Archive for Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Anti-immigration measure OK’d in Neb.

June 22, 2010


— Voters in the eastern Nebraska city of Fremont on Monday approved a ban on hiring or renting property to illegal immigrants, the latest proposal in a series of immigration regulations taken up by communities around the country.

About 57 percent of voters in Fremont supported the proposal, according to unofficial results that still must be certified by the election commissioner. The measure is likely to face a long and costly court battle, with the American Civil Liberties Union saying it will try to block it before it even goes into effect.

The town of about 25,000 people has watched as its Hispanic population surged in the past two decades, largely because of the jobs available at the nearby Fremont Beef and Hormel meatpacking plants. The city also has an enviably low unemployment rate that matches the Nebraska rate of 4.9 percent.

Nonetheless, residents worry that jobs are going to illegal immigrants who they fear could drain community resources. Proponents of the ballot measure collected enough signatures and fought in the Nebraska Supreme Court to put the question to a public vote.

The 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.

Kansas City, Mo.-based attorney Kris Kobach, who helped write the Arizona law, has been working on the ordinance in Fremont. He is also running for secretary of state in Kansas.

From about 165 Hispanics — both legal and illegal — living in Fremont in 1990, the total surged to 1,085 in 2000, according to census expert David Drozd at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. He said an estimated 2,060 Hispanics lived there last year.

The measure will require potential renters to apply for a license to rent. The application process will force Fremont officials to check if the renters are in the country legally. If they are found to be illegal, they will not be issued a license allowing them to rent. The ordinance also requires businesses to use the federal E-Verify database to ensure employees are allowed to work.

Communities that have passed such laws have faced costly legal bills and struggled to enforce them because of legal challenges. Even before the Fremont measure passed, the ACLU of Nebraska had said it would sue.


Flap Doodle 8 years ago

The headline should actually be "Anti-illegal-alien measure OD'd in Neb".

Majestic42 8 years ago

Yeah, the lj editors really showed their true colors in that headline.

puddleglum 8 years ago

I agree. the laws are anti-illegal alien, NOT anti-immigrant.....

Majestic42 8 years ago

Yup, it's definitely against the Constitution to pass a law that defends the law.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years ago

The leaders who promoted this legislation, out of the other sides of their mouths, almost certainly speak of needing to "grow the community," as long as it's grown with white folks with German or British-Isle sounding names.

jaywalker 8 years ago

Another pile of horse droppings from bozo; Shocker! And snap corrected the headline for ya Josh, or was this the work of another LJW headline defiler? The bill isn't "anti-immigration", it's anti-illegals; how dare anyone be against law-breakers?!

SettingTheRecordStraight 8 years ago

This is about the rule of law, and this is about employment rates. A claim of racism is sometimes the last argument made in the face of logic.

Jimo 8 years ago

The justification of every tyrant. Just following "The Law"!

Cmon small-government TeaPotty, AWOL again!

jaywalker 8 years ago

Brilliant retort. Of course you're right. Why, we should all ignore the law, look what it's done for California.

SettingTheRecordStraight 8 years ago

Then tear down the border fence, close border checkpoints, shred your passport, fire our federal immigration officials and watch our country disintegrate.

You're free to advocate for policies that allow for unlimited immigration as well as amnesty for illegal immigrants, but cities like Freemont, NE aren't going to let that become reality.

citizen0123 8 years ago

beo and bozo,you two make me want to barf. if your so high and mighty why dont you support all of these illegals. you two are the most racist ,ignorant people i have ever had the mispleasure to read about.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years ago

"why dont you support all of these illegals."

Well, before this law, they supported themselves. So if you support it, it should be up to you to support them when they get fired.

jafs 8 years ago

Oh come on, send them back where they came from.

skinny 8 years ago

All they need to do is start enforcing the laws already on the books!! Start deporting them NOW!!

Flap Doodle 8 years ago

Be legal or be gone. Doesn't matter if you are from Norway or Kenya.

puddleglum 8 years ago

or mexico, get out and stop mooching off our infrastructure. They are here ILLEGALLY!

puddleglum 8 years ago

or mexico, get out and stop mooching off our infrastructure. They are here ILLEGALLY!

