Thread: Anti-illegal ordinances

It has been so encouraging to see town after town vote for anti-illegal ordinances. Legal residents and citizens are finally taking their country back. It was particularly satisfying to read about the town of Escondido in California; hopefully, this will embolden other California cities to follow suit. However, I have a question: if the House falls to pro-amnesty forces after the election, how will this affect these ordinances? If these illegals are given legal status, then are we back to square one?

I don't think Escondito would have to go back to square one. The people could ensure they have sufficient city inspectors (uncorrupted ones) and an automated facility for CITIZENS to report city ordinance violations (too many people in a house or apartment, cars parked in the front yard, noise violations, etc.) and thus help teach the slow learning illegals that their offensive behavior will not be tolerated. In the meantime, I think Escondito needs to now focus on illegal employers and Vista needs to pass an ordinance against renting to illegals. SoCal certainly doesn't want the illegals living in Escondito to move to Vista and to continue working (illegally) in Escondito.

Escondito also needs to be vigilant about illegals infiltrating into more expensive neighborhoods--stuffed in houses. I have heard this has happened in Oceanside and well as in Temecula (20 illegals in an $800,000 house, trucks parked in the back and side yard--at least not in the front yard, all doing landscaping work). Rumor has it that the houses were purchased by drug mafia groups.

These stuffed houses and apartments mean your teenage daughter is at risk walking in her own neighborhood, and often these places aren't cleaned, so the cockroaches come and there is no room for them to walk.
It gives new meaning to the song: La cucharacha, la cucharacha, no se puede caminar."