The Wrong Way to Deal with Illegal Immigration
Farmers Branch, TX, a fashionable northern suburb of Dallas, has enacted an ordinance that would ban illegal immigrants from renting or owning housing.
Now, don’t get me wrong: I do not support illegal immigration in any way shape or form, and I furthermore believe that laws currently on the books should be used to prosecute the employers who exploit them in low-wage, lousy-hours jobs with poor working conditions rather than pay up (and improve working conditions where possible) for a legal, American worker. I also believe that there should be a clear and obvious (even if it’s not easy) path to being a legal worker and eventually a citizen for those who want it.
However, I think the Farmers Branch ordinance is wrong-headed and very possibly in violation of federal law.
First, what about investors? It is not at all unusual for people from foreign countries to invest in housing in the United States without a visa or any intent to live here whatsoever. This is even more true when currencies are trading at current levels that make American assets relatively “cheap.” Are they really saying that foreign investors have to get a visa before buying a rent house?
Second, there is the possibility that Jane Average Apartment Manager — most on-site management in the Dallas-Fort Worth area is done by women — may apply the rules for checking current and correct citizenship and immigration status unevenly. It is not as simple as checking a drivers license, and may be particularly difficult in Texas, where they have had a large influx of Katrina refugees, whose birth certificates and other documents may no longer exist. Is she required to check the heads of household for legal status, or everyone who will be living on property? Even if she does try to check, will she really collect such information on every resident, or only ones with Hispanic surnames? That’s a discrimination lawsuit just waiting to happen. And who will be checking the legal status of purchasers of property? Realtors, title officers, mortgage officers? To whom will it be reported?
Third, finally, and most importantly, Federal Fair Housing Law says it is not legal to refuse to sell or rent to someone “based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or handicap….” If refusing to rent to someone because they are not citizens of the United States is not based on “national origin,” then I am Princess Anastasia. So Jane Average Apartment Manager is caught in the middle: she can either follow the local law and face federal fines, or follow federal law and face local fines.
My guess is Jane will be eyeing jobs in nearby Garland and Plano.
cross-posted at BridgetMagnus.com
14 Responses to “The Wrong Way to Deal with Illegal Immigration”
Hey Princess, foreign investors are NOT illegal aliens. And clearly the intent of the Federal Fair Housing Law was to prevent discrimination against a particular nationality. Insisting that all renters or owners be legal is NOT discrimination.
Hey Princess, you didn't read the ordinance. It dosn't say anything about people buying houses or investing. Do your homework
You lost creditability when you stated that Farmer's Branch is fashionable. It is a middle class area that is trying to save its home value and schools from the ill effects of illegal immigration. Too many illegal immigrants in the town will ruin the reputation of the schools (because why would middle class whites want their children to go to a school that has more minorities than the schools that Chelsea Clinton attended) and when the schools go down hill, the housing values will decline.
“I also believe that there should be a clear and obvious (even if it’s not easy) path to being a legal worker and eventually a citizen for those who want it.”
There is. They go back to their country of origin and apply legally like every other immigrant who follows the law. Why do people think that someone who broke the law should get special treatment? Our laws are simple, we just need to start enforcing them.
Hi Princess. Boy are you confused. I am surprised your article got published it so full of factual errors.
What is so onerous about requiring all tenants go down and identify themselves at City hall and get a permit to reside in the city? If they are in the country legally, the Federal government data base should show it. For those cases not covered by the data base, the person will have to come up with documents.
The apartment manager does not have to do a thing except receive a copy of the city tenant permit. Now you will probably say that the apartment managers will only ask for a permit from Hispanics. Well if that occurs, the manager deserves to be fired and the owners sued. Just like we require that tenants of all races be treated equally in the apartment application process.
Long Island has taken a different approach. They have a problem during the summer with tourists coming in and too many people occurpying homes, and year around with primarily immigrants doing the same thing. It causes parking and traffic problems, and problems with their garbage collection system etc. So they pased a city ordinance on occupancy levels and renters have to declare the number to the city. They are having 6 am raids at homes to do a count of how many people are sleeping in one house/apt. And it does not seem that there is any protest.
The only discrimination in the illegal immigration debate is by the ilegals and their supporters.
We are entitled to bring in our family and race according to a quota that provides fairly equal number of places for each county.
Illegal supporters estimates up to 90% are Hispanic.
All other races, due to geography, do not have an equal opportunity to enter illegally, and obtain amnesty, as their lack of numbers clearly show.
Amnesty ignores our law and gives lawbreakers at least 10 million more places than they are entitled. It even allows them preference in timing of residency. It is hard to imagine any more racist, bigoted, xenophobic laws than these amnesty proposals being pushed on the public.
The USA Constitution does not permit laws to discriminate on the basis of race or national origin. And it states that every American has the right to equal protection under the law.
Preferences for Hispanics violates our Constitution.
This is the civil rights issue of the 21st century. Will we be a nation of laws, of equality, or will the bigoted illegals and their supporters prevail with their damands for racist preferences for Hispanics?
SAY NO TO PREFERENTIAL AMNESTY FOR HISPANICS.
SAY NO TO RACIST, NATIVIST, AMNESTY FOR HISPANICS.
SAY YES TO CIVIL RIGHTS FOR ALL AMERICANS. – DEFEAT AMNESTY
Princess,
Here the right to be free of discrimination based on national origin applies.
Why?
Because normally Latin American countries are entitled to maybe 250,00 places in the USA per our quota system for each country ( fair even, but Mexico get a more).
If they are given 10 milion places, that is 9 million 750,00 places that they are not entitled to. That a huge preference.
That is discrimination against all other countries in the world (and Americans from those countrries who want to bring in their family and race).
Why wouldn't Blacks say, hey, Hispanics are geting 10 milllion places, we want 10 million for Africa. And Whites say we want 10 million for Europe, and Asians say we want 10 million for Asian, and Americans from India?Pakistan etc will want their 10 million. As will the Filipinos.
You see the problem?
There is no possible way any amnesty can be fair. It is given preference to one racial group, HIspanics.
Why doesn't your example using National Origin work?
Because everyone must obtain a certificate to rent. Americans, Visa holders, recent legal immigrants, tourists. Everyone is treated the same no mattere where they came from.
The illegals are unable to obtain the permit, not because of their national origin, but because they are criminals in the country illegally. If they were here legally, there would be no problem. So the “discrimination” is based upon their conduct, their illegal conduct. We discriminate based upon people illegal conduct all the time. Guess who gets to go to jail? Those that break the law. They are discriminiated against because they have broken the law.
Oh goodie, a new batch of xenophobes. How nice.
For what it's worth children your condescending use of “Princess” is both tacky and uncalled for. The authors name is Bridget Magnus. Why don't you try to act like adults and show a little respect.
Steve K – The authoritarian crowd from LGF and RedState need leadership, maybe these Wasp's miss the king and queen. If only over a hundred years ago, these Wasp's banned those dirty Irish and Italians(WOP – WithOutPapers) Pat Buchanan and Rudy G would have stayed in Europe where they belong.
The whole ZOMG AMNESTY argument is just plain bs. Those who whine about illegal immigrants and think letting them stay in America if they meet certain conditions is amnesty, clearly are not listening to the remainder of the proposal and have yet to offer a viable alternative. Every proposal I've heard about that allows the current illegal residents to stay involves fines and registration. Wow, that's some serious amnesty there. Can you imagine what would happen if we made civil offenders pay fines instead of kicking them out of the country? Mass hysteria! Cats and dogs living together!
So let's take a moment to look at rational solutions to the problem of illegal immigration. First, we do have to secure our borders. Building a giant fence is not the answer – people will go around it, under it, over it or avoid it altogether through the cunning use of boats. So what do we do? Well, we could bring our troops home from Iraq and start a steady rotation of border patrols (both north and south) and inspections at ports.
Second, we have to take away the motivation for people to come here illegally in the first place. Crack down on employers who hire undocumented workers. A couple $20,000 fines and a loss of their business licences will change that practice real fast. And that includes people who hire immigrants as domestic help (nannies, maids, gardeners, etc.).
Third, our current system for legal immigration is completely outdated and non-functional. We need to scrap this quota system which is incredibly unfair. I know this from personal experience. A friend of mine from college was an exchange student from Sri Lanka – his parents scraped together all the money they could to send him to an American high school and an American college. He graduated from school, lined up a good job, and applied for legal residency. But he was turned down because we already had our quota from his country. We also need to speed up the process. We've heard the stories about people who wait 15 years to get a visa – that's an awfully long time to wait for someone to process your paperwork. I would think that a year is more than enough time to go through the paperwork, do a background check, and determine if an applicant is going to get his/her green card.
And lastly, we need to figure out what we can do with the illegal immigrants who are already here. Once we start cracking down on employers, a lot of them will either leave or try to register for legal status. We should let them as long as they pay a substantial fine and do not have a criminal record. What else are we going to do? Round'em up and ship them across the border? On whose dime?
The “national origin” is that of citizens — not illegal aliens.
And don't call that “xenophobia” or anything else it is not.
Amanda,
You said:
“First, we do have to secure our borders.” Then you preemptively remove the most efficient way of doing so, by stating: “Building a giant fence is not the answer…”
While it is true that “… people will go around it, under it, over it…”, they just won't do so as quickly or efficiently as before. Another cruel fact: the physical capabiltiy required to quickly climb over two high fences in rapid succession will drastically reduce the number of border violations.
The difference between defending a border largely devoid of extensive physical barriers and a border that represents a difficult obstacle for the uninvited is the difference between fishing with a hook or catching fish with a net. The efficiency and resulting deterrence goes up by orders of magnitude.
