It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are you an illegal immigrant? Yes you say! Then you can't live here.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Apparently the city of Farmers Branch, Tx has decided that if some one is an illegal immigrant they can't rent an apartment. The measure requires land lords to verify a persons citizenship or immigration status before renting to that person. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund has brought a lawsuit to stop the "suburb’s measure" which is scheduled to take effect Jan. 12. They are saying that it violates federal law to ask for a persons citizenship card. Also, three apartment owners are suing saying the law is unconstitutional. Seems to me that having private owners becoming a kin to U.S. Immigration Inforcement is not real smart. It is not my job to check up on whether or not a person is here illegally or not. Beyond that how could this law even be enforced. With so many illegals in the U.S. there needs to be a cental office of some short. One office to run immigration, not a haphazard group a various towns through out the U.S. doing there own thing. Though these folks are here illegally, they are still human and deserve to be treated with respect. Inevetablely, an uneducated, double fisted redneck will use a law such as this to abuse civil liberties. Just don't see where it helps anything or anyone.
HH




posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 02:07 AM
link   
But if they're illegal that means they broke the law. Can't landlords check a person's criminal record or get a background check if they wish and decide whether they want to rent their property or not according to that?

I thought that landlords can choose not to rent to people with criminal backgrounds?



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 04:00 AM
link   
Yes if a person is here illegally, then they have broke the law. And a land owner has the right, with in the law, to rent to whomever he chooses. The article was about putting the burden of proof on the land owner. The land owner has to check immigration status of a person by mandate of law. Ultimetly that's what I have a problem with. What would be the penalty if the land owner failed to comply with the law, even if it wasn't his fault. People who rent property will get a copy of drivers license and various forms of ID, but those things can be fordged. In effect this law makes property owners deputies in the effort to control illegal immirgrants. There is no doubt that we all should do our duty as citizens, but making John Q Public responsible by law to check on a person's citizenship is not the way to go.
HH



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   
The problem Land Owners have is the cost of such a thing.

Polce Record Checks, can cost upwards of $100 USD then factor that in with paying to check their Social Security number and so on and so fourth. Now if you get 10 applicants, that's $1000 USD. You start to see the issue here?

It's a case of the Government not being able to do its job - keeping illegal immigrants out, and placing the burden on the public instead.

You pay taxes.
Those taxes go on keeping illegal immigrants out of the country.
Refund the taxes so land owners can do the checks themselves or the Government get its act together.



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   
First of all, the reason that individual state has taken upon themselves to deal with the problem of immigration is due to the overwhelming response of American voters that are complaining about the lack of federal level responsibility and congress laws to deal with it.

This local and state measures will put pressure on law makers in Washington to stop taking about the problems and find a solution that will make an impact in the entire nation.

During the congress elections many state added immigration measures for the voters of the individual state to voice their yes or not.

As you all know all the state that brought the measures to the voters won on such anti-immigration measures.

Now is up to congress to make a final decision on how to deal with the immigration problems.

Be amnesty, workers permit or else.

Until then is nothing that can be done and the states will do as their majority voters want.

After all that is the way of the power of the states and the people it represents, the legal voters



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Although I believe that immigrants need to come here within the law, not outside of it, and are liable for their actions when they do not, I do not believe that local governments can or should try to make enforcers out of businesses.

The state and national political structures refuse to do the job- they could accomplish exactly what this law is trying to do by refusing government issued ID to those who can't prove legal status and legislating a requirement that these IDs be used to obtain a job, residence, etc.

What's going on here is that local governments are trying to accomplish something too big for them since the higher levels won't, and to pull it off they're pushing the responsibility to investigate onto private citizens who have neither the means nor the right to do so.

So long as our politicians refuse immigration reform and enforcement which causes legal immigration to be easier and more accessible than illegal immigration, the problem will not be fixed. So long as illegal immigration remains a sound campaign issue and a benefit to business though, the parties will never actually deliver results, no matter what the will of the people may be.

