| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| ACLU Squashes "Anti-Illegal" Law |
| 2010-07-27 |
| AP. Lawfare at work. Fremont, Neb. will suspend law restricting renting property to illegals or hiring them, because it can't afford to fight the lawsuits from the American Communist Lawyers Union (the translation for ACLU, or its' original title) and the Mexican-American Legal Defense & Educational Fund. ACLU Nebraska's spokes-twit said "suspending the ordinance would ensure her clients wouldn't be harmed and could help heal some of the division in the city over the issue." Sorry twit. It won't help heal. Maybe Fremont just needs some donations to be able to tell their lawyers to the the ACLU shysters to pound sand. Since when are lawyers anti-illegal? |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #3 Oddly enough, the best response might not be the law, but social coercion. This is one of the first stages on the part of a vigilance committee, to convince law breakers to vamoose. It is rare that non-violent law breakers ignore the hint. In this case, just the public identification of illegal aliens as illegal would probably be enough for most of them to bug out. Conversely, the vigilance committee should take extra care to identify legal citizens and legal residents, and to even offer them protection from those who have bad motives, like racism. Oddly enough, once the non-violent ones leave, the violent ones leave on their own. First, because the non-violent ones are their typical prey, and second, because they no longer have others to hide behind and give passive support. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-07-27 14:57 |
| #2 O.K., but I bet the people in Dodge City, Garden City, and Liberal Kansas can identify with Fremont. It becomes a local issue when you get run into by a drunk illegal with no insurance and no drivers license. |
| Posted by: bman 2010-07-27 11:06 |
| #1 Cities shouldn't be doing this, because these are "State and federal prerogative" laws. That is, the hiring and firing of workers has been effectively nationalized, requiring eVerify and the submission of W-2 forms, at threat of a federal felony violation. This means that to conform to city law, an employer my in effect be confessing to violating a federal felony law. Just the opposite, this iteration of the idea for renting requires individuals to get a police issued "license to rent" before they can sign a rental contract and move in. While better than the Texas version, there is no way that this would pass muster at the city level. At the State level, maybe. But the feds have partially nationalized property rental as well, with the "fair housing" laws. So the bottom line is that the *real* problem is both that the feds have horned in to things way beyond their intended jurisdiction, and need to be put back in their box, *and* they are not enforcing the laws *within* their framework responsibilities. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-07-27 10:09 |