FREMONT, NEB. — A Nebraska city suspended its voter-approved ban on hiring or renting property to illegal immigrants, but opponents still want a federal judge to block the ordinance until all legal fights are resolved.
Groups challenging the ordinance are expected in court Wednesday, a day after the Fremont City Council voted to suspended the ban. City officials said delaying the ordinance would save the city money as it fights lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska and the Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund.
Council members also unanimously decided Tuesday to hire Kansas-based attorney and law professor Kris Kobach, who drafted the ordinance and offered to represent Fremont for free to fight the lawsuits. Kobach also helped write Arizona's new controversial immigration law and is one of three Republican candidates running for Kansas Secretary of State.
The groups, which call the ban discriminatory, along with attorneys for the city will ask a federal judge to block the ordinance pending a final court resolution, the ACLU said in a statement after Tuesday's vote.
"We're relieved that the Fremont City Council will suspend this discriminatory ordinance while it's being litigated," said Amy Miller, the ACLU of Nebraska's legal director. "It was a responsible decision that will spare residents of Fremont from worrying about losing housing and jobs because of their appearance and accent pending a final resolution by the court."
The ordinance has put Fremont on the list with Arizona and other places in the national debate over immigration regulations.The city council voted 8-0 to delay the ban at a meeting late Tuesday that attracted about 100 people, and some told council members that the ordinance has already led to divisiveness.
"This law is not yet in effect, but it is increasing conflict and discrimination," Lesley Velez, 20, of Fremont said.
But others said the council shouldn't second-guess voters.
"The citizens of Fremont have spoken. We should not delay this," said Terry Flanagan, a Fremont resident who supports the ban.
The council narrowly rejected the ban in 2008, prompting supporters to gather enough signatures for the ballot measure. Voters approved the ban last month and it was scheduled to take effect Thursday.
Kobach said before the vote Tuesday that if the council delayed implementation, it would mean fewer court hearings over the lawsuits and make the process shorter and cheaper for the city. He didn't immediately return a message after the vote.
Fremont, about 30 miles northwest of Omaha, is among a handful of Nebraska cities that have seen marked demographic changes primarily because of an influx Hispanic workers at meatpacking plants. And illegal immigration has stirred strong opinions among its 25,000 residents.
The ordinance has divided the community between those who say it makes up for what they call lax federal law enforcement and others who argue it could fuel discrimination.
Although council members have insisted that any suspension would be aimed at saving money, some ban supporters remained skeptical.
"They see it as another attempt by the city to block this ordinance," said Jerry Hart, a Fremont resident who petitioned for the ballot measure but supported the suspension based on Kobach's suggestion.
City officials have estimated Fremont's costs of implementing the ordinance — including legal fees, employee overtime and improved computer software — would average $1 million a year.
Fremont's ordinance would require employers to use a federal online system that checks whether a person is permitted to work in the U.S.
It also would require people seeking to rent property to apply for a $5 permit at City Hall. Those who said they were citizens would receive a permit and would not have to provide documents proving legal status. Those who said they weren't citizens would receive permits, but their legal status would be checked. If they're found to be in the country illegally and are unable to resolve their status, they would be forced to leave the property.
Landlords who knowingly rent to illegal immigrants could be subject to $100 fines.
Arizona's law, which is set to take effect Thursday, directs officers to question people about their immigration status during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic stops and if there's a reasonable suspicion they're in the U.S. illegally.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
nugget (anonymous) says…
Klown
Boston_Corbett (anonymous) says…
Kobach offered similar "free services" in drafting an ordinance for a city in Texas recently.
That city has ended up paying more than $4 million to defend their ordinance.
And Kobach personally pocketed $100,000. Some definition of "free."
http://www.sandmountainreporter.com/s...
ronwell_dobbs (anonymous) says…
Interesting that there is no action whatsoever by these Nebraska towns to heavily penalize or otherwise affect the operations of these meat-packing plants for hiring illegal aliens. You have to have your head shoved pretty far up your backside not to see how to really solve the problem here.
Boston_Corbett (anonymous) replies…
The nearby meat-packing plant is not located in Freemont. What exactly do you propose the city to do to "heavily penalize" these plants which would be appropriate or legal?
ronwell_dobbs (anonymous) replies…
Knowing your teabagger leanings you probably don't understand the difference between a singular reference (i.e. City of Freemont) and the reference to multiple cities in the article (i.e. "among a handful of Nebraska cities"). I'll accept your deficiency and somehow treat you as "differently-abled".
