ForumGarden

New Jersey Town Faces More Lawsuits Against Ordinance Targeting Illegal Immigrants



Philadelphia Inquirer

Gaiutra Bahadur

September 21, 2006



The American Civil Liberties Union and other civil-rights, Latino, and local business advocates yesterday announced plans to sue Riverside if its controversial new ordinance targeting illegal immigrants is not revoked next week.



In a letter delivered to Mayor Charles Hilton, attorneys for the groups warned that they would sue unless the Illegal Immigration Relief Act is repealed at the Township Council meeting Wednesday. It would be the second challenge to the law.



The legislation, enacted in July, calls for fines of up to $2,000 for anyone who knowingly rents to illegal immigrants. Employers of unauthorized immigrants would lose their business permits for five years. Plaintiffs in the suit are likely to be business owners and landlords.



[...]



The clergy group's challenge seeks $10 million in damages for Latino and undocumented residents of Riverside.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Why are Latinos who are not undocumented included??

Acc, isn't it illegal to hire people who are illegal aliens? I mean, when I was doing hiring, I had paperwork to fill out that required copies of birth certificates, copies of social security cards and/or copies of work permits. If I didn't get those things from the perspective employee, they couldn't work for me. I live in Michigan! Is it different in Michigan then in any other state? Am I missing something here?

LilacDragon wrote: Acc, isn't it illegal to hire people who are illegal aliens? I mean, when I was doing hiring, I had paperwork to fill out that required copies of birth certificates, copies of social security cards and/or copies of work permits. If I didn't get those things from the perspective employee, they couldn't work for me. I live in Michigan! Is it different in Michigan then in any other state? Am I missing something here?As I understand it, you have to prove elligibility to work here, and it's illegal to falsify such documentation. But it's not illegal to actually hire such criminals, or if it is, the law either has no teeth or no enforcement.

flopstock wrote: The problem is that we cannot ask certain individuals to 'prove' that they are providing real documents unless we ask everyone to prove that what they provide is real. What we do, is to ask for specific documents in order to be eligible for employment. If an employee provides them, who are you, as the employer to question it? Unless three brothers walk in with identical documents, you don't have the right to question it, IMO.



I have a German last name. When I was married, my husbands last name was Italian. It is not logical to expect that I should have to jump through any extra hoops, because I don't look like my name.



If a company is withholding taxes and submitting them to the government, it is for the IRS to figure out how the same guy is working 50 jobs in a 10 mile radius..:wah:The key word is "knowingly". That's tough to prove, too tough to net an innocent employer.

I don't see what's so difficult about this. Many communities are passing laws in an effort to keep illegals away. The ACLU is testing the legality of these laws. It's what they do.

Imagine that San Antonio passed a law making cats illegal. You might ask for help from the ACLU yourself.

People rant and rave about the organization when it tests situations which SEEMINGLY aid unpopular people and causes. I'm old enough to remember when the ACLU stood with blacks who challenged laws and practices which were designed to deter them from voting.

People in Alabama and Mississippi (for example) called the ACLU "communist" at the time, and many people still do question their loyalty.

Witness the title of this thread.

Frankly, I'm glad to see them bring this to light. Too many communities are passing laws which won't "stick" and I want to see these laws replaced with valid ones which will help get these illegals out of the country.

Lulu2 wrote: I don't see what's so difficult about this. Many communities are passing laws in an effort to keep illegals away. The ACLU is testing the legality of these laws. It's what they do.



Imagine that San Antonio passed a law making cats illegal. You might ask for help from the ACLU yourself.Not even remotely close as an analogy.

Let them test laws that do harm.

Lulu2 wrote: People rant and rave about the organization when it tests situations which SEEMINGLY aid unpopular people and causes. I'm old enough to remember when the ACLU stood with blacks who challenged laws and practices which were designed to deter them from voting.Were these illegal alien blacks? I seem to remember reading that they were citizens.



Lulu2 wrote: People in Alabama and Mississippi (for example) called the ACLU "communist" at the time, and many people still do question their loyalty.



Witness the title of this thread.



Frankly, I'm glad to see them bring this to light. Too many communities are passing laws which won't "stick" and I want to see these laws replaced with valid ones which will help get these illegals out of the country.That makes sense. I truly doubt that's the rationale behind the challenge. If it were, wouldn't they wait until the law actually passed rather than making threats, trying to stop the process?

Yes...."American" Civil Liberties Union should mean just that. AMERICANS......not minorities.........AMERICANS.................Why does the ACLU fight for minorities?

They always say say that. Dang.....I am a woman and have been crapped upon but I chose to fight without the ACLU.

Accountable...your problem with this issue seems to be the fact that these people are here illegally. (I happen to agree with you here, by the way. Note the date, please.)

However, if laws deliberately designed to deter housing/medical care/education for illegals are being passed, they should, in fact, be constitutional. Objections and calls for testing have been raised. These new laws will likely go to the Supremes before the issue is settled.

Meanwhile, organizations like the ACLU will do the AMERICAN thing, which is test them in our courts.

Now, I've been discriminated against, as a woman, and managed to fight my own way around it. HOWEVER...had I felt the problems were insurmountable, I'd've gone to the ACLU, because they exist to protect civil liberties, and I'm a passionate civil libertarian.