Majestic42 8 years ago

I don't really understand why it's so hard for people to understand this. You're 100% right.

jaywalker 8 years ago

Soon as 80% of the illegals in this country are from Norway or Kenya I imagine you'll get your amendment.

jaywalker 8 years ago

How is it racial profiling, vertigo? In the Arizona instance, inquiry into someone's citizenship can only begin after that person has been detained for breaking the law in the first place.
In the Fremont law, ALL people are subject to proof of residency in order to rent a home, and employers must verify ALL employees are legal residents.

I didn't "readily admit" jack, buddy. I merely stated a fact: 80% of illegals in this country are hispanic. And you can get bent with the "you probably only like the Constitution" childishness. Too bad you don't get cash for posting the same drivel over and over.

Majestic42 8 years ago

You are 100% right, jaywalker. A majority of people opposed to anti-illegal immigration legislation have never read the laws they are trashing. There's nothing wrong with enforcing the law.

headdoctor 8 years ago

That is funny. If you made the law retroactive, you just emptied out the bulk of the population of the US. Your comments would be comedy gold if you were not so serious and down right ignorant.

jafs 8 years ago

Why on earth should we send back people who followed the correct procedures to immigrate legally?

William Pike 8 years ago

Fremont was losing population until the darned mexicans moved in. They should be thankful.

BrianR 8 years ago

When is the Media going to get it through their thick skulls that sneaking over the border is not immigration.

headdoctor 8 years ago

I am wondering just how much of the Hispanic growth there is actually illegal aliens. I also wonder just how many Tea bagger preferred White people are showing up to apply for the jobs at Fremont Beef and Hormel meatpacking plants. In other packing plant areas around the country, the plants, within two years of openings could no longer fill the jobs with the local supply of workers. They either had more jobs than workers or they had already run through the those who will actually show up for work. Many of these lower populated areas wanted companies there for the jobs and income to the area but want to be particular about regulating growth. As many places have found out, they can't have it both ways.

Truthspeaker 8 years ago

Having it both ways?

You mean the same way that Liberals complain about large companies, such as Nike, having factories overseas because those are jobs that Americans could be doing. When Nike replies that jobs in a shoe factory are the types of work that American's don't want, they are lambasted by the left, for OF COURSE Americans want those jobs. Right now they want ANY job.

Then, when people talk about how they want illegal aliens kicked out and how the illegal aliens are taking up jobs, the left replies with "Well, those are jobs that American's won't do."

So, according to Liberals, there are low wage, low skill jobs that Americans desperately want that are elsewhere, but they don't want any of the low wage, low skill jobs that are here.

Is that what you mean by wanting it both ways?

ivalueamerica 8 years ago

This is clearly going to fail in the courts. If you are a real American, you will not choose to betray the Constitution to fight illegal immigration.

I guess this community has lots of extra money to fight a lengthy and loosing legal battle just to make a point.

jafs 8 years ago

How is this unconstitutional?

jaywalker 8 years ago

You'll never get a response to that question from ivalue, jafs.

ivalueamerica 8 years ago

I am sorry you are a, let me are a sorry liar.

ivalueamerica 8 years ago

This law has twice already been deemed unconstitutional because it violates the 14th amendment and bypasses the federal authority as the unique authority to uphold immigration law.

In Hazelton, voters in 2006 approved a measure to enact practically the same law that Fremont has voted to adopt. But in July 2007, a federal judge found that immigration laws should be left solely to the federal government.

In May of 2008, a federal judge ruled the Farmers Branch law, which would bar landlords from renting to illegal immigrants, was unconstitutional.

jaywalker 8 years ago

Yeah, I'm the "sorry liar", but yet you still refuse to answer the question: How is this law unconstitutional? You've been asked this simple question several times, you've yet to answer. That surely doesn't make me a "liar", but does paint you as an obfuscator and blusterer. If such laws were universally blanketed as "unconstitutional", there would be no repeat attempts at enacting such, now would there?

'Course maybe you've never heard of 'states rights':

"State Arrest Authority The preliminary question is whether the states have inherent power (subject to federal preemption) to make arrests for violation of federal law. That is, may state police, exercising state law authority only, make arrests for violations of federal law, or do they have power to make such arrests only insofar as they are exercising delegated federal executive power? The answer to this question is plainly the former.

