Thread: Neb. city keeps rules aimed at illegal immigration

Neb. city keeps rules aimed at illegal immigration

By JOSH FUNK, Associated Press
Updated 7:55 pm, Tuesday, February 11, 2014

• 
  Election official Robert Buresh attaches the curtain to a polling booth at the Salem Lutheran Church polling station in Fremont, Neb., Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2014. Fremont voters are voting on whether to scrap the city's housing restrictions that were supposed to make it hard for people living in the country illegally to live there. This new vote on the ordinance voters approved in 2010 was scheduled because city leaders are worried about possibly losing federal grants and racking up big legal bills defending the law. Photo: Nati Harnik, AP

FREMONT, Neb. (AP) — Residents of a small Nebraska city voted Tuesday to keep regulations that require all renters to swear they have legal permission to live in the U.S., likely pushing the city back into the forefront of the immigration debate.

Fremont voters decided to keep an ordinance that they originally adopted in 2010. Critics had said the rules were less effective and more costly than anyone expected and were damaging the city's image.

But 59.6 of local voters — more than the 57 percent in favor four years ago — sided Tuesday with supporters, who say Fremont needed to take a stand against illegal immigration.

The conservative agricultural hub near Omaha that is home to about 26,000 residents is one of a handful of cities that have acted on their own over the last decade to curb illegal immigration. Most of those efforts, including ones in Hazelton, Pa., and Farmers Branch, Texas, have become mired in costly court battles.

The same is true in Fremont, where the ordinance — which requires immigrants seeking rental property to swear they have permission to live in the U.S. — was put on hold after it was first adopted while courts reviewed the law.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld most of the ordinance in 2013, and the city was getting ready to enforce the housing restrictions for the first time last fall when elected officials decided to schedule another vote.

"I don't see why we have to vote on this again just because the City Council has a vested interest," said local resident Matt Kwiatkowski, who voted to keep the housing restrictions in place, referring to the fact that at least two council members own rental property.

The 48-year-old said he doesn't have any problem with immigrants who come to this country legally, but he doesn't think the U.S. should go easy on people living here illegally. He hopes Fremont's ordinance will help increase pressure on the federal government to do something about illegal immigration.

"I think more towns need to do this given that the federal government isn't doing its job," Kwiatkowski said.

Shawn Stewart, 44, is a lifelong Fremont resident who supported the immigration ordinance when approved in 2010 and again on Tuesday.

"If we're going to get rid of the ordinance, we might as well open up our borders," said Stewart, who said he doesn't have a problem with immigrants as long as they enter the U.S. legally.

Critics said the housing restrictions would be ineffective and might cost Fremont millions of dollars in legal fees and lost federal grants.

City Council members worried about the prospect of additional lawsuits.

"When you drill down and look at what this ordinance is about, it does not address immigration," said Virginia Meyer, who opposes the ordinance and has been campaigning to repeal it, including distributing yard signs.

Supporters insist that the measure does not target Hispanics. The number of Hispanics in Fremont jumped from 165 in 1990 to 1,085 in 2000 and 3,149 in 2010, mostly because of jobs at the nearby Hormel and Fremont Beef plants.

When Fremont first adopted the ordinance, the city was thrust into the national spotlight partly because it acted shortly after Arizona's strict immigration law made headlines. A couple of other cities, such as Valley Park in Missouri, have modified or abandoned ordinances in the face of court challenges and dissent.

In Congress, similar issues have halted immigration reform. A Senate-passed bill appears to be dead in the House, where conservatives cite a changing series of reasons for not wanting to act. House Speaker John Boehner has all but ruled out passage of immigration legislation before the fall elections.

It's not clear how many people live in Fremont illegally. Census figures show 1,150 noncitizens live in the town, including immigrants who don't have permission to be in the U.S. and lawful permanent residents, foreign students and refugees who are legally in the country.

Tuesday's vote would not have affected provisions of the ordinance requiring employers to use a federal online system to check whether prospective employees are permitted to work in the U.S. That part of the law has been in place since 2012, and larger employers were already using it.

The housing rules require anyone who rents a home or apartment to apply for a $5 permit and attest to their legal status, but there is no mandate to show proof. New permits are needed for every move.

