Hazelton ans Riverside
 

Hazelton, PA and Riverside, NJ have recently enacted laws that penalize those who knowingly rent to or employ illegal immigrants. There has been uproar from the Latino community, claiming the laws are racially motivated, and suits have been filed charging that the laws are unconstitutional.

Are they?

The laws don't single out "Latino illegal immigrants" to my knowledge. If they included ALL lawbreakers (penalize knowingly renting to/employing a robber or murderer) the new laws certainly couldn't be viewed as discriminatory, could they?

Personnally, I think fewer illegals would come/stay here if there weren't jobs for them or places to live, and these types of laws would have a chilling effect on employers and landlords. I don't have a problem with foreigners wanting to be here, I just think if they want to be in America, they should become citizens and live up to all the obligations that come with citizenship.

Good for those towns. I'd love to see that in other communities.

Is there a link to that? I'd just love to hear their argument that this is somehow racially motivated. I'm been needing a good laugh since class started...

Since rental property owners can't easily confirm whether someone is illegal, they'll just avoid making a problem for themselves by only renting to those "obviously from the area".

Links:

http://www.prldef.org/Civil/Hazelton...0immigrants%22

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082101484.html

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jh...rc=rss/topNews

Reminds me of: "they ran like foreigners"...

What sort of ID is currently required when renting? Is it something that can prove legal residency? If not, will a landlord be asking for additional paperwork if a person 'seems illegal'?

I, _________________, swear that I am a legal resident of the USA.:rolleyes:

So what would you have illegal immigrants do? Live outside and be homeless?

Sure, "outside" the country !!! :stickpoke

"OK, The rent's $550. a month, first and last and a security deposit. You pay for all utilities and trash removal. Just sign the lease here and here, and could you just run down to the end of the block and back?

'Preciate it. Thanks."

:::actually laughed out loud:::

Simple, currently unemployed Americans. If we went one step furthing and started cutting benefits to the able-bodied unemployed (those who do not have a medically documented dehabilitating condition) you'd be amazed how many people come out of the woodwork.

Employers will raise wages to attract workers if the alternative is having their crop rot in the field, they'll just put up a royal bitch-fest about it.

In their own home country, preferably.

I guess I don't understand what the objection to illegal immigrants is...they come here, they work, they do jobs that no one else wants to do, they (in a lot of cases) pay taxes, then they go home. So?

The objection is that what they're doing happens to be ILLEGAL! I love the "they do jobs no one else wants to do" rationale - they do jobs that employers don't want to pay American employees enough to do, is more like it. Americans don't want to pick tomatoes? Noooooo, Americans don't want to pick tomatoes for $5.00/hr. They'll pick tomatoes for $10.00/hr, though. Illegal immigrants may pay taxes (and they may not), but they absolutely will use our police, fire, medical, schools - something, and if they haven't paid taxes, they shouldn't have access to these things. I welcome them if they want to do what it takes, through legal channels, to become an American citizen. I totally understand why they come here and want to live and work in America. I do not welcome illegal immigrants.

OK. You (and others) don't welcome illegal immigrants. Would you welcome the increase in prices that would occur when employers no longer have that source of cheap labor, and they pass the costs along to you? Everything from produce to new homes will increase in cost. Are you willing to pay for that?

You can argue that with no illegal immigrants that local taxes will be reduced once that drain is eliminated, but do you actually think the savings will be passed along to you?

We got Tort Reform in Texas, to save those poor insurance companies form having to pay back some of that money we pay them to do their job. They said that Doctors were suffering with high insurance bills. I, seemingly the only one, wondered "why would the insurance companies volunteer to pass this money back to the Doctors?" and guess what, they didn't. Surprise, surprise.

Food consumers wont pay more. We'll just buy the cheap stuff elsewhere. Actually, such a move could prove a boon for Mexican and Chinese farmers, ranchers and meat packers, and kill off our own. Hmm. or it could lead to more government subsidies for those industries to compete. Lots of complex possibilities!

Cheap immigrant labor is a fantasy. You don't think the US is paying for that 'cheap' labor in heath care and social costs, esp on the borders? I'd rather pay higher wages to tax paying legal migrants for their labor (from 5$/hr to 10$/hr) than illegals who pay nothing and invest nothing and have all their children as health and social welfare guests of the US.

don't think this is true? go to the nearest border ER and see who is being served, who is being born.

I agree with you that we are paying for the "cheap" labor through higher taxes and insurance premiums.

What I'm saying is that the taxes and insurance premiums are not going to go down even if the illegals are eliminated from the equation. There will be savings, yes. But you and I won't see them. The local governments will keep taxes at the same level, and spend the money on some other pet project, and the insurance companies will keep the money as profit. All we will see is the increase in the costs of goods.

