Thread: Evanston, IL: Probes of legal status a no-no?

Immigration would become non-issue under Evanston law
By Deborah Horan

Tribune staff reporter

10:45 PM CST, January 10, 2008

Evanston is poised to approve an ordinance that may make it the first suburban "sanctuary city" in the Chicago area by barring city employees and police from asking about a person's immigration status in most cases.

The City Council's Human Services Committee unanimously approved a draft resolution Monday prohibiting such inquiry unless it is required by law or deemed integral to a police investigation. The resolution also calls on government workers and police to accept a passport or consular card in lieu of a driver's license as proof of identity.

"It's an intent to guide our behavior," said Ald. Cheryl Wollin (1st). "The title of it [includes the words] 'humane and just treatment.' I don't see how anyone can be against humane and just treatment." The resolution is set to come before the City Council as early as February.

The ordinance would anchor the North Shore community at one end of a trend that has seen more and more local governments weigh in on immigration enforcement in the absence of federal reform, analysts said. Municipalities at the other end of the spectrum—including Waukegan and Carpentersville—have moved to help enforce immigration policy and have adopted ordinances that many immigrants believe are aimed at chasing them out.

"You see trends in both directions," said Muzaffar Chishti, director of the Migration Policy Institute's office at New York University, a non-partisan think tank. "One trend is the enforcement of immigration law. There's also a trend in the opposite direction, where local authorities and especially police forces say the police should not do it."

Chishti said there is no comprehensive database tracking municipal action on immigration matters, but many major metropolitan areas, including Chicago, have become so-called sanctuary cities—a politically charged phrase that means authorities have directed police and city employees to refrain from asking about immigration status.

Cook County approved a similar resolution last year after a heated debate over whether undocumented immigrants seeking medical care would burden county hospitals, among other issues.

Meanwhile, Waukegan, Carpentersville and Lake County have moved in the other direction, applying for federal training to start deportation proceedings against undocumented immigrants arrested on criminal charges.

"Towns are picking which side they are going to be on," said Roy Beck, president of NumbersUSA, a group that bills itself as an "immigration-reduction organization."

Beck believes cities that pass such ordinances will become magnets for illegal immigrants, who he says will use social services at the expense of legal residents.

"The towns that want to subsidize illegal aliens can, and the towns that don't want to don't have to because they can push the illegal aliens out," Beck said.

Of about a dozen people questioned in downtown Evanston on Thursday, none agreed with Beck's belief that illegal immigrants will drain city services.

Sanctuary cities are mostly symbolic, said David Abraham, professor of immigration and citizenship law at the University of Miami School of Law.

"Local government officials are not immigration officers," Abraham said. "No sanctuary policy that I've ever heard of goes beyond a commitment to follow existing law."


www.chicagotribune.com

Of about a dozen people questioned in downtown Evanston on Thursday, none agreed with Beck's belief that illegal immigrants will drain city services.

They might want to take a look at California.

The libidiots and IA huggers run amok in Evanston...soon to be joined by droves of invaders. Obviously they are jealous of Chicago and LA. Next up, to copy SF and New Haven and give out ID Invader Cards.

Evanston/Wikipedia: According to a 2006 estimate, the median income for a household in the city was $62,138, and the median income for a family was $98,553.[2] Males had a median income of $51,726 versus $39,767 for females. The per capita income for the city was $33,645. About 5.1% of families and 11.1% of the population were below the poverty line, including 8.3% of those under age 18 and 7.1% of those age 65 or over.
__________________________________________________ ____________

I live near Evanston. It is a upscale city with some very nice homes. It is a college town. Waukegan and Evanston are night and day. They can 'afford' to be liberal and call themselves a sanctuary city. We can't. We are over 60% Latino, over 1/4 of our school population is in bilingual education (71% are Latino), have a very high percentage of low income families, low education level among families, etc...

At least we got a mention in the article.
__________________________________________________ __________

Meanwhile, Waukegan, Carpentersville and Lake County have moved in the other direction, applying for federal training to start deportation proceedings against undocumented immigrants arrested on criminal charges.

Obviously Evanston is full of libitiot, IA hugging wealthy employers of nannies, houskeepers, cooks, gardners, landscapers, gate attendants and pool boys. They want to protect their illegal employment practices and their "staff". Making Evanston a sanctuary city gives them that protection.

IA's work for families and restaurants in EVANSTON, but mostly can't afford to live in Evanston, they live in IA slums in Waukegan, Carpentersville, Elgin, etc. EVANSTONIANS w/n never tolerate 20 illegal aliens living in one home, paving the lawn to make room for 10 or more vehicles, all-night, loud ranchera parties, etc. You see, Evanstonians hire and profit from the IA's but they don't want them to LIVE there or send their kids to their schools. If MS-13 moves in to Evanston, you'll hear an outcry.

