Nebraska's Fremont City Council Suspends Imposition of Immigration Law

The ACLU reports that the city council in Fremont, NE has suspended the enactment of its anti-immmigrant resolution that would requires prospective renters to provide the Fremont Police Department with information about their citizenship or immigration status prior to renting any home.

The ACLU filed suit (documents here.) The law passed on June 21 and was scheduled to go into effect on July 29. It's a law that, like SB 1070 in Arizona, invites discrimination against those "who look or seem foreign." [More...]

"The city of Fremont did the right thing by stopping this unconstitutional ordinance from going into effect right now," said Jennifer Chang Newell, staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project.

"Allowing the law to go into effect before the court rules on whether it's constitutional would needlessly create even more divisiveness in the town and increased hostility toward Latinos and other people perceived as being foreign. In the meantime, we will continue to fight to stop this ordinance from ever going into effect."

On to Arizona. The Judge is still considering whether to stay the law, set to take effect on July 29. Hundreds of union members in Los Angeles are forming a caravan to travel to Phoenix Thursday and protest.

True to form, Sheriff Joe Arpaio is planning an big outside jail to house the protesters. He's also going to conduct his 17th crime and immigration sweep on Thursday, even if the law is blocked from taking effect.

Across Arizona, police are being trained how to spot the undocumented.

Many of the state's 15,000 police officers have been watching a DVD released this month that signs that might indicate a person is an illegal immigrant are speaking poor English, looking nervous or traveling in an overcrowded vehicle. It warned that race and ethnicity do not.

Some agencies added extra materials, including a test, a role-playing exercise or a question-and-answer session with prosecutors.

Lots of other action is also expected Thursday:

A march from the state Capitol is planned at 4:30 a.m., followed by a prayer service, a rally outside Arpaio's office and later that afternoon a concert outside a Maricopa County jail, according to the Los Angeles-based National Day Laborer Organizing Network. The protesters both from Arizona and elsewhere plan to show up without identification and hold peaceful rallies.

< Real-Time Following Blagojevich's Closing Argument | House Passes Crime Commission Bill >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Of course it is not discrimination... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by mexboy on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 04:20:53 AM EST
    ...we will all be asked to provide our passports, wink, wink.

    And we will gladly show proof that we are citizens, by eagerly providing landlords and anyone providing a service for profit, our papers on demand.

     After all, it is the American way to be presumed guilty of violating the law until we can prove otherwise.

    In my state anyone getting a (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 07:33:45 AM EST
    driver's license must prove they are a citizen.

    Are we being discriminated against??????

    wink wink nod nod


    So a Trained Professional.... (none / 0) (#15)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 12:33:39 PM EST
    ...Examines proof of citizenship at the DMV ?

    My parents own land with several rentals and I can promise you that they have never seen a green card, much less know how to authenticate it.  Nor do they want to become psuedo-Immigration Officers.

    Jim, no offense, but you really don't it.  One one hand you despise big government, then on the other you rejoice when the very government increases in the name of white people.

    In this example, I would assume that the city is going to have to hire several professionals to go out and enforce the law.  Who pays for that, or are they going to do 'random' checks of brown skin leases to keep costs down ?  Either way it costs money, from wasting time with meetings and votes, to enforcement, and lastly, to confinement.

    I know you aren't naive enough to believe a town of 26k in Nebraska has an meaningful issues with undocumented immigrants.  Every arguemnt made in AZ is bunk in NE, this town simply isn't large enough to sustain Mexican gang and drug problems, no kidnappings, or cartel violence.  Or whatever scary non-sense the right throws up there to scare white people.

    It's just a bunch of scared white clowns trying to protect their sense of entitlement.  God forbid they have to hit '1' when they call customer service to get English.


    social security (none / 0) (#17)
    by diogenes on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 04:08:42 PM EST
    On the other hand, when I got my job I had to give a social security number and proof of identity (in my case, passport).  Is this really such a big deal???

    you hit in on the nail (none / 0) (#18)
    by nyjets on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 04:13:36 PM EST
    It really is not a big deal.
    The primary people who will have a problem are 'undocumented' immigants, IOW, non-citizens.