The meaning of "civil liberties" has always been understood.....white men had them, didn't they? :rolleyes:

How do you think that changed? It changed through the efforts of people who love the law and understand that all laws ultimately have to pass the test of constitutionality.

Did the framers of that document intend to extend civil liberties to illegal aliens? I don't know. It'll have to be tested by the Supremes. (And I hope they make a decision we can all live with.)

LilacDragon wrote: Acc, isn't it illegal to hire people who are illegal aliens? I mean, when I was doing hiring, I had paperwork to fill out that required copies of birth certificates, copies of social security cards and/or copies of work permits. If I didn't get those things from the perspective employee, they couldn't work for me. I live in Michigan! Is it different in Michigan then in any other state? Am I missing something here?


Clapping for you Lilac..........it is NOT DIFFERENT in any part of this country. :-4

"Legal" or not, millions of them are working "under the table" all over this country.

Like it or not (in California, at least,) public health agencies, emergency rooms, schools and other social service agencies ARE NOT ALLOWED to ask for proof of citizenship before they provide service.

It used to be that people looked away as "migrant farmworkers" (nice little euphemism) crossed the border, picked fruit and went home. Now, millions of them are in every part of society here and have no intention of leaving.

Communities like Hazelton, PA are passing laws to make it illegal to rent to someone without papers. And although I personally applaud anyone trying to stem the tide of illegal immigration, logic tells me that might not be constitutional.

Suppose they only ask Hispanic-appearing people to show proof of citizenship? Suppose the landlord applies an "English-only" rule for rental. YOU GET THE IDEA HERE, people!

Before we can apply laws like this, they've got to be tested. Frankly, although it makes my teeth itch, I think it's the honorable thing to do.

Lulu2 wrote: "Legal" or not, millions of them are working "under the table" all over this country.

Like it or not (in California, at least,) public health agencies, emergency rooms, schools and other social service agencies ARE NOT ALLOWED to ask for proof of citizenship before they provide service.

It used to be that people looked away as "migrant farmworkers" (nice little euphemism) crossed the border, picked fruit and went home. Now, millions of them are in every part of society here and have no intention of leaving.

Communities like Hazelton, PA are passing laws to make it illegal to rent to someone without papers. And although I personally applaud anyone trying to stem the tide of illegal immigration, logic tells me that might not be constitutional.

Suppose they only ask Hispanic-appearing people to show proof of citizenship? Suppose the landlord applies an "English-only" rule for rental. YOU GET THE IDEA HERE, people!

Before we can apply laws like this, they've got to be tested. Frankly, although it makes my teeth itch, I think it's the honorable thing to do.


That is a PROBLEM.........not working in this country with legal papers.......The US is the US and an English speaking country.

In Bernalillo, NM the children of only Spanish speaking adults are given an education in dual language.

Yes...I know. People in California have been infuriated about the dual educational trains for years. What an incredible waste of money.

Lulu2 wrote: Yes...I know. People in California have been infuriated about the dual educational trains for years. What an incredible waste of money.


As a substitute teacher........I am VERY UPSET about the educational trains in this country..............



NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND has left our most gifted children behind..................

Yes....I have to post again...............

How dare the ACLU ....OR Bush tell us how to educte the children of this country.

The FACT IS....some are smarter......some are average....and some cannot keep up. Why DO YOU KEEP THE SMART ONES BEHIND?????????????? As a sub teacher for the past 2 years ................the slower kid ........those that will never ever make average are keeping America's children behind the 8 ball. Why is this educational system keeping the smart kids behind??????

I do not understand....they should be progresssed.

President Bush..............these are the future leaders of our country .........they are being held back...You said "NO CHILD left behind"

You have left behind the children that will AND can make a difference in this country.......................

Our youth...........our intelligent youth..................how dare you suppress the education of our kids in America because you want you want "no child left behind".............................

Guess WHAT!!!!!!

Some of these kids DO NOT Want to go forward...................SOME of them do

I want to find the kids that want an education.

I agree with your sentiments about the NCLB act. I substitute taught and taught an algebra class for at-risk high school kids for a year, and I know that some children want to learn and others don't. It causes stress on teachers to make them responsible for motivating children who do not want to be motivated.

Getting back to the original question posed in this thread, the "A" in ACLU means "Anti-". It's the "Anti-Civil Liberties Union", IMHO.

seekerw wrote: I agree with your sentiments about the NCLB act. I substitute taught and taught an algebra class for at-risk high school kids for a year, and I know that some children want to learn and others don't. It causes stress on teachers to make them responsible for motivating children who do not want to be motivated.

Getting back to the original question posed in this thread, the "A" in ACLU means "Anti-". It's the "Anti-Civil Liberties Union", IMHO.


Actually...... i want to talk about teaching...............

nvalleyvee wrote: Actually...... i want to talk about teaching...............


Please, go ahead then and talk. I'd like to talk about that subject.

Woo Hoo

SEEKER "Getting back to the original question posed in this thread, the "A" in ACLU means "Anti-". It's the "Anti-Civil Liberties Union", IMHO."



+++++++++++ Might I suggest you actually read their purpose statement? And would you explain that statement, please? Considering that this organization was critically important in the civil rights movement of the 60s and the womens' rights movement of the 70s.

Perhaps THOSE were "anti" civil rights? Anti-American?

Lulu2 wrote: SEEKER "Getting back to the original question posed in this thread, the "A" in ACLU means "Anti-". It's the "Anti-Civil Liberties