The ordinance would also require landlords to make sure their tenants have permits or face a $100 fine.

After the vote, civil rights groups that have challenged the ordinance will decide whether to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the issue.
___
Online:
Fremont Yes: http://www.fremontyes.org
Our Vote Should Count: http://www.ourvoteshouldcount.com
City's ordinance FAQ: http://www.fremontne.gov/faq.aspx?TID=25

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/us/art...on-5223223.php

RELATED

http://www.alipac.us/f12/nebraska-ci...on-law-297299/

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Neb. city keeps rules aimed at illegal immigration

By JOSH FUNK, Associated Press
Updated 7:55 pm, Tuesday, February 11, 2014

• 
  Election official Robert Buresh attaches the curtain to a polling booth at the Salem Lutheran Church polling station in Fremont, Neb., Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2014. Fremont voters are voting on whether to scrap the city's housing restrictions that were supposed to make it hard for people living in the country illegally to live there. This new vote on the ordinance voters approved in 2010 was scheduled because city leaders are worried about possibly losing federal grants and racking up big legal bills defending the law. Photo: Nati Harnik, AP

FREMONT, Neb. (AP) — Residents of a small Nebraska city voted Tuesday to keep regulations that require all renters to swear they have legal permission to live in the U.S., likely pushing the city back into the forefront of the immigration debate.

Fremont voters decided to keep an ordinance that they originally adopted in 2010. Critics had said the rules were less effective and more costly than anyone expected and were damaging the city's image.

But 59.6 of local voters — more than the 57 percent in favor four years ago — sided Tuesday with supporters, who say Fremont needed to take a stand against illegal immigration.

The conservative agricultural hub near Omaha that is home to about 26,000 residents is one of a handful of cities that have acted on their own over the last decade to curb illegal immigration. Most of those efforts, including ones in Hazelton, Pa., and Farmers Branch, Texas, have become mired in costly court battles.

The same is true in Fremont, where the ordinance — which requires immigrants seeking rental property to swear they have permission to live in the U.S. — was put on hold after it was first adopted while courts reviewed the law.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld most of the ordinance in 2013, and the city was getting ready to enforce the housing restrictions for the first time last fall when elected officials decided to schedule another vote.

"I don't see why we have to vote on this again just because the City Council has a vested interest," said local resident Matt Kwiatkowski, who voted to keep the housing restrictions in place, referring to the fact that at least two council members own rental property.

The 48-year-old said he doesn't have any problem with immigrants who come to this country legally, but he doesn't think the U.S. should go easy on people living here illegally. He hopes Fremont's ordinance will help increase pressure on the federal government to do something about illegal immigration.

"I think more towns need to do this given that the federal government isn't doing its job," Kwiatkowski said.

Shawn Stewart, 44, is a lifelong Fremont resident who supported the immigration ordinance when approved in 2010 and again on Tuesday.

"If we're going to get rid of the ordinance, we might as well open up our borders," said Stewart, who said he doesn't have a problem with immigrants as long as they enter the U.S. legally.

Critics said the housing restrictions would be ineffective and might cost Fremont millions of dollars in legal fees and lost federal grants.

City Council members worried about the prospect of additional lawsuits.

"When you drill down and look at what this ordinance is about, it does not address immigration," said Virginia Meyer, who opposes the ordinance and has been campaigning to repeal it, including distributing yard signs.

Supporters insist that the measure does not target Hispanics. The number of Hispanics in Fremont jumped from 165 in 1990 to 1,085 in 2000 and 3,149 in 2010, mostly because of jobs at the nearby Hormel and Fremont Beef plants.

When Fremont first adopted the ordinance, the city was thrust into the national spotlight partly because it acted shortly after Arizona's strict immigration law made headlines. A couple of other cities, such as Valley Park in Missouri, have modified or abandoned ordinances in the face of court challenges and dissent.

In Congress, similar issues have halted immigration reform. A Senate-passed bill appears to be dead in the House, where conservatives cite a changing series of reasons for not wanting to act. House Speaker John Boehner has all but ruled out passage of immigration legislation before the fall elections.

It's not clear how many people live in Fremont illegally. Census figures show 1,150 noncitizens live in the town, including immigrants who don't have permission to be in the U.S. and lawful permanent residents, foreign students and refugees who are legally in the country.

