Thread: MO: City won't pass new illegal-immigration laws

Last modified: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:00 PM CDT

City won't pass new illegal-immigration laws


By Mary Shapiro

Valley Park's pledge to not implement future laws dealing with illegal immigration has made some people happy.

But others say the move doesn't go far enough, or goes too far.

The Board of Aldermen unanimously approved a resolution June 18 to not approve any new laws addressing illegal immigration.

However, officials will continue their legal defense of three lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the city's existing illegal-immigration laws.

Jim Rothery of Valley Park, a member of the Valley Park Citizens for Responsible Government (VPCRG), said the resolution, an earlier version of which was proposed by the group, "is a fine example of how the aldermen and the citizens can work together for the good of Valley Park."

However, he added, "There are still some issues pending in the court that (the city is) still in the process of defending, and the

legal fees continue to mount."

Larry Mueller of Valley Park was more blunt in his assessment of the resolution.

"What was passed by the board has nothing to do with what was presented by citizens (earlier this month) to the city," he said.

"Residents are saying they want to stop the legal spending on this issue -- now," he said. "The resolution says (the city) will finish spending money to defend the current legislation and then not introduce any new laws. That's an irresponsible dodge of what we've requested."

But Pete Erbe of Valley Park contended, during the board's meeting, that he supported the city's legal battle to defend its laws restricting employment of and renting to illegal immigrants. Erbe said the city shouldn't back down at all.

"I'm proud of this city for being progressive on an important issue," he said.

"Despite what others may claim, Valley Park does have the authority (to enact such legislation)," he said. "The city needed to take this action now before the problem gets worse. Giving up is not the answer, and waiting (for the state or federal government) to do something isn't the way to get anything done."

Some aldermen -- and some residents -- have asked regularly for the exact legal costs of the city defending the legislation, the first of which was passed by the board last summer.

"We are not in favor of illegal immigration in Valley Park or any other city in the U.S., but we feel that these particular ordinances are costing our little city too much money for very little positive return," Rothery said. "We also question the rationale for them in the first place."

Leo Anglo of Valley Park called the resolution a good start in the right direction.

"Our current ordinances on immigration are futile and an irresponsible expense," he said.

Jewell Mosley of Valley Park, a VPCRG member, said she wanted to see the city "thrive and not just survive."

"And I applaud the leadership of Alderman Don Carroll for bringing the resolution to the board, because this is what the city needs and it's time for us to move on."

Mary Fehner of Valley Park called the illegal-immigration laws a significant waste of time and city money.

"Pursuit of the legislation is not in the interests of residents or businesses," Fehner said.

Jim Morris of Valley Park disagreed, saying he couldn't understand why some aldermen were backing down through the resolution. He added that the issue is too important.

"I want to show support for Mayor Jeff Whitteaker and the Board of Aldermen in their fight against illegal immigration," said Harold Tubbs of Valley Park,

Doug Tipton, a Chesterfield resident, praised the city's laws. He said they set a standard of excellence in fighting the war against illegal immigration.

Janet Renner of Wildwood presented the city with a $100 check for its legal defense fund.

She said a handful of landlords, business people and their advocates oppose the city's illegal-immigration laws and Valley Park's costs of defending the lawsuits.

"History will show the city made the right decision for this city and America," Renner said.

http://pressjournal.stltoday.com/articl ... al.ii1.txt

So why don't the city council Sue the Suees for "Obstruction of Justice" since they are upholding our laws ????