Neb. town may halt immigration law to save money

<snip>

"Faced with expensive legal challenges, officials in the eastern Nebraska town of Fremont are considering suspending a voter-approved ban on hiring or renting property to illegal immigrants until the lawsuits are resolved.

The City Council narrowly rejected the ban in 2008, prompting supports to gather enough signatures for the ballot measure. The ordinance, which was approved by voters last month, has divided the community, with supporters saying it was necessary to make up for what they see as lax federal law enforcement and opponents arguing that it could fuel discrimination.

But the council's president, Scott Getzschman, insisted the elected body was concerned about money, not about any lack of support for the ordinance. The City Council is scheduled to vote on suspending the ban on Tuesday night, a day before the city goes to court over the measure.

The city faces lawsuits from the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund. City officials have estimated that Fremont's costs of implementing the ordinance — including legal fees, employee overtime and improved computer software — would average $1 million a year."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100727/ap_on_re_us/us_nebraska_immigration

That doesn't make sense.

Enforcement appears to be by choice nowadays.

Have you been to a customs holding area like ICE lately?

What I find laughable is that all these "small government" rethugs are wringing their hands about "federal law enforcement," which, when applied to them, becomes "Big Brother Fascism," etc.

You can't have it both ways, Morans.

You have got to be kidding me.

Or do you just have a burning desire to pick fruit for a living? :shrug:

I would guess anyone would.

that i don't think you intended to.
do you not realize that many latin americans immigrate here so that they forestall running out of work, food and shelter? in many cases, it's watch your wife and kids starve, or cross the border illegally. i think you do realize this.
i suspect you don't care.

no clue what's up with my computer...

ICE has stated their quota for this year is 400,000. It is actually 11 million in '08 down from 12.5 million in 2007.

However these stupid laws doesn't do anything to stop people from coming into the US. Besides the constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to "establish an uniform rule of naturalization,". State law is preempted by Federal Law. If you read the basis for the lawsuit filed by Obama's justice department you will see why there is problems for having two different sets of laws. One example is refugees escaping persecution or victims of national disasters. They may not have the necessary paperwork which the AZ law makes it illegal not to have even though the Government already knows about these people. How will regular cops know this? They won't. So they'll likely be taken directly to jail even though their application is pending. Also on top of this laws like this can lead to wrongful arrests and profiling of brown people.

If you have to understand why there has to be one set of rules in things like immigration because having two different sets of laws can lead to problems such as refugees getting arrested even though the Gov knows about them. Like how the US can only go to war. New Mexico can't declare war on Mexico or Montana declaring war on Canada.

In your example the individual is free to decide whether to file a lawsuit or not.

But in this case, the voters passed a ballot measure - specifically, it appears, to override the city council's 2008 rejection of the statute in question. How can the city council suspend that unless there is some stipulation in the law that grants them this power?

If that's the way it is, there's no reason to bother voting on anything. This appears to fly in the face of the principle of majority rule.