http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/15337618.htm

Posted on Wed, Aug. 23, 2006

Towns consider requiring English
Plans under review aim to bar renting to, hiring of illegal immigrants
DÁNICA COTO
dcoto@charlotteobserver.com

As national immigration reform takes a back seat to conflict in the Middle East, a couple of N.C. towns are picking up where Congress left off, crafting their own laws targeting illegal immigrants.

Mint Hill and Landis, a town in Rowan County, join dozens of cities across the nation proposing to make English the official language, and fine those who hire or rent dwellings to undocumented workers. Late last year, Mecklenburg and Gaston counties rejected proposals related to employment or providing social services because commissioners said immigration is a federal responsibility.

Federal law would still trump any local ordinance. Companies already face hefty fines if they knowingly hire illegal immigrants, but that law is rarely enforced in North Carolina, which is why some proponents of local ordinances say they're needed.

A couple months ago, Landis Alderman James Furr said, he drafted a proposal after hearing a congressman say that nothing would be accomplished at the federal level.

"I rode down Cannon Boulevard and could only read half the signs that were up, and that's when I really started thinking about it," Furr said. "I've always had concerns as far as bilingualism in government."

On Aug. 7, the Landis board reviewed his proposal, which stated that all government business with Landis -- written or spoken -- must be in English. Otherwise, people would be asked to provide their own interpreter. The town's attorney, however, had legal concerns and is reviewing it, Furr said. He said he expects the board to approve the ordinance in September.

Furr doesn't believe his proposal is discriminatory.

"Racism is exclusion," he said. "This is welcoming you to our society."

In Mint Hill, the town's attorney also is reviewing a proposal that would make English the town's official language.

If approved, the proposal also would punish businesses that employ, rent to or provide goods and social services to those who are undocumented. They would lose their permit for five years for a first violation; 10 years for subsequent violations.

Under the proposal, those who rent to undocumented immigrants also would face a $1,000 fine. The proposal states that "illegal immigration leads to higher crime rates, contributes to overcrowded classrooms and failing schools ... and destroys our neighborhoods."

Government officials use that kind of rhetoric to justify such ordinances, which are on the rise, said Christopher Patusky, executive director of the Fels Institute of Government at the University of Pennsylvania.

"It turns it into an ugly situation," said Patusky, who studies immigration trends.

"Racism comes to the surface, which I think often stifles debate on what are some real underlying questions that the population might want to address."

Most cities are modeling their immigration-related ordinances after the one approved July 14 in Hazelton, Pa., which now faces a federal lawsuit. Hazelton's Illegal Immigration Relief Act would fine landlords $1,000 a day and revoke business licenses, among other things.

Smaller cities such as Farmers Branch, Texas; Riverside, N.J.; and Escondido, Calif., have all adopted or considered similar ordinances this year. Such actions have split communities. In Avon Park, Fla., where an immigration-related ordinance barely failed, a sign appeared: "Entering Avon Park -- have green card and passport ready."

Similar messages have appeared in Asheville, where no one has proposed such ordinances. On July 13, two billboards with a Mexican flag flying above an inverted U.S. flag appeared, along with the following words: "Had Enough?" City councilman Carl Mumpower contributed part of the $1,500 cost, according to the Asheville Citizen-Times.

The ordinances aren't solving anything except pointing out that immigration laws need to change quickly, said Ángeles Ortega-Moore, executive director of Charlotte's Latin American Coalition.

"For me, this is just a tactic to call attention to the changing demographics in our community," she said. "Do we want to be a police on immigration issues rather than crime prevention? It's a misguided energy."

So are these ordinances legal?

Yes and no, according to Patusky.

Municipalities have the right to levy fines and withhold permits, but making English the official language could provoke legal action, he said.

"It's going to be a harder one to justify on many levels," he said.
Dánica Coto: 704-358-5065.