I don’t mean this to sound flip, but, don’t move into that town. This is a perfect opportunity to vote with your feet. I’m sure there are plenty of towns that might be more comfortable for you.
Question: Don’t you think that a community has a right to act in what it sees as its own best interest? (Assuming it’s constitutional, of course.)
That you found it necessary to add that qualifier tells me you believe there should be limits to community self interest. Now that we are in agreement, all we have to do is agree where to place that line. Progress.
And the constitutional question is how plaintiffs are arguing against this ordinance, and in fact the judge seems to agree that it’s not constitutional. It seems to me that if magellan01 thinks this is a good idea, he should work on getting a federal law enacted requiring all landlords to comply.
QtM said it better than I will, but here goes…
It is law enforcement’s job to enforce laws. Don’t make me help you, it’s not my job. And I don’t think adding landlords to the list of people who must verify citizenship is a good idea.
Yes, I have noticed lots of illegals around, I live in SoCal. But if the government can’t catch them, it’s not my fault.
not so much as enforcing the law, but closer to what liquor and gun stores already have to do…verify the person using your service is legally allowed to do so. Its not all that much of a stretch.
I don’t blame people for wanting to come to this country for a better life, but it is a real problem, and employers and landlords seem to be the place to start dealing with it.
Well, I hope no one ever has to depend on you to help catch a thief or a rapist that you might have seen fleeing the vicinity. I mean, that’s the police’s job, right? And if I ever find myself living in the same community as you I’ll make sure that we don’t offend you by asking you to be part of the neighbor watch patrol. After all, crime prevention is the cops’ job.
Fortunately, some people hold the view that we all have a responsibilty to keep communities safe. We have cops so some people can devote their full time to the cause. That’s takes a great deal of the burden off each member of the community, but it does not absolve us of it completely.
I remember being a kid and my parents making me sweep the curb in front of our house. Although a street sweeper came by now and then, it was not often enough to keep the curb area as clean as my parents felt it should be. So, there I’d be with a broom sweeping the debris up then giving the curb a good rinse with the hose. The point being, obviously, that the community is the responsibility of those in the community. Just because there are cops or stret sweepers doesn’t mean you off the hook completely. It wold be nice, but it’s not the case.
Your point that the government can’t catch all the illegals is an argument for all of us to do more. You’re right, we can’t round them up and send them back. But if we take away the draw of employment, free education, etc, and put up more obstacles to prevent illegals from being part of this country ILLEGALLY, many will leave of their own accord.
Good idea. A federal law would be great. Perhaps we can start with one making it unconstitutional for cities and other localities to declare themselves “sanctuary cities”.
So, now you are opposed to Freedom of Speech? 
I don’t see how that has anything to do with illegal aliens. Most are not criminals (except for the crime of wanting to make a better life for themselves and their families).
I have spent a lot of time in Mexico, and I can tell you that I don’t blame people one bit for trying to get here any way they can.
Or, we could just relax the rules and drastically increase the numbers allowed in, so that many foreigners would come and stay of their own accord, LEGALLY. How’s that work for you?
As for your crappy analogy, I’ll report thieves and rapists all day long, but I won’t call the cops to report someone jaywalking, or for not putting money in the parking meter. I won’t even call the cops when I see someone going 10 mph over the speed limit.
Funny how you want to simply ignore the “illegal” part. They’re have numerous threads explaining the drain and pressure they are on our society.
I, too, do not blame them for wanting to come here. I also wold not blame people from most of the rest of the world wanting to come here. But we cannot absorb the huge numbers who would love to come here, and have immigration laws designed in our own best interest. One thing that has always been part of our immigration policy is giving the society time to absorb the waves of immigration. That’s why it has fluctuated over the decades. At times it’s been reduced to a tiny trickle. No society can absorb the numbers we have hear without losing who and what it is. Some people might think that’s fine. I don’t. If we had such a permissive attitude fro the first half of the 20th century, our society would be much different today. Possibly the kind of place that wouldn’t be as attractive a place to live as it is.