The source of this authority flows from the states� status as sovereign entities. They are sovereign governments possessing all residual powers not abridged or superceded by the U.S. Constitution. The source of the state governments� power is entirely independent of the U.S. Constitution. See Sturges v. Crowninshield, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 122, 193 (1819). Moreover, the enumerated powers doctrine that constrains the powers of the federal government does not so constrain the powers of the states. Rather, the states possess what are known as "police powers," which need not be specifically enumerated. Police powers are "an exercise of the sovereign right of the government to protect the lives, health, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the people�" Manigault v. Springs, 199 U.S. 473, 480 (1905). Essentially, states may take any action (consistent with their own constitutions and laws) unless there exists a prohibition in the U.S. Constitution or such action has been preempted by federal law.2 "

Sorry, ivalue, there exists no such prohibition in the Constitution. That means that such laws are not automatically "unconstitutional", much as you'd like to believe.

deec 8 years ago

Cities are not states. He already answered your queation and referenced the specific supreme court cases. And their opinion counts more than your does.

jaywalker 8 years ago

Cities are not states. Wow. Thanks for clearing that up. Cities and counties can create their own laws as long as they follow their state constitution; they fall under the purview of 'states rights.' But thanks for playing.
The cases SHE cites were ruled against based on the merits of the laws that were written for those specific cases; sorry, their rulings don't make this law unconstitutional by default.
And sorry again, but citing other Supreme Court cases does not answer the question: what makes THIS law unconstitutional? Couldn't help but notice you didn't answer either. Those citations answer those specific cases, not this one. In fact, ivalue posits it's the 14th Amendment that's being violated here......wanna play, deec? Please explain what part of the 14th specifically references the articles of this case?

ivalueamerica 8 years ago

I have shown that this very same law has twice been declared un Constitutional and why.

The fact that you either deny the facts or do not understand them does not change that.

jaywalker 8 years ago

The fact you can't understand english doesn't change 'em either. Each law is unique, dear heart, the Constitution does not live in a vacuum. You've cited the 14th amendment as the reason this law is unconstitutional; unless you can actually EXPLAIN where in the 14th this Fremont law strays, you haven't SHOWN jack. Merely citing two cases doesn't answer the question.

Like I said, we'll never get an answer from you on this, you do the same thing time and again.

jrf2027 8 years ago

"I guess this community has lots of extra money to fight a lengthy and loosing legal battle just to make a point."

Like I posted below, the City of Fremont has fought this ordinance from the outset. Don't be surprised if they handle it like Schwartzenegger and Brown did the suit against Prop 8 out in California - refuse to file an answer to the ACLU's anticipated lawsuit.

Majestic42 8 years ago

How is it against the Constitution to pass a law that defends the law?

ivalueamerica 8 years ago

it seems you do not realize that you can not violate the Constiutition to support a I stated above, this law has been deemed un-Constitutional twice already for violation of the 14th Amendment and for conflicting with the fact that only Federal authority can enforce immigration law.

A lot of lawyers will get rich of this, but it will never be a law.

jafs 8 years ago

I just read the text of the 14th amendment and it refers to the rights of American citizens, not illegal aliens.

That includes people born here, or naturalized citizens.

It doesn't include people who are here illegally.

Majestic42 8 years ago

THANK YOU, jafs. There's really no argument now. Anti-illegal immigration legislation is simply that: Against something that is already against the law. ivalue, let's see you argue your way out of that one.

Sean Livingstone 8 years ago

These are my comments after reading your postings:

  1. No administration did anything on immigration except Ronald Reagan who gave illegal immigrants a path towards citizenship. But it's so funny that once Obama became a President, AZ and NE began their process to eliminate all illegal immigrants themselves. Why didn't they do that during the Clinton or Bush administration? Where were the anger when Ronald Reagan gave illegals the rights to citizenship?

  2. The two largest expenses that caused the deficit come from Medicare and Military expenses. The others are simply one-off expenses.