Shame on everyone really. Its not exactly a surprise considering how both sides have made it a racial/nativism issue, at the official level because that helps their strategy of non-solution, and at the grass roots because we're too stupid to know any better. One can only wonder how this might have worked out if the American people had forced the policy aspect of the issue on their parties and used their votes to force a sound policy compromise.



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Frankly I am for municipalities setting these types of ordnances.


Originally posted by Odium
The problem Land Owners have is the cost of such a thing.
---[snip]--
Refund the taxes so land owners can do the checks themselves or the Government get its act together.


Today most, if not nearly all, landlords and large rental properties check credit records and previous rental history. The fees for these checks are paid by the potential renters prior to any lease agreement and are not refundable regardless of the landlord’s decision of acceptance/non-acceptance.

Third party release of criminal background information works the same. Independent landlords make use of private investigation firms and/or bail bond companies to produce reports at a cost very near that of a credit check $20-45. There are other less expensive routes. I use a real-estate agency to filter clients for an older condo I own and lease, and a background check is part of the renter’s application and application fee’s. I meet with only the screened prospective tenants for interview to make a decision with much less liability and with guarantee.

If the landlord incurs any unforeseen costs, they are merely expensed or averaged into the price of the rental property etc…no big deal.

As far as making the landlord the enforcement agency…here is an example, to get a state safety inspection in Texas one must show the mechanic proof of insurance…does that make the mechanic a police officer? There are a host of examples to where businesses act on the behalf of the government assuming a cost burden; tax collection is one of them.

mg



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   
I think your post is a little to simplistic. The fact of the matter is neither side of the immigration debate seems to recognize these fundamental truths.

1. Illegal aliens can both hurt and benefit US society.

Illegal aliens benefit US Society by providing cheap labor that will perform jobs virtually all Americans will not do. At the same time they hurt American society because *SOME* of the jobs they take are jobs that Americans are willing to perform. While many illegal aliens are for the most part good, honest, hard working people who contribute to society, *SOME* of them are criminals or are here to mooch of are wellfare system. There is also an ideal number of illegal aliens our society should have. Deporting every illegal alien would be disastrous, and similarly allowing 500 million illegal aliens into the country would be disastrous. Immigration policy should be crafted to maximize the benefits to America, and America only, while minimizing the harms to America, and America only.

2. The current law does not reflect the facts on the ground.

The fact is there are millions of people in the US breaking the law by being here. The law must closely reflect the facts on the ground if the law is to maintain any integrity. This means that either the facts on the ground must change through government actions like roundups and deportations, or the law must change to reflect the fact millions of people have come across the border. The anti-illegal alien side wants to round up all the illegals, build walls, etc. to change the facts on the ground, and keep the law intact. The pro-illegal alien side wants to get rid of the law by allowing anybody or anything acros the border. Perhaps there is a sensible middle ground, where the law allows limited numbers of people to come here to work, while at the same time only those that are allowed to come here will actually be here.

Peace.



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by elaine
But if they're illegal that means they broke the law. Can't landlords check a person's criminal record or get a background check

An illegal immigrant is a person that came to the US without the proper paper work. THere's not going to be a criminal record on them.


I thought that landlords can choose not to rent to people with criminal backgrounds?

They can not rent from anyone, for anyreason, no?



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   
There perhaps would'nt be a criminal record. You're right. There would be NO records whatsoever probably.

No ss#, no job history or anything. Big hint to landlords and everyone else that they're here "illegally" thus "breaking the law" thus haveing done "criminal activity" though their very act of entering our country without the "paperwork" is "criminal".



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 02:06 PM
link   
When landlords screen their tennants for criminal records, it is a business decision. Having drug dealers, child molestors, gangsters, prostitutes, pimps, rapists, and thieves milling about your builiding is bad for business. While illegal immigration is a crime, you cannot lump illegal immigrants with the above group. That being said, landlords generally do not want drug dealers, thieves, etc. in their buildings because they can be bad tenants. On the other hand, an illegal alien could be a good tenant because they may be capable of paying the rent on time and not disturbing others.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join