The uninsured. both homegrown and import.

They can be legal, then work for $5.00/hr. Or I'll raise the price of my glasses to pay for increase in farm produce cost, or 9th engineer will build a machine that will perform the labor for even less than an illegal immigrant.

Asking if I am willing to pay for the increased cost associated with legal labor is tantamount to asking a parent if they are willing to pay for the increase cost of not killing their child - it's illegal, for goodness sake!

Well, you paid for it this year. Produce prices were significantly higher this year across the country due to a 20% shortage of farm labor. Many crops rotted on the vine because farmers could not find sufficient labor to harvest it.

Reality, immigrant labor means you were paying less in taxes. Immigrant labor takes far less from government services than it puts back. Only unsubstantiated myths say otherwise.

To have a fact - and Brianna has nothing more than wild speculation - one must also have experimental evidence. Reality says that when illegal immigration laws were enforced, the local economy suffers (a Nebraska example was cited here previously at Immigration). Nebraska region then requested that the Immigration service leave because without illegal labor, that economy suffered drastically.

It is easy to hype Republican propaganda when reality says otherwise. Illegal immigration does not mean Brianna's taxes increase. Her taxes will increase massively with a $400 billion Defense Budget and then another $100 billion tacked on in emergency spending for Iraq. She would foolishly blame illegal immigrants? And yet that Cheney "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" agenda has but started to cause tax increases.

Blueberries that last year were selling for $2 a box sold this year for $2.59 and almost $3. Peaches that sold last year for $5 a box in the farm market sold this year for $6. Good. We wanted that which is why we want illegal immigration laws enforced more strictly.

Loss of immigrant labor means economic downturn. That is obvious from the theory AND demonstrated by repeated example. Healthy immigrants actually mean a healthier economy AND a better economic future for America.

Every time the illegals come up somebody screams the prices will go up on fruits and veggies. Diversionary bullshit is what that is.:eyebrow:
CIS

No, I'm not done yet...;) From the Chicago TribuneThe Pew Hispanic Center says;

Yet another demonstration that the root of the problem is south of the border: Mexico still doesn't have a middle class visible without magnification.

Smithsonian Magazine quoted a mayor in Mexico saying, "Most of my constituents live in NYC.":(

We won't either, if things continue as they're going.

I agree with the squeezing of the Middle Class concept, too.

A large part of this problem is that Mexico has *zero* motivation to do anything to inhibit illegal emigration to the US. 70% of our workforce here is Hispanic, and *every single one of them* is sending money back home.

Mexico's chief export is labor, man. Having them stop illegal emigration is like asking us to stop exporting Hollywood films (sorry, I couldn't think of anything else that we make that anyone anywhere else in the world wants).

BUT ELSPDOE WUT ABUT DEMCROACY!!!1!11!!??!?1?1@??1@?!/!/1/11/!? EVRY1 LUVS DEMOCASRY JST LOOK AT MIDLE EEST!

Where in the heck did this come from?

Um...from the guys who work in our installation department.

But...but...but..that's a job Americans won't do.:rolleyes:

Yeah, that's what most of our non-Hispanic workers tell me when they come in off of the trucks.

Bridgeport, Pa. is backing down, at least temporarily. But the Borough Council is likely to approve the measures if they stop being afraid of the ACLU. (For the record, the illegal immigrants are not Americans, so I don't see why the ACLU should be getting involved.)

BRIDGEPORT - Borough Council voted Tuesday to advertise two proposed ordinances that address illegal aliens. One measure would restrict undocumented individuals from working or renting in the borough; the other mandates that official government business be in English.

Council approved a motion to advertise the Immigration Relief Act by a 7-1 vote. The English language proposal also passed 7-1.

The approvals signal that council would likely favor both ordinances when the measures come before council in October.

"I think it was obvious tonight, that we have the seven votes (for approval)," said Councilman Pete Kohut.

Bridgeport worries an influx of illegal immigrants would put a strain on borough services, and that undocumented residences could avoid paying municipal taxes.

In July, the city of Hazleton and New Jersey's Riverside Township passed measures restricting undocumented individuals from holding jobs or renting property. The Hazleton measure also made English the city's official language.

At Bridgeport's Aug. 8 workshop meeting, Councilwoman Juanita Coover proposed drafting a similar ban that would prohibit employing or renting to illegal aliens.

However, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania (ACLU) and several immigration groups filed a lawsuit Aug. 15 challenging Hazleton's ordinance.

The lawsuit prompted Bridgeport council to table its proposed measure on Aug. 22.