  3. Before the Latinos moved into Nebraska, the former meat packing plants employees were new immigrants (massive in number) from Europe. The meat packing plants simply used these Europeans to lower the production costs. After these employees moved on because their offsprings became better off, they were replaced by Latinos. But one thing that the American government did.... they redefined immigration. So before, those Europeans by today's standard is considered illegal. But what they didn't do is to adjust the employment system, and look at labor demand. So meat packing plants continued to employ low cost labors.

Just saying.

frittata65 8 years ago

makes me remember reading "The Jungle"

Sean Livingstone 8 years ago

Yeap, the only difference is that those Eastern Europeans are now substituted by Latinos. I'm sure those Eastern Europeans sucked up welfare, and had their "anchor" babies too.... It kindda reminded me when Japan entered into the War in the Pacific Theater, Europe and America told Japan that they were not allowed to do so... forgot that for 60-70 years, they dominated China and did horrible things there. A leopard can never change its spots.... . If we continue down this road... we'll let our children inherit the hatred that we face today. just saying and slowly advising Americans to do the right thing. Look at the right direction.

labmonkey 8 years ago

Poor Headline. Shows this paper's bias.

tolawdjk 8 years ago

I care not one whit, either way, on how Fremont goes about its buidness.

However, I see serious flaws in the approach.

1) The industries bringing these individuals into the area are not within Fremont. The meat packing industry will not have to conform to this new law. What is to prevent these meatpacking plants from moving in 50 trailer houses on company property to rent to labor?

2) The claim that these people are taking jobs away from Americans. There is no reason why Americans couldn't apply for and obtain these jobs. If illegals are flocking into the area to work there, these buisnesses must offer an incentive to do so. My guess is that the level of work doesn't mesh with the level of pay most Americans expect.

3) Fremont isn't an oasis. There are several additional burgs well within driving distance. At best, Fremont has forced the illegals to move to one of them, making them someone else's problem. They will most likely still have the ancillary costs associated with it...police and fire will still have to respond to crimes/accidents within Fremont, possibly caused by illegals, hospitals will still have to treat ER visits, schools will still lose out on state funding as the children will still be in Nebraska, just in a different district.

4) As an American, if I was renting, I certainly wouldn't rent in Fremont given the additional loop I would have to jump through to follow the "rules".

The law didn't "solve" anything, and actually took away liberties afforded to honest Americans. Personally, I don't see it any different than the Brady bill or any other legislation attempting to remove gun rights. The fact is, if I want to do something, I now need a license to do it. I need a license to obtain a firearm to protect my family and property and now, in Fremont, NE atleast, I need a license to obtain shelter.

The meat packing industry is possibly the best example of the worst possible player in the illegal immigration fight. Throughout the history of America, this industry has constantly hired non-citizens due to working conditions and low pay and the simple fact that it is more cost effective to let the labor come to them, rather than ship the animals down to the labor.

c_doc77 8 years ago

I think its important not to conflate the issue here. I also think "be legal or be gone" - not from an emotional angle, but from a legal and an economic angle. You can't just let a foreign people come in your country illegally and sap your resources. That's national suicide. Neither should you create a situation where the effects of xenophobia are amplified, and where an ethnic group is scapegoated. The buck stops with Uncle Sam to stop illegal immigration.

But here is the issue: Is it legal for the city to make landlords do this? I say no. What business is it of theirs who the owners of private property decide to rent to? Plus, who really believes non-Hispanic people are going to have to jump through the hoops Hispanics will have to jump through? I think cities should come up with strategic solutions to this problem, but this isn't the way to go about it.

I have some reservations about the Arizona legislation, but I am more sympathetic to it than stuff like this. There remains a possibility that the Arizona law could be abused, but it could be enforced without discrimination, and to a large extent probably would be. We have to remember that Arizona is a state with a large population of Hispanics. Most people fail to realize that this legislation had significant Hispanic support. Its not like you'll have a bunch of redneck cops trying to harass people for being brown. I doubt there will be any random stops or anything like that. I mean, this isn't Oklahoma, and I can say that because I'm from there. Arizona is simply trying to do what the federal government refuses to do. Someone has to do something. The situation is very bad there.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years ago

"You can't just let a foreign people come in your country illegally and sap your resources."

Is this really happening? Or is this just one of the unsupported scare tactics of those who lack any ideas outside of xenophobia?

c_doc77 8 years ago

Well, certainly xenophobes will use data for propaganda, but that's beside the point. The idea that illegal immigration is sapping US resources is "unsupported" is simply not true. I'd suggest looking into the work of George Borjas and Paul Samuelson to get a handle on the economic impact of illegal immigration to the US.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years ago

I'll try to check out what they have to say, but from what I've read, the net cost to society of these immigrants is pretty close to neutral, although it's a very difficult thing to measure.

They don't pay quite as many taxes as citizens or residents of comparable income levels, but neither are they eligible for most of the benefits citizens and residents get.

Bottom line-- it's a non-issue in this debate.

Sean Livingstone 8 years ago

jaywalker, people like to cite California. But California's bankruptcy is caused by the collapse of its real estate market, and very little to do with its illegal immigrants. People just like to put on this smoke screen... for example, the two things that we need to work on to reduce the deficits are military expenses and medicare. However, the Republicans continue to say we need smaller government but bigger military... our government is already very small.... but our military is way too big for our own good. Our medical system is sucking up all the monies... just look how big the insurance companies and hospitals are... and just look at how worn out our infrastructures are... then you'll realize where have all the monies gone too... good luck AMerica.

c_doc77 8 years ago

California has all kinds of problems. I wouldn't doubt that illegal immigration factors in, but it is far from being the sole cause. The housing market may play a big part, but it isn't the sole cause either.

jaywalker 8 years ago

You're correct, c_doc, there are a myriad of factors. The housing market is an issue virtually everywhere, livingstone trying to say that's why the state is bankrupt is ridiculous; the state government has little to no investment in individual housing. Illegal immigration, however, is bankrupting hospitals.......hospitals!!! For crying out loud!
Cali has problems, particularly when it comes to irrigating the southern portion which is supposed to be a desert. But it's entitlement programs are what's unsustainable (primarily due to illegals) and an example of what happens when illegal immigration goes unchecked. It's the USA in an incubator, take heed.

jaywalker 8 years ago

"But California's bankruptcy is caused by the collapse of its real estate market, and very little to do with its illegal immigrants."

Hooonk! Thanks for playing.

"our government is already very small"

Aaand.... disqualified.

deec 8 years ago

Both meat factories are outside the city limits,so this law will have no effect on the employers who caused the "problem".

somedude20 8 years ago

Hope that "ALF" is grandfathered in.

Flap Doodle 8 years ago

If you are related to the President and evade deportation long enough, you get to stay.

Alia Ahmed 8 years ago

Here's a very well written and balanced article about whether illegal immigrants are a drain on resources at the local, state and federal level. As with most issues, it depends on the what measures were studied. It seems local governments incur more of the costs while state/federal governments may benefit from the taxes paid by illegal immigrants. Local economies and businesses certainly may benefit from the consumption of goods.

I think about a Price Chopper I used to shop at in Wyandotte County on Roe Blvd. There was a large Hispanic population (legal and illegal most likely) in that neighborhood and the store had several aisles of groceries geared to that population. Obviously, Price Chopper thought it was a profitable venture to stock groceries for this population. Those residents pay sales tax on all those purchases as well and landlords who rent to them paid property taxes on the apartments they live in

jaywalker 8 years ago

Interesting read, Alia. And how the heck are ya!!?? Haven't seen you here in a while, hope you've been prospering.

It's funny you mention that particular Price Chopper. Some years ago my girlfriend and I went in there to get some grub for a Chiefs game and the sheer volume of tortillas in there had us laughing so hard we were cryin'! It seemed like every aisle we turned there was another table full; they were everywhere! Just one of those mornings when you're a little punchy from the night before, but it was amusing nonetheless.

Alia Ahmed 8 years ago

I'm good, jaywalker. Thanks for asking.

i found it really interesting to see all the unusual groceries in there and now there are even pinatas for sale there as well. While I found it interesting and amusing, I had a good friend who just felt infuriated every time she went in there. She saw it as a sort of invasion and I would say that Price Chopper must appreciate their business and be making some money selling those products or they wouldn't do so. .As you might imagine, my friend and I have some interesting discussions about all things political. :~)

jaywalker 8 years ago

I'd tell your friend to get a grip and be rational, for cryin' out loud. Markets are just like any other enterprise catering to their particular demographic. Perhaps a trip to NYC or San Fran's Chinatown could put things in perspective for her! :)

deec 8 years ago

They also pay social security taxes.

c_doc77 8 years ago

Assuming they're not paid under the table.