    You Need a SSN to get any... (none / 0) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 08:38:50 AM EST
    ...above the board job.  

    That's working like a champ, right ?

    The post doesn't mention whether the police will be checking all citizenship status, or just people the landlord suspect may be here w/o documentation.


    Jesus H. Christ... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 09:04:00 AM EST
    Dio and Jim...does your anti-undocumented furor run so deep and so hot that you really are cool with landlords asking for proof of citizenship before renting?  Seriously?

    Is there no limit on who you would require by law to ask for papers?  The clerk at the grovery store?  The paperboy?  How many people should we deputize?  

    realistically (none / 0) (#8)
    by nyjets on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 10:25:15 AM EST
    You are correct. Checking for someone papers is not realistic for every transactions a person carries out.
    However, renting an apartment is usually a multi-step process. Therefore proving that you are not 'undocumented' is not that a big of a hardship. Unless you are 'undocumented.'

    Not only is it unrealistic... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 10:47:14 AM EST
    it's really f*ckin' scary!  Not to mention unamerican.

    Jesus dog (none / 0) (#10)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 11:19:32 AM EST
    you know the drill. It's a wedge issue. Don't matter what any (situational) freedom lovers really think; the idea is to rile up the already insecure, at-the-end-of-it's-tether 'base' and pit one group of working folk against another group of working folk.

    Not much more to it than that, imo.


    I'm well aware... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 11:28:46 AM EST
    thats why pols use the issue and propose god-forsaken laws like this...but as far as I know my pal Jim and Diogenes aren't running for office, and am curious where they would draw the line in the sand in regards to the deputization of citizens into ICE.

    I mean world travelers need food even more so than shelter...if grocery clerks couldn't sell a loaf of bread without seeing proof of citizenship or legal status, Jim & Dio's undocumented-free utopia could be a reality...or at least we'd create mad jobs in black market food distribution:)


    I'll start believing (none / 0) (#12)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 11:32:13 AM EST
    they're serious and not just pushing the partyline when they start touting the same type of restrictions and penalties for the outsourcers. Not that I'm holding my breath..

    Can't have that... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 11:42:08 AM EST
    that kinda thing offends shareholders...if we've learned anything the last 2 years, it is that the shareholders come first and cannot be angered.

    Human entities that don't own stock, that don't own much of anything?  F*ck 'em, freedom is for the rich, powerful, and connected...different rules, different fools.

    Just gotta make sure the native own-nothings blame the brown guy for their lot in life, lest they look up that ladder for someone else to blame...class warfare bad, document warfare otoh, golden.


    put it in the platform (none / 0) (#20)
    by diogenes on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 04:14:49 PM EST
    Put "open borders with no checking of papers" in the 2010 Democratic contract with america BEFORE the elections.

    You're joking right? (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 05:04:02 PM EST
    Freedom, liberty, justice is only slightly less offensive to the Dem party than it is to the Repub party.  Sh*t...didn't Obama send 1200 mercs to the border not too long ago?  Just not enough to appease Jackboot Brewer's political ambitions?

    Open Borders...good one bro.  Only in my dreams.


    There is nothing good about open borders (none / 0) (#22)
    by nyjets on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 06:38:28 PM EST
    If we have open borders, our economy would be destroyed. As it is, there are not enough jobs or resources for American citizens. We need to restrict entry into this country if our economy has any chance to survive (as well as punishing companies that outsource).

    You nailed it... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 07:40:02 AM EST
    in the parenthesis...as long as corporations and investors are free to pour capital out of the country, human capital must be allowed into the country just as freely...basic fairness, basic free market principles, common decency.

    And when that happens (none / 0) (#24)
    by nyjets on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 07:48:16 AM EST
    American citizens are dead meat. American citizens loose jobs to foreigners in other countries and loose jobs to immigrants ('documented' and 'undocumented') in this country. And then the economy explodes. If we are going to protect our economy we have to close the border and stop outsourcing.