The answer is for Mexico, as they are are responsible for the largest number of offenders, to get it’s shit together. I’d love for the riots in Oaxaca to be the beginning of the end for coruption as a means of governance. But I fear it will be much of the same for decades to come. Why, I do not understand.
It doesn’t. Do you expect to set a cap, a maximum number? How high? And what do you do when the number is met and more people want to come in?
Other than possibly the speeding thing (40 in a 30 where kids play), none of those things are haveing a negative effect on society at large. So thanks for your crappy answer to my stellar—great-beyond-belief—analogy.
Fremlick is rich and has a nice house with lots of expensive stuff in it. Grosmeth is poor and lives in a crappy apartment with little furniture. He knows Fremlick has a nice house. He ask Fremlich if he can move in. Fremlick says no. So Grosmeth breaks into Fremlicks house and squats. Is Grosmeth a criminal? All he wanted was a better life for himself.
Personally, I don’t care if there is a cap, as these sorts of things usually work themselves out in the end. If there must be one, let it be high enough that there isn’t a significant wait for anyone who wants to live here.
You have yet to show that immigration has an overal negative impact, legal or otherwise. If you once again toss up VDARE and other related racist sources, I’ll laugh at you. Again.
And to get it back on track and answer the OP.
No, landlords shouldn’t be punished, nor should they be required to determine a person’s status in the first place. Aside from the constitutionality issues, I don’t like the fact that businesses and landlords can get out of paying the fine if they give lots of identifying information about the illegal alien, once they have kicked them out or terminated them. What is the city planning on doing with this information? The fact that they also instituted an “English is the Official Language” policy at the same time tells me that their problem isn’t solely with the legal status of the people in question.
Could we punish service stations for selling gas to illegal aliens? Why not? Should we?
Sounds like a bad idea to me. “We (government) can’t do the job, we will make you (landlords) do it for us.”
The mayor’s exact words are:
Landlords are not fined for renting to people without permits, they are only fined for renting to illegal aliens without permits. In other words, Whitney Whiteboy probably won’t be asked to provide a permit. Carlos Sanchez, on the other hand, will likely be asked for one.
This one stinks.
Let’s just open the doors and all be one happy family. That’s a terrific policy! Perhaps you can share it with class tomorrow after show and tell.
:rolleyes: Man, your sad. You don’t like VDARE, good for you. But for you to portray that it was the only source of information provided by me and others is blatantly dishonest, but, I guess, not surprising. Feel free to review past posts so the points you make have a basis in fact.
If you ever manage to develop an actual position, something you can explain and support—something a little more substantial than “[it will] work itself out in the end”—I’ll be happy to entertain it. Until then, I’ll give your posts all the attention they deserve.
Uhhh, I think that, rather than being a federal law (a term which is generally understood to mean a congressionally-enacted statute), that would be a constitutional amendment.
Good luck with your petition drive on that one, magellan01.
Are slippery slope arguments allowed around here?
magellan01, if I read your post #18 correctly, the reason you have for not placing similar verification requirements on vendors of food and fuel is that it would be impractical and overly burdensome. Let us postulate a time in the not-too-distant future, when readily available technology has evolved to a point where impracticality and excessive burdens need not be considered significant factors. May I understand your position to be that you would then have no objection to such a requirement? Perfectly okay with you that human beings would be forced by the state to prove that they have a right to buy food?
I certainly hope not.
Actually, I think this is a fair question. My answer would default to “no”. The reason being as I see such measures as invasive, the ones in Hazleton included. If there was no problem we wouldn’t need to take any steps whatsoever. The degree of the problem makes the ideas in Hazleton reasonable. The greater good overrides the invasive nature of the measures.
In the spirit of full disclosure, if the problem became much worse and the technology eliminated the impractical and burdensome nature of the new measures, I would see nothing wrong with showing proof of legality for ANYTHING. Food should never be denied, but the person should be immediately reported. They should be apprehended, fed, checked for a criminal history, and immediately deported back to their native country. This is what happens on the border. The Border Patrol, and the Minutemen, routinely provide people sneaking in with food and water, apprehend them, and send them back.