The_Big_B (anonymous) replies…
The same thing happened for year in Emporia, at the packing plant that was IBP and later Tyson. The Feds had all the information and tools to stop it, and they wouldn't. The most logical reason is that the big wigs were bought-and-paid-for by campaign contributions, if not under-the-table money. In any event, it wouldn't have taken Sherlock Holmes to deduce that there likely were not 23 guys with the same Social Security number working at the plant, but you don't see what you won't look for.
deathpenaltyliberal (anonymous) says…
Kobach is a scoundrel who is making money off the fears of his fellow citizens. If he wants to decrease illegal immigration, why doesn't he crusade against the businesses and individuals that hire them?
He won't, because they are contributors and donors to the GOP.
orbiter (anonymous) says…
"This small town is showing some real Americanism"
hmm. Local law enforcement removing people of their homes for misdemeanor crimes (not even under the purview of local governments) is where you find your pride in America? It is fascinating that your ideal view of Americanism includes local governments arbitrarily picking a law not under their jurisdiction to de facto enforce, and then having police remove people from their homes as punishment. Nice idea of America you have there.
What other misdemeanors not under local purview do you think local governments should begin to de facto enforce? And is having police remove people from their homes the punishment for all of these crimes?
grammaddy (anonymous) says…
Why is a man who is running for office in THIS state be working for other states? Something foul going on here.
emaw (anonymous) replies…
Your English is offensive and foul!
Boston_Corbett (anonymous) says…
Dobbs: You are the disabled one...I am hardly a TEA bagger. All the packing plants I know of are not in any city limits. I repeat my question.
ronwell_dobbs (anonymous) replies…
Apologies for the 'bagger comment. It's become a gut reaction (and a shameful one at at that).
I think this is clearly the role of the Federal government to enforce immigration policy. Therefore municipalities and States should stay out of the business of it. There is likely little to nothing that a municipality, County, or State could do legally to address the problem.
I don't for a moment disagree with the assertion that the Feds haven't done enough to crack down on the problem. However, I think the most effective solution would be to massively fine companies for having illegal immigrants on their payrolls. Perhaps it could be joined with some sort of incentive for these corporations to "sponsor" these illegals into a legal avenue toward citizenship. I do agree that this will drive up the cost of products, but that would seem to indicate that they were under-priced to begin with.
Boston_Corbett (anonymous) replies…
"There is likely little to nothing that a municipality, County....could do legally to address the problem."
____
That was my point Apology accepted.
blindrabbit (anonymous) says…
Noe that the judge in Arizona has rejected the meaty parts of Kobachs racist law; Fremont, Nebraska should really take a hard look into hiring this right-wing bigot. Hopefully, this will push the Feds. into doing something proactive to resolving the border problem. not leaving it to wing-nuts. McCain ought to get off his wishy-washy arse and quit flipping around.
gatekeeper (anonymous) says…
Kobach is a POS. I know some people up in Freemont. Lots of racist, gun toting idiots up there.
ivalueamerica (anonymous) says…
Clever, pushing a law that is unconstitutional then being hired to defend it.
lounger (anonymous) says…
Kris Kobach is Kreepy. Kick him out of Kansas....
tolawdjk (anonymous) says…
Of course Kobach wants ballot initiatives in Kansas...
beerguy (anonymous) says…
This law is so pointless, most illegal immigrants live in housing supplied by their employer. Do you know how many businessmen in Lawrence have about a dozen apartments rented out in their name while they live in their own house?
rockchalk1977 (anonymous) says…
How about we have the same immigration law that Mexico does. An illegal immigrant caught in Mexico can be fined $450 and deported, and if they’re caught entering illegally a second time, they can spend 10 years in prison. Furthermore, local Mexican police must assist the Federales in apprehending illegal immigrants, just as in Arizona/Nebraska. And remember all those immigrants demonstrating in the streets of Phoenix protesting. Why, it’s illegal in Mexico for non-citizens to protest government actions! Maybe we should be more like Mexico, after all. It only seems fair... right?
Orwell (anonymous) replies…
Great idea. Let's pay to feed and house tens of thousands – or more – of these second offenders for ten years. How many new prisons will that take?
As an alternative, how much of our GDP would we have to take out of productive investment if we decided to round up and deport twelve million people?
Don't propose solutions unless you're willing to pay the necessary taxes.
Orwell (anonymous) says…
Note to the Fremont City Council: There's a sucker born every minute.
Didn't you guys ever see Burt Lancaster in "The Rainmaker?" Not the later one about the crooked health insurance company – Lancaster's character actually promised towns he'd make it rain. At least he returned his fee if it didn't rain – Kobach keeps his, chuckling all the way home.
blindrabbit (anonymous) says…
Sieg Heil Herr Kobach!
oneeye_wilbur (anonymous) says…
It really doesn't make much difference as the country is headed in downward financial spiral before the end of the year.