Tuesday's vote would not have affected provisions of the ordinance requiring employers to use a federal online system to check whether prospective employees are permitted to work in the U.S. That part of the law has been in place since 2012, and larger employers were already using it.

The housing rules require anyone who rents a home or apartment to apply for a $5 permit and attest to their legal status, but there is no mandate to show proof. New permits are needed for every move.

The ordinance would also require landlords to make sure their tenants have permits or face a $100 fine.

After the vote, civil rights groups that have challenged the ordinance will decide whether to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the issue.
___
Online:
Fremont Yes: http://www.fremontyes.org
Our Vote Should Count: http://www.ourvoteshouldcount.com
City's ordinance FAQ: http://www.fremontne.gov/faq.aspx?TID=25

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/us/art...on-5223223.php

he is 100 % right I with him all town should do this I do know hazelton Pa do this

Nebraska City Votes to Bar Illegal Alien Renters, Despite Being Massively Outspent

by Top Right News on February 12, 2014

by Brian Hayes | Top Right News

Despite being outspent 11-1 by national open-borders groups, citizens backing a city ordinance prohibiting landlords from renting to illegal aliens won easily Tuesday, 60 percent to 40 percent.

The Fremont referendum was born after the city council — dominated by business interests which benefitted from illegal alien labor and renters — refused to pass an popular ordinance in 2008 requiring employers and landlords in the city to stop knowingly renting to, or employing illegal immigrants.

Then came Arizona. In April 2010, Gov Jan Brewer signed SB1070 — then the nation’s toughest measure to deal with the Federal failure to enforce the borders or deport illegal aliens.
Inspired by the Arizona effort, Fremont citizens organized a petition drive to place the proposed ordinance before the people in a special election. But their own city council sued to stop them, and lost. Despite apocalyptic rhetoric about the city going bankrupt defending the inevitable legal challenges, the election was held in 2010 and the ordinance passed by an overwhelming margin.


Above: Fremont citizens were inspired by Arizona’s SB1070.
-
The ACLU, SPLC and La Raza immediately sued to stop its implentation. But after nearly five years of battle, the ordinance was declared to be constitutional and non-discriminatory by no less than the prestigious 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, the 2nd highest court in the land. At long last, Fremont was free to begin enforcement.

Or so they thought. The corrupt city council still tried to quietly kill it – with a simple vote of the council itself.
One Councilman, who led the recent effort to kill the ordinance, was publicly accused of packing his own rental properties with multiple illegal immigrant families – a charge he did not deny.
It didn’t work. Residents of Fremont overwhelmed the city council meeting and angrily forced them to abandon their repeal vote. The resulting compromise was to hold yet another special election, slated to occur on February 11th, 2014.

But it wasn’t easy. Unlike the 2010 vote which flew below the radar, this fight faced not only the Fremont council, but national group advocating for illegal aliens, including the ACLU, left-wing radical group Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and racial pressure group National Council of La Raza (“The Race”). Those groups poured tens of thousands into the effort to defeat the popular will of Fremont citizens.Yesterday, they lost. Big.

The election has now handed a victory to the citizens of Fremont, and the rule of law on immigration.

The Fremont story should be an inspiration for Americans to stop the Washington elites — in both parties — from forcing down their throats a massive amnesty for illegal aliens that they don’t want.

http://toprightnews.com/?p=1444

Originally Posted by Newmexican

Nebraska City Votes to Bar Illegal Alien Renters, Despite Being Massively Outspent

by Top Right News on February 12, 2014

by Brian Hayes | Top Right News

Despite being outspent 11-1 by national open-borders groups, citizens backing a city ordinance prohibiting landlords from renting to illegal aliens won easily Tuesday, 60 percent to 40 percent.

The Fremont referendum was born after the city council — dominated by business interests which benefitted from illegal alien labor and renters — refused to pass an popular ordinance in 2008 requiring employers and landlords in the city to stop knowingly renting to, or employing illegal immigrants.