Alia Ahmed 8 years ago

True. The article points out they often pay state and federal income taxes. My guess is if they are not citizens they will not qualify to receive social security benefits, even if they paid into the system.

Flap Doodle 8 years ago

The illegal aliens are committing identity theft if they are using someone else's Social Security number.

Alia Ahmed 8 years ago

Snap, I think the article that I read indicated they can use a tax identification number instead of a social security number when those taxes are deducted.

kernal 8 years ago

If the Fremont Hispanic illegals in Freemont cannot continue to live in Freemont, will they move elsewhere leaving their jobs behind? Will the meatpacking plants be able to replace them at the same low salaries or will they close down and Freemont loose more jobs? Will some smart person put in a trailer park outside the city limits for those workers? Stay tuned!

storm 8 years ago

Journalists who write this story need to be correct with terminology. Hispanics are not illegal immigrants so quit using the terms interchangably. Just because Kobach does this, doesn't mean reporters have to, also.

c_doc77 8 years ago

Are you sure this was actually done here? If so, I can't see it. The only quote I see that could be construed as equating the two is this:

"The town of about 25,000 people has watched as its Hispanic population surged in the past two decades, largely because of the jobs available at the nearby Fremont Beef and Hormel meatpacking plants."

I think this is just a statement of fact. It isn't making assumptions about whether the "Hispanic population" employed by the meatpacking plants are all illegal.

Further, the writer clarifies things by writing,

"From about 165 Hispanics — both legal and illegal — living in Fremont in 1990, the total surged to 1,085 in 2000, according to census expert David Drozd at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. He said an estimated 2,060 Hispanics lived there last year."

Kyle Reed 8 years ago

In this article the illegal aliens they are referring to are Hispanic. They aren't using them interchangably they are identifying the specific group they are talking about.

storm 8 years ago

When one reads about Kobach's agenda, it appears he is targeting an ethic group due to using illegal immigration and Hispanic interchangably. For this reason, it makes his argument for better/more laws less credible / believable. Yes, oc_doc77, that quote is the one I'm referring to. This article as well as others (ignore Cal Thomas for a moment because he's so obvious) are stealthly trying to construe Hispanics as illegal immigrants.

c_doc77 8 years ago

The only problem is that you have no proof of this. You've just made an assertion as to the motives of the author arbitrarily and attempted to link that to "Kobach's agenda". Despite my own misgivings about the mainstream media and politicians generally, I doubt very seriously there is any collusion between an AP reporter and Mr. Kobach. I just don't see it, man.

puddleglum 8 years ago

I thought he was trying to target Illegal immigrants? If the majority of those is mexican, than the majority of those cases will involve Mexicans....kinda makes sense, doesn't it?

skinny 8 years ago

balishag, the article came from the Associated Press! Where did you go to school at>????

jaywalker 8 years ago

Just because the article is AP generated doesn't necessarily mean the headline is the original; the LJW frequently places their own headlines to articles and op-eds not written by in-house staff. Don't know about this one but it's awful.

c_doc77 8 years ago

Its a little more complicated than that. Its not like Americans woke up one day and said, "Take this job and shove it! We ain't workin' here no more" and employers responded by saying, "Guess its time to find workers in Mexico." And for those who don't know, some meat packing plants literally do advertise for workers in the country of Mexico. So its no wonder they come.

Fifty years ago, working in a meat packing plant was a good job with good pay. It was like working for one of the auto manufacturers. You had job security and retirement, even a union. Things changed when the farming industry modified its operations to satisfy the fast food market. Migrant workers became the natural employees of choice for corporations who want to maximize profits and minimize liabilities. But contrary to popular belief, illegals are not the only ones doing these jobs, though they do make up a significant number - perhaps a majority. I don't know for sure.