Borough Council then asked Bridgeport's solicitor Sal Bello to review the Hazleton lawsuit and report back to council.

Previously, Councilman John Pizza said the Riverside ban hastened the departure of undocumented workers there.

Last week, Hazleton voted to scrap the ordinance it approved July 13 for an overhauled version that is expected to have a better chance of withstanding a court challenge.

Hazleton's Illegal Immigration Relief Act fines landlords $1,000 for each illegal alien tenant and has the power to suspend business licenses of those employing undocumented workers.

While the revised Hazleton bill still punishes landlords and businesses, it puts the burden of verifying immigration status on the city, gives landlords and employers time to correct violations before sanctions are imposed and reduces penalties.

Hazleton agreed last week not to enforce the original measure in exchange for the ACLU's pledge not to file and injunction against the city.

Under the agreement, Hazleton must give the plaintiffs at least 20 days notice before it begins enforcing the law.
Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta proposed the ordinance after two illegal immigrants were arrested for shooting and killing a man.

Under the new Hazleton law, the federal government would determine an individual's immigration status.

The ACLU lawsuit was filed on behalf of 11 Hazleton residents and business owners and three nonprofit organizations, according to ACLU's Web site.

The suit claims Hazleton's original ordinance violated the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, because it seeks to override federal law and the exclusive federal power over immigration.

Also, the suit claims the city's "English only" provision violates city residents' First Amendment rights to free speech, the ACLU said.

I am now seeing 20% and 50% price increases from same period one year ago.

From MS-NBC of 4 Sept 2006: 1500 thousand immigrant laborers are not enough. Government believes 29 thousand are sufficient. Clearly 1471 thousand workers are not necessary. After all, immigration laws based in politcal agendas could not be wrong. We don't need these immigrants. Farmers must be wrong when complaining about 20% less workers and a corresponding decrease in crop yields.

Time and time again it boils down to the fact that WE HAVE ALL THE NECESSARY WORKERS ALREADY HERE either in the form of unemployed or in seasonal labor such as students (I can't think of a more fitting summer job for a highschool student than picking fruit). If we desparately need more unskilled labor (which we don't) then let the companies send visas to who they want, just no more of this "drive your truck down to the 7/11 and pick up some labor" bullshit. It's a matter of adapting, the farms are used to getting off easy with illegal labor, that's changing and they're bitching about it rather than switching to other methods.
We finally get a town that is willing to enforce the laws already in place for this kind of thing and the ACLU want to stop them, why am I not supprised.

Classic 'blame the victim' reasoning. An anti-free trade US has no merit? Since we are so fearful of immigrants, put millions of soldiers on our borders. At what point do you realize your reasoning is grossly erroneous?

Tell us where America has 1.8 million people unemployed and ready to work as migrant workers? Where are your numbers? 1.8 million needed workers and only 29,000 visas - more damning numbers. But clearly the laws could never be wrong. So you blame the victim? You blame the farmer? You blame the immigrant workers? But the laws can never be wrong? Massive price increases for produce don't bother you for one minute? Wow. I wish I could rationalize like that.

Meanwhile, the US government is again about to pass massive farm subsidized and price supports so that evil farmers can get richer. Maybe we should eliminate government welfare to farmers so they stop hiring immigrants? More walls. More guns. Blame the greedy farmer. Or maybe we have immigration laws and government subsidies that are classic anti-American, anti-free market, and so classic when extremists fear foreigners. We won the cold war to only do same USSR economics? Where is the logic in that? Next we should make collective farms.

So automatically it's a shortage of illegal aliens causing it? There was a local farmer(NJ) on the news the other night saying he had to let his crops die because he couldn't afford to fuel his irrigation pumps. He don't need no stinkin' pickers.
The cost of fuel and the fertilizers made from the same petroleum stocks, the cost of buying and maintaining equipment, property (and other) taxes, transportation of everything, the weather, competition, the weight of the jockey, and a million other things effect the price of fresh produce. Fluctuations in fresh produce prices are not unusual, even large ones.

tw, your a whirling dervish, the way you can spin anything, to support your argument. If you weren't so principled you could work for Bush.:lol:

To amplify a little on Bruce's last remark (Bruce, watch the homonyms! Did you use the right word-that-rhymes-with-yore?), the Bush Administration doesn't hire anti-American anti-victory-for-democracy Soviet-leftover communists. Tw doesn't have principles, he has pravda.

UG doesn't have arguments, he has accusations.

And often he just doesn't make sense.

Yeah, but he sure can hyphenate, albeit in a not-too-subtle indicates-an-anal-retentive-personality kind of way .:rolleyes: