Posted on 09/29/2006 2:20:25 AM PDT by Man50D
ALTOONA, Pa. (AP) — City Council members on Tuesday night approved a measure aimed at cracking down on illegal immigrants by punishing companies that hire them and landlords who rent to them.
The council voted 6-1, with member Matt Garber dissenting, to adopt the "Undocumented Alien Control Ordinance" proposal, which is similar to a measure passed in Hazleton earlier this year.
Before the vote, members heard passionate testimony from people for and against the ordinance.
"Who will take care of the people made homeless and unemployed?" asked The Rev. Luke Robertson, Catholic Charities director. "What might passing this kind of ordinance do to the soul of this city?"
Businessman Greg Sheehan, however, said the measure could keep problems such as depressed wages and crime from reaching Altoona, a city of about 47,000 that is 85 miles west of Pittsburgh.
"It's coming," he said. "We need to stop it before it happens."
The vote came a couple of weeks after a Blair County jury recommended that Miguel Padilla be sentenced to death for the murders of three men outside a city nightclub last year. Immigration authorities have said that Padilla, 27, of Gallitzin, had been in the country illegally from Mexico since he was about 9 years old.
Garber said he was concerned about how the ordinance would be enforced and the risk of litigation. He said he favors the employment provision but is not sure the rental provisions give landlords enough time to evict or enough tools to determine legality of renters.
Representatives of the Roman Catholic and Episcopal churches, the American Civil Liberties Union and some community activists had asked the council to table the ordinance. Bishop Joseph Adamec of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown earlier said that if it was passed, there should be a "grandfather clause" allowing poor families to get help if needed.
Since the Hazleton vote, more than a half-dozen communities in eastern Pennsylvania have either passed or considered similar crackdowns on illegal immigrants, as have a number of municipalities around the country.
Hispanic activists and the ACLU sued to overturn Hazleton's illegal immigrant law, but the lawsuit was rendered moot earlier this month when the city passed a replacement law designed to better withstand a legal challenge.
Good for Altoona!
Has a nice "ring" to it....don't you think?
I consider this kind of liberal crap to be a big problem - did anyone stand up to rebut this libidiot?
If they go back where they came from and get a job that won't be a problem. If they want to live and work here they should follow proper legal procedures. Burglary is a living, but it's not legal. I have to abide by U.S. law while I'm in this country. I would appreciate it if foreigners did the same.
Does Catholic Charities supports breaking all of the laws in the USA?
The states and local authorities will take care of the ILLEGAL ALIEN problem if the Federal Government continues to ignore our Contitution and the Rule of Law. Send them all home.
ping
More and more places seem to be jumping onboard.
Of course this is the real meaning of federalism, if the federal government falls down in it's duties, the States or local governments will do it.
Here is some advice passed on by Congressman Billybob concerning cities' attempts to curtail illegal immigrants living/working in their area.
The ACLU usually threatens to sue towns which propose such ordinances. Some of the towns cave in for financial reasons -- the cost of their own attorneys to defend the case, plus the possible court award of fees and costs to the ACLU attorneys.There are two ways to reduce those risks to zero:
1) The Town can pass a Resolution saying that it approves of such ordinances, and intends to pass them in the future. The ACLU cannot sue against a mere expression of opinion, which is what a Resolution is. Any ACLU suit against one will be thrown out of court, with fees and costs awarded AGAINST the ACLU.
2) The Town can pass the ordinances now, but with an effective date of "30 days after the final US Supreme Court decision concerning Hazleton, Pennsylvania, ordinances on illegal aliens."
Again, the ACLU would be thrown out of court if they sued right away, because a law is not really a law and subject to suit until it has gone into effect.
Bottom line: your friends have these two ways to move ahead without fear of anything the "open borders" types at the ACLU, might do.
John / Billybob
6 posted on 09/28/2006 12:56:06 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
Great advice from Congressman Billybob.
I don't get it. Under that scenario the law wouldn't be able to be used until the Supreme Court decided it?
I believe the goal is to keep the ACLU from being able to kill these ordinances before they even have a chance of being implemented.
B-B-B-But who's going to do all those jobs in Altoona that Americans won't do????
Bttt!
... and meanwhile in Burbank, Ca, yet another Illegal alien day worker center is still running.
Glendale, Ca too.
I've had a bellyful of illegal aliens, especially the full-time criminals. Just saw a show of the French courts. On any criminal matter, part of the sentence is a ten-year ban from being in France, for illegals. Part of the actual sentence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.