    Protectionism... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 07:57:41 AM EST
    doesn't always work out as intended bro...it can sink an economy just as fast as anarcho-capitalism.

    And dead meat is dead meat...my conscience is more comfortable with giving every human being an equal shot to make it or break it and come what may...I'm looking for a fair deal, not an artificial leg up...if some cat from Mexico or Romania or Korea can do my job better than I can dang do it, he/she earned it.


    how does everyone (none / 0) (#33)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 12:37:44 PM EST
    have "an equal shot" when the playing field is skewed from jump street? Just asking.

    Start unskewing it... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 01:35:20 PM EST
    open borders would be a good place to start...freedom of movement, more freedom of opportunity.

    Who knows...maybe after 100 years we'll be half-way unskewed...ya gotta start somewheres.


    this is crazy (none / 0) (#27)
    by CST on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 12:07:52 PM EST
    as it is companies are here because they value the brain power and employees that are available in the U.S.  If they didn't, they would leave.  There is no reason for the companies to be here today except to take advantage of the workforce and the economy.  Why you think all those jobs would go to foreigners I don't know.  If that were the case there would be no companies in the U.S. today they would all be in foreign countries.

    It's a global economy.  There's no "protecting" it.  You have to be able to compete.


    That is not true (none / 0) (#28)
    by nyjets on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 12:13:02 PM EST
    Companies go to where the labor is cheapest. That is one reason why we are loosing so many jobs.

    if that were always the case (none / 0) (#30)
    by CST on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 12:27:38 PM EST
    there would be no companies left.  Obviously that's not happening.  There is a reason they stayed.  If all they wanted was a cheap labor force they would have gone by now.

    So my hi-tech CEO buddy (none / 0) (#29)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 12:25:57 PM EST
    gets much of his basic legal work done in India, because Indian attorneys make, what? 1/100? of what a US attorney makes, and then has the work reviewed by his USA attorneys saving him a whole lotta dough.

    Do you think there are no civil engineers in India, working for 1/100 of what you make, that can do what you do?

    Do you think there wouldn't be some, anyway, who would jump at the chance to come here and do your job for, say, 1/2 of what you are paid?

    Here's my opinion of what would happen with the US having open borders: those workers in the US with a true competitive advantage (CEOs, etc.) would continue to demand a premium, and everyone else, essentially, would see a massive cut in pay and/or be out of work entirely as worker supply increases.

    Now, if the whole world had open borders, that would be and interesting...


    i have a lot of indian coworkers (none / 0) (#31)
    by CST on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 12:29:33 PM EST
    they don't make 1/2 of what i make.  Most of them probably make more than me.  If they are going to come here they also have to live here.  That costs money.

    I'm pretty sure you know as well as I do (none / 0) (#34)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 12:42:26 PM EST
    that you are not responding to what I said.

    If there were many more qualified applicants for your job, your co-worker's jobs, and most everyone else's jobs, the pay rates for those jobs would drop precipitously.


    my original point was (none / 0) (#35)
    by CST on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 12:49:06 PM EST
    if those applicants exist somewhere else (and actually my job might be one of the exceptions to this rule because a local presense is necessary) - why wouldn't the companies just follow the cheap labor and leave?  Many have already, there is a reason the ones that are here are still here.

    And actually, I wouldn't be very concerned if 100,000 "technically qualified" Indians showed up to do my job.  There are some skills I have, being an American here, that the others would not, and in fact, the ones already here do not.  Like the ability to write well (for an Engineer) in English, or communicate well with clients, or the fact that I am familiar with local (cultural) issues that might affect or interfere with development.

    And again, in a global economy a "qualified applicant" is a "qualified applicant" wherever they are.  There would be no more or less in total if they were here instead of somewhere else.


    Generally, though, you are arguing against the laws of supply and demand. That would not seem to be a particularly strong foundation for your argument.

    I think (none / 0) (#37)
    by CST on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 01:00:07 PM EST
    Americans in general have some competitive advantage or else we wouldn't have the economy we do.