Some farming operations have relied on migrant workers for decades, and they were not always illegal. Although Bush tried to sell this worker permit thing as some new solution to illegal immigration, that's been going on forever.

jrf2027 8 years ago

The City of Fremont does not want this ordinance. It fought in both the district court and the Nebraska Supreme Court to prevent this ordinance from going to a vote. Without making a determination as to whether the proposed ordinance would pass constitutional muster, the Nebraska Supreme Court simply said the ordinance should be put to a vote. The case is City of Fremont v. Kotas, 279 Neb. 720.

Flap Doodle 8 years ago

To be more exact: the City government of Fremont does not want this ordinance. The voters in Fremont thought differently.

c_doc77 8 years ago

consumer1, maybe you should actually read the Flag Code. Just a suggestion. And I'm not from Iraq actually.

whats_going_on 8 years ago

so, you're going to allow the workers to work at the nearby plants, but yet not give them anywhere to live.


ivalueamerica 8 years ago

This law has twice been struck down in other communities as against the Constitution.

I suggest you are supporting treason, and you are NOT a patriotic American for refusing to support and defend the Constitution.

It should always be respected and honored if you are a true American, even when fighting illegal immigration.

You shame your country and the soldiers who fight and die to defend this sacred document of our freedom.

c_doc77 8 years ago

ivalueamerica, I mostly agree with you here. But don't you think you may have gone a bit far when you said, "You shame your country and the soldiers who fight and die to defend this sacred document of our freedom"? I dare say that a good number of them know very little about the Constitution, just like most Americans - including the supposed constitutional scholar that our men call "Commander in Chief".

When is the last time a soldier actually fought to defend the Constitution? I know and respect many military men, but it is simply not true that this is what they are fighting for. For the most part, they have fought undeclared and unconstitutional wars for reasons other than the preservation of this "sacred document." I know it hurts folks to admit that. That's why so many people will "attack the man" who says it, but can't we have an honest discourse without lying to ourselves?

Sean Livingstone 8 years ago

And this issue only pops up when Obama becomes president.... that smoke screen works very well... Big B... Ronald Reagan gave millions of citizenships to millions of illegal immigrants, and Obama hasn't even done a thing before people started criticizing him for all the illegal problems.... stop putting all the smoke screen up.

Sean Livingstone 8 years ago

Illegal immigration is a smoke screen some people creates to divert the attention from the real problem. It is now a tool used against Obama, and yet the Conservatives consistently forgave Ronald Reagan for giving millions of illegals free citizenships that flow into the Clinton administration, and then they put the blame on Clinton. The deficit is caused by overspending military, and our overcharging hospitals and insurance companies. Time to get tough on the real issues, and let's not build a smoke screen on issues that should not on the top of the agenda... I always know that it's easy to blame someone and try to stir national emotions... secure the border is important.... but reducing our debts is even more urgent... and the first thing is to cut military spending, and medicare. But whoever take on this challenge will be overthrown by American voters... why? Because we're all selfish. We don't really care for this nation enough to sacrifice... those who serve the military wants their piece of the cake... those who are older now want their piece of the pie.... we're just gone...

jafs 8 years ago

We can eliminate our troops in other countries, stop fighting any/all "pre-emptive" wars, and focus on defending our country.

Also, let's stop giving away massive military contracts in no-bid give-aways to terrible companies like Halliburton.

Those two will dramatically cut our military spending.

As far as Medicare goes, we can cut the waste/fraud there, and stop paying private insurance companies for administering it.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 12 months ago

I don't know how I look like being selfish to you. Iraq war shouldn't have happened in the first place while Afgan war was the right war in 2001 to 2003 until we messed up the goals in the country and failed to focus on capturing the guilty. But these are all too late. We should have a slow phase out of overseas military presence in countries where bases no longer matter.... like Germany and Japan. Let's be honest. Japan doesn't need our help with any invasion from North Korea. Germany doesn't have the same threat like they used to face (USSR), and Europe is now united as one. Our battle ships can still continue to sail around the world without bases (bases are more expensive to maintain), and we can subcontract with countries around the world to use their bases. Afganistan war isn't going to be won with very expensive weapons, but working together with the locals to build their own economy.... so that they can stop relying on the Taliban. They don't have a choice but to rely on Taliban, and military doesn't provide solution for economic development. There are many solutions to rebuild Afgan economies.... too long for this posting. They also need help to rebuild a strong military force...

