizenship database that I don't know about?

In an ideal world, there would be third party verification agencies (much like we currently have for credit scores, but not quite). If you wanted to rent to "Americans only," you could verify such by running the person's identification or, more to the point, their birth certificate or immigration papers would be provided as proof of citizenship. Spot-checks to determine whether or not the certificate/papers are legitimate would be in the company's best interest. If you are someone simply renting a room out of your house, you might just decide not to bother and rent to whoever can show you the cash and keep to the terms of their lease.

Of course, you hit the nail on the head: Fair Housing Act. In order to right a different wrong without unrighting the first wrong, we must then wrong a right and create a license, right? The Government is such a damned mess, seriously.

[specsaregood]

Of course, you hit the nail on the head: Fair Housing Act. In order to right a different wrong without unrighting the first wrong, we must then wrong a right and create a license, right? The Government is such a damned mess, seriously.

right, i'm not saying I like this. But there may have been lots of locals and landlords that may have wanted this but had no way of actually doing it voluntarily without passing a law because of existing laws restricting their rights.

[libertybrewcity]

it seems like they are not attacking the root of the problem. this definitely has undertones of racism in it. for example, mayor gavin newsom in san francisco just passed a law that bans homeless people from sleeping on the streets as a way to attack poverty. he should have instead attacked poverty at its roots and eliminated the abundant government bureaucracies that keep the homeless homeless.

The article only mentions that people are scared of losing their jobs, well why don't they take away all government services and give them legal status so they can compete fairly with the "good" people that the town claims to be.

And the license is counterproductive to liberty too. Everyone would have to have them. Just wait til they start charging a tax to get a rent license. Just one step closer to real id.