Then came Arizona. In April 2010, Gov Jan Brewer signed SB1070 — then the nation’s toughest measure to deal with the Federal failure to enforce the borders or deport illegal aliens.
Inspired by the Arizona effort, Fremont citizens organized a petition drive to place the proposed ordinance before the people in a special election. But their own city council sued to stop them, and lost. Despite apocalyptic rhetoric about the city going bankrupt defending the inevitable legal challenges, the election was held in 2010 and the ordinance passed by an overwhelming margin.


Above: Fremont citizens were inspired by Arizona’s SB1070.
-
The ACLU, SPLC and La Raza immediately sued to stop its implentation. But after nearly five years of battle, the ordinance was declared to be constitutional and non-discriminatory by no less than the prestigious 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, the 2nd highest court in the land. At long last, Fremont was free to begin enforcement.

Or so they thought. The corrupt city council still tried to quietly kill it – with a simple vote of the council itself.
One Councilman, who led the recent effort to kill the ordinance, was publicly accused of packing his own rental properties with multiple illegal immigrant families – a charge he did not deny.
It didn’t work. Residents of Fremont overwhelmed the city council meeting and angrily forced them to abandon their repeal vote. The resulting compromise was to hold yet another special election, slated to occur on February 11th, 2014.

But it wasn’t easy. Unlike the 2010 vote which flew below the radar, this fight faced not only the Fremont council, but national group advocating for illegal aliens, including the ACLU, left-wing radical group Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and racial pressure group National Council of La Raza (“The Race”). Those groups poured tens of thousands into the effort to defeat the popular will of Fremont citizens.Yesterday, they lost. Big.

The election has now handed a victory to the citizens of Fremont, and the rule of law on immigration.

The Fremont story should be an inspiration for Americans to stop the Washington elites — in both parties — from forcing down their throats a massive amnesty for illegal aliens that they don’t want.

http://toprightnews.com/?p=1444

Good for you Fremont
now every state should do the same thing wake up USA

RELATED

http://www.alipac.us/f12/fremont-neb...say-no-297501/

Fremont immigrant housing ordinance will stay as is, but the victors say the fight isn't over

Posted: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 8:10 am | Updated: 8:10 am, Wed Feb 12, 2014.


By David Hendee World-Herald staff writer


FREMONT, Neb. — They won, but they say the fight isn’t over.


For the second time in four years, Fremont voters on Tuesday endorsed a measure to stop illegal immigrants from renting housing in their community.


Voters resoundingly rejected an attempt to strip provisions of the controversial ordinance that thrust Fremont to the forefront of the national immigration policy debate.


Unofficial election results showed that the attempt failed, 60 percent to 40 percent.


“This is not final, in any regard,’’ said Paul Von Behren, an organizer of Our Votes Should Count, a group that fought to keep the ordinance as is and won.


Von Behren predicted a redoubling of efforts to have the housing provisions enforced. The regulations haven’t been enforced because they are tied up in court challenges.


Von Behren also predicted new efforts to vote out council members who voted to send the ordinance back to the voters.
“There’s certainly an angry mood focused on the City Council now,’’ Von Behren said.


Virginia Meyer, who helped organize Fremont YES!, a group that pushed for the amendment to strip the provisions, said voters were angry about having to return to the polls.


“I think the message that people already voted once on this issue was stronger than rational arguments about economic consequences to our town,’’ Meyer said. “They didn’t want to vote again.’’


Supporters of amending the ordinance said the city faces the threat of expensive court battles defending the law in possible legal challenges filed by civil rights organizations. They said taxpayers in Hazelton, Pa., and Farmers Branch, Texas, were exposed to legal costs in the millions of dollars as they became mired in court cases defending similar ordinances.
They also said the housing restrictions could risk millions in future federal grant funding for Fremont, a community of 26,000 about 30 miles northwest of Omaha.


Ron Tillery, executive director of the Fremont Area Chamber of Commerce, said the city’s future is not clear.
“There’s simply going to be a lot more uncertainty about what our community has to do now and the effects of the ordinance being implemented,’’ he said.


The chamber favored amending the ordinance, saying that it would not achieve the results intended and that it presented an unwarranted risk to taxpayers, divided the community and diverted attention away from constructive enterprises.
Those on both sides of the divisive issue had expected a close vote.


Workers at the First Congregational Church said they saw a steady stream of voters all day at the Broad Street polling place.