There are some very good comments at the link as well. Evanston is really going out on a limb here.

Aldermen attack immigration foes

* Government

Submitted by Bill Smith on Tue, 01/08/2008 - 8:13am.

An Evanston City Council committee Monday voted to slap the racism label on people who disagree with them about immigration.

The five-member Human Services Committee rejected 3-2 an amendment proposed by Alderman Steve Bernstein, 4th Ward, to a resolution on immigration issues.

Bernstein's amendment would have revised a resolution introduced by Alderman Edmund Moran, 6th Ward, to strike language that said immigration opponents are promoting "an increasingly hostile anti-immigrant and racist atmosphere" and that immigration opponents are "a vocal minority that represents neither American values nor the majority of our citizenry."

Bernstein did succeed, on 3-2 votes, in striking criticism of farm subsidies and free trade from the resolution and a passage that tied support for immigration reform to religious beliefs.

Moran defended the resolution's criticism of immigration opponents, saying hostility to immigrants "is a disgrace. Listening to politicians out-nasty themselves during this election cycle is repugnant to me."

Other committee members, who'd been reluctant to tackle the immigration issue in October when Moran first raised it, continued to express reservations Monday.

Some noted that they'd received word the resolution was going to be on the committee agenda only last Friday and there'd been no opportunity for the general public to learn about it.

But faced with a room filled with resolution supporters who'd been alerted to the meeting, they ultimately all voted for the amended resolution.

However, Alderman Lionel Jean-Baptiste, 2nd Ward, got the aldermen to hold the measure in committee rather than send it to the full City Council to give time to consult with other immigrant groups.

Jean-Baptiste, an immigrant from Haiti, said the resolution's sponsors were mostly from the Latino community and that he believed other immigrant groups -- notably from Jamaica, Belize and Haiti, but from European countries as well -- need to be brought into the discussion to make sure that their issues are addressed.

The resolution calls on all city departments to not condition provision of city services on immigration status, unless doing so is required by federal or state law.

Alderman Elizabeth Tisdahl, 7th Ward, asked whether supporters had any evidence of city departments taking actions that would violate the standards in the resolution, and no examples were offered.

The resolution also urges federal lawmakers to support comprehensive immigration reform that, among other things, would provide a road to citzenship for undocumented residents and provide for reunification of mixed-status families in which children hold U.S. citizenship.

"I'm just real nervous" about the resolution, Alderman Delores Holmes, 5th Ward, said, "in terms of what this might generate in our community, because we know there are haters out there."

http://www.evanstonnow.com/government/b ... ation-foes

Again, there are some excellent comments at the link.


Suggestions for altering the resolution
Submitted by John Drennan (not verified) on Wed, 01/09/2008 - 1:37pm.

Suggestions for altering the resolution:

-Remove the hate language. Calling anyone anti-immigrant or racist is just as ill conceived as what you purport the opposition’s views to be. If you want to extinguish hate, that goes both ways.

-Make a distinction between illegal and legal immigrants. I fully support protecting the rights of legal immigrants. However illegal immigrants are not legal citizens and, therefore, do not qualify for such protective measures. Giving illegal immigrants special protections works directly against the laws of our Federal Government.

-There’s a difference between “live and let liveâ€

We should post this on pro-illegal sites. The word will get out fast anyway. With the Real ID act, some will be looking for a safer place. I bet they change thier mind before November.

Hey Fedupinwaukegan,
Thanks for posting my comment from the Evanston Now article (I'm John Drennan). I appreciate all of you helping to get the word out.

I am an Evanston resident who was privy to an advance copy of the proposed resolution. I was angered and dismayed at the rhetoric used in the document and what it proposed. Evanston has always been progressive and helpful to those in need. But I believe this resolution goes too far.

I immediately called ALIPAC and spoke to William Gheen about it. I also contacted Roy at numbersusa, Fred Flanagan, Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck, and numerous message boards. My hope is that we can get the word out so we can actually have an open dialogue about this before anything gets passed. As it stands, the only people the city council subcommittee asked for input were those who would predictably support a sanctuary policy. Those with potentially opposing views weren't consulted.

Since then I have continued e-mail dialogues with two of the aldermen sponsoring this measure. I have not stated a position, but rather I have inquired what the purpose of such a resolution might be and what concrete legislation it might lead to in the future.

Evanston is a beautiful city and a wonderful place to live. But we also have some of the highest property taxes in the country due to the tax exemptions of a major university, two major hospitals, and more churches per square block than any city in the state. We simply cannot afford to pay any more to support others.

I would gratefully appreciate informing anyone you know in the area of this proposed resolution so we can encourage an open dialogue about it.