Medicare.... overcharging by hospitals, plus meddling by the insurance companies. Conduct study on medical productivity and charges, which staffs do we have to eliminate, and how much do they charge for everything. I'm sure the medical industry lobby will be against that. It's very easy to catch overcharged items on your medical bills... we all don't really care... a box of "Medical Cleanliness Paper" which in layman term.... a box of napkin, cost me $120. The bill was sent to me after I left the hospital and sent only to my home, and not immediately at the hospital... which made it difficult for me to justify the items in the bill. We can definitely cut down the number of nurses and staffs.... they don't contribute to the advancement of medicines, yet they add up to our costs. Hospitals should be more transparent too.

Insurance companies.... they should be more transparent to payees, and not just to their shareholders. I'm a customer of the insurance company, and yet I never know what I'm paying for.

I'm sure they already have someone fighting to keep these at bay.... I'm sure I only appear selfish to you.... I worked in the military for 6 years and see the amount of wastes the military had.... my wife works in the medical industry and saw the amount of wastes they produce, and consumers pay for all the wastes. I now work for the consturction industry, and anything we do are scrutinized by our clients... and we're very very efficient.... but no one can ever tell the medical industry to become effiicient...

cheers for labeling me selfish. as a ex-military man, and now tie to the medical industry.... I'm sure I am very selfish.

funkdog1 8 years ago

This is one of the most reasonable approaches I've yet heard in the illegal immigrant "problem." No money has to be spent, no stupid walls or fences have to be built, no ID system has to be put in place. Take away the jobs and the housing and the immigrant tide will be largely stemmed.

Now watch what happens when 'Mericans have to start paying REAL prices for houses, nannies, produce and landscaping and we'll see how much they miss the illegals then.

Flap Doodle 8 years ago

Doing the jobs Americans won't do:

"LOS ANGELES – A hacker took over more than 100 computers and used them to extort sexually explicit videos from women and teenage girls by threatening to release their personal data, federal prosecutors charged Tuesday. Luis Mijangos, 31, of Santa Ana, was arrested at his home by FBI agents on a charge of extortion that carries a maximum federal prison sentence of two years, according to a statement from the U.S. attorney's office. Mijangos made his first court appearance in downtown Los Angeles Tuesday morning where he was released on a $10,000 unsecured appearance bond on condition of home detention with no computers, his attorney Sylvia Torres-Guillen said. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement put a detainer on Mijangos and will take him into custody because he is an illegal alien, U.S. attorney's spokesman Thom Mrozek said..."

c_doc77 8 years ago

Without respect to those who where part of this commission, because I have no idea who they are and therefore may not want to be associated with them pertinent to other political matters, I couldn't agree more with this statement. I have found that many on the Left think its politically incorrect not to be sympathetic towards "undocumented" persons, but they do not seem to share that same sympathy towards other law-breakers. It seems to be symptomatic of a misplaced sense of compassion, wherein those who are poor, non-white, and disenfranchised are given a pass because of their perceived misfortune.

Also among liberals, and again I must make the point that I am not anti-liberal, there is also the erroneous idea that the majority of Hispanic Americans also are sympathetic towards illegals. Therefore there is the underlying assumption that to be against illegal immigration is somehow to be against Hispanics. That isn't the case at all. In the Southwest - Texas, New Mexico, Arizona - there are a number of Hispanic Americans who are legal citizens, and who are against illegal immigration. There are generations of them. Just because you don't hear about them on the news doesn't mean they don't exist.

When it comes to this issue of illegal immigration, there are a number of distractions that enter the picture. But the first issue is one of law. How is it that citizens are expected to follow the law, and non-citizens who benefit from living in the same country do not have to follow the law? Now here is where one of the distractions come in. "That's why we need to change the law." But wait a minute. We're going to change the law to compensate for someone's disregard for it? It doesn't change the fact that they entered this country illegally, and therefore owe no national loyalties to this country. A "path to citizenship" must actually involve becoming an American.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.