About the “cunning use of boats.” The costs and risks of infiltration by sea to both coyotes and those who hire them will increase tremendously, thus placing a practical limit on the use of this method. Also, please look at a map of Southern Cal and Baja Cal, Mx. The number of possible ports of embarkation and debarkation are quite finite, unlike the number of infiltration routes that lead across our unsecured land border. The areas in-between are predominately unsheltered beaches with long, uninterrupted periods of rough surf. Once again, imposing an effective deterrent against the widespread use of this method. Sorry, but smugglers are not going to conduct operations requiring Navy SEALs levels of complexity (and resultant costs) to import farm workers and domestics.
OK, I missed one very key word in that paragraph. It should have read “Just building a giant fence isn't the answer.” You are absolutely correct that it will thin the herd, so to speak. But it won't be nearly as effective if we aren't absolutely committed to providing patrols to monitor the fence and to continued maintenance of the structure.
As for the boats, well, we've all seen the footage of refugees from Cuba, Haiti, etc. tying old tires together to make rafts. If people are desperate enough to get here, they'll risk rowing a dinghy along 10 miles of coastline to find a place to sneak in.
Amanda,
WRT the Caribbean (Haiti, Cuba, D.R., etc) analogy, it doesn't apply very well to the Left Coast for reasons of climate and oceanography (cold water, no Gulf Stream, no trade winds, etc). Don't know as much about the Gulf Of Mexico, although I suspect that there would be some natural challenges there as well. Additionally, the ports of San Diego and LA / Long Beach are saturated with waterborne Homeland Defense assets (i.e., USCG and Border Patrol), as I get checked on a regular basis while out boating. I know for a fact ( I work in the industry) that maritime surveillance in this area is pretty comprehensive. Don't forget, but this is SoCal; it's as much about “show” as it is “go.” Derelict motor boats and “rowboats” would get everyone's attention and, not in a positive way.
I still think that the contraband smuggling calculus applies: rewards must greatly exceed risks. The current reality: High risks (detection and arrest), high capital investment (i.e., large boats) vs a very low reward. Unskilled laborers do not provide the same ROI as kilos of cocaine.
Once we sorted out the Title 10/32 issues, a wider use of the military would be an option. I suspect that the greater efficiency inherent in the use of these assets would compel opponents of border security to use some legal and legislative obstructions (such as not granting Title 32 and Posse Comitatus authority to nationalized forces) in an attempt to stop/limit their use. This issue has always been one of political will, not availability of assets. Speaking of assets, great news! Lots of the NG/AR units currently on the Iraq deployment cycle will be returned to domestic tasking by the end of the year. We can “flood the zone” along the borders, if we so choose.
Bottom Line: I think that arguments against the “fence” are better positioned around issues of costs and affordability instead of effectiveness. That is unless, of course, you don't like effective. A lot of people don't.
Amanda,
Let me attempt to “close the loop” on my response to your original post:
“…We have to take away the motivation for people to come here illegally in the first place.” Agreed. Not only should we “crack down” on those evil capitalist exploiters of the underclass, let's go “after” the Klepto-Narcocracy that exists on our southern border. Talk about real racism and exploitation; let's stop the fairy tale about our peaceful neighbors to the south. Nothing would spell “doom” to the feudal overlords in Mexico faster than a shutting off of the social safety valve that is our open southern border. Funny, but Mexican corruption, exploitation and gross incompetance hardly ever get discussed within the context of immigration reform. Might get called a nativist or, even worse, a xenophobe. Oh, no, not that!
Sorry, but paying a fine and then being allowed to stay is a form of amnesty. You pay a fine and are then returned to the status of one who has played by the rules? Let's see: Unauthorized entry into the U.S (a civil offense); that'll be $ 2500. Plus, multiple counts of document fraud and identity theft (felonies, all); let's say $5,000 and we'll forget the whole thing. Plus, bonus!, you get to stay to enjoy most of, if not all, the benefits of a U.S resident? No. Friggin'. Way! Go back to the U.S. Embassy / Consulate in your host country and begin the formal process. Back of the line, Bub!
One of the reasons that it takes so long for legal immigration applicants to have their applications processed is because the U.S. already has too many low/no-skilled hispanic workers, most of whom have jumped the line. Contrary to popular belief, it does not take 12 years for a bureaucrat to process your docs. It takes 11 years for a legal slot to open up. Then the “processing” begins.
Talk to a U.S. citizen of Mexican descent who is trying to do the “right thing” and play by the rules. Years of waiting and thousands of dollars of immigration attorney's fees in a legal attempt to get their family members into the U.S. These people are more than able to meet the conditions of immigration sponsorship (i.e., not allowing their relatives to become recipients of government assistance). Ask them how they feel about illegal immigration and illegal immigrants. Funny, but these are the brown faces that we never see on CNN. The racist/nativist/xenophobe meme can't be applied to these folks. They live, therefore, “in the shadows.” Si! Se Puede, indeed.
Tell me who the current state of illegal immigration is really screwing? Justice means allowing no advantages to those who have “cheated.”