    I'm not arguing against supply and demand. I'm saying the supply won't change because it's already there.  There is nothing stopping companies from moving if they wanted those employees today.


    Sure there is. Human nature. (none / 0) (#39)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 01:06:05 PM EST
    We often only make changes when forced to do so. Fear of the unknown. Boiled frog syndrome. I could go on.

    But that's beside the point, open US borders does not equal cheaper labor in other countries.


    Name in country (none / 0) (#32)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 12:34:07 PM EST
    in the history of the world whose economy thrived and grew for any significant period of time that never utilized any forms of economic "protectionism".

    Everyone take their time, by all means.


    ..A country (none / 0) (#38)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 01:04:56 PM EST
    crickets (none / 0) (#40)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    grasshoppers and katydids (none / 0) (#41)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 01:17:03 PM EST
    like my backyard last night.

    sorry i read this wrong (none / 0) (#43)
    by CST on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 01:39:31 PM EST
    backwards that is.

    Can't do it because I can't think of anyone who has even done that before.  Rome maybe?  I don't know.  The United States had fairly open borders for a long time.  We did alright.

    All that being said, I'm not actually in favor of 100% open borders.  I like an immigration process that at least weeds out some of the real unsavory types (known terrorists, etc...).  What I do think we need is greater and more streamlined legal immigration.  I think that high levels of immigration and cultural diversity are a big part of what makes our economy thrive.


    discrimination? (none / 0) (#1)
    by diogenes on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 10:25:59 PM EST
    "...requires prospective renters to provide the Fremont Police Department with information about their citizenship or immigration status prior to renting any home."

    If the law is applied to ALL prospective renters, then how is it discrimination?

    We do not live in Nazi Germany (none / 0) (#19)
    by mexboy on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 04:14:48 PM EST
    where citizens are forced to spy and report on citizens.

    This is the USA and if you can't see the precedent this is setting then I'm really scared for all of us.


    The voters passed the law by 57% (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 07:31:55 AM EST
    I'd say that some of the city fathers will be ex-fathers in the next election.

    Nebraska ?? (none / 0) (#6)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 09:24:19 AM EST
    Seriously, Nebraska ??  A real hotbed for undocumented Mexicans ?  

    Way to take the fight to the streets and tell your lilly white town it will remain lilly white.  Now if they could just figure out how to discriminate against black people, legally of course, then all their crime (3 shoplifters and 2 underage drinkers) would disappear.

    I just looked in Wikipedia, Fremont had 26k people in 2000.  I can only imagine how many problems they must have with Mexicans.  They sure are going to mighty mad when they find out the two Mexican families they want to run out of town are actually legal or they move just outside the city limits.

    Can't wait for the reality show with Don Knotts Jr checking papers in Podunk.

    I would imagine (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 10:11:04 AM EST
    That Nebraska, being an agricultural state, would have lots of migrant workers who may or may not be here legally, no?

    That Rent ?????? (none / 0) (#14)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 12:15:53 PM EST
    Migrant workers by definition migrate from area to area.  Any rentals they might make would be short term, w/o a lease, and cash transactions that this law isn't going to have any effect on.  

    Think of all the reasons AZ has pushed their law, now try to apply that logic to NE.  Crime, drugs. guns, cartels, kidnappings, gangs, blah, blah, blah, I get it, people are scared of brown people in AZ.  

    But Podunk, NE ?  I would imagine that the handful of brown people there are anything but scary.  And I doubt the city has ever seen a murder, any meaningful drugs, and the biggest crime is probably the weekend DWI's.

    I speak from experience.  I grew up in a small town, ~20k in Wisconsin.  Didn't see my first real black person until I was a teenager.  We had two Indian doctors and an adopted black kid in town, so maybe 10 non-whites, and definitely no Mexicans.  Not exactly the kinda place where citizenship is an issue.


    as to the source of the ordinance:
    According to several sources, the issue heated up in Fremont as two major employers in and around the city, Hormel Foods and Fremont Beef, began to hire from the Hispanic immigrant community.