Nathan Parr said he voted yes because he hoped that repealing the law would allow the city to move past the issue.
“I think it’s really about race,” Parr said, referring to the city’s Latino population. “We need to learn to accept other people. ... As a society I think we have to move past the whole thing.”


Others who cast votes against repealing the housing provisions of the ordinance said the issue shouldn’t even have come to the polls again after it was approved with 57 percent support in 2010.


Angie Hancock of Fremont said she voted for the ordinance four years ago, too, and she is hopeful that the law will do what it was put in place to do.


“I’m all for the melting pot of America, but there are also laws in place to make yourself a citizen,” Hancock said.
“That’s what needs to be done.’’


The vote came against the backdrop of the fierce national debate over immigration and a Congress that appears gridlocked on the issue.


Although the Senate passed a bipartisan immigration overhaul last summer, many House Republicans have balked at proposals that include a path to citizenship for those in the country illegally.


House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, predicted last week that it would be tough to get immigration legislation done this year, in part because he said his members don’t trust President Barack Obama’s administration to enforce the laws.
The issue has festered in Fremont since the City Council first considered an ordinance aimed at banishing illegal immigrants from the community in 2008.


Two years later, the town drew national attention when a citizen petition drive put the issue on the ballot.
The matter ended up back on the ballot after the City Council voted in November to once again send the ordinance to voters, leading to some exasperation from residents.


“I don’t know why we’re here voting on the same thing again,” said LaVonda Lehman, who declined to say how she voted. “Didn’t we already do this once?”


The only provision of the ordinance enforced so far is one that requires businesses to use the federal E-Verify system to certify the legal status of new employees.


The ordinance’s housing provisions require a new renter to obtain a $5 permit. The ordinance also requires rental licenses for landlords.


Proponents of repealing the housing provisions raised nearly $71,000 in cash or in-kind services. The money paid for yard signs and billboards, and print, radio and cable TV advertising.


Those who wanted to keep the ordinance relied on a grass-roots campaign largely fueled by small donations to produce yard signs and door hangers. They raised more than $8,000.


Voter Julie Rump said she was in the minority who opposed the ordinance in the first vote.
She hoped that the ordinance would be amended and that a resolution would allow the city to move on.
“Then we can get back to loving our neighbor,” Rump said.


John Wiegert, a leader of Our Votes Should Count, said the City Council should heed the election results.


“The people have spoken,’’ he said. “Hopefully, they’ll get the message at City Hall, finally. They need to listen to the people of Fremont.’’


Tillery said the community needs to heal and come together.



Meyer said Fremont’s future begins today.


“The sun comes up tomorrow, and we’ll still keep working on trying to show people from outside our community the best things about our town and make it welcoming and attractive to people,’’ she said. “That’s all we can do.’’


World-Herald staff writers Joseph Morton and Kate Howard Perry contributed to this report.
What they said


The ACLU of Nebraska released this statement in response to the Tuesday election results in Fremont:
“We are saddened by the result of today's vote, and will stand with those residents of Fremont who will be harmed by the unfortunate decision to allow a discriminatory housing ordinance to be implemented. We commend local leaders and residents who worked hard and long to uphold the welcoming values that as Americans we hold dear. We will closely monitor implementation of the law and will bring to light and pursue any incidents of discrimination. ... The tide is turning in America, and by pursuing this backward policy Fremont stands apart from communities across the country that have come to realize how costly and self-defeating these types of exclusionary policies can be.'' — Amy Miller, legal director


The Nebraska Appleseed Center released this statement:
“As the conversation across the country has moved away from these kinds of approaches, we are saddened that Fremont will continue to live with the division and unnecessary costs created by this ordinance. At the same time, we recognize this vote as a chance to continue the conversation about how we all can best work together to build strong communities. Many local leaders, faith, business, and civic groups recognized the importance of a strong and inclusive community spirit in Fremont — a spirit that is essential to the future of our cities and our state. We will continue to work to remove barriers that prevent people from finding homes or starting businesses in Nebraska so that we can move forward as a place where all are included and can succeed together.” — Rebecca Gould, executive director

http://www.kearneyhub.com/news/regio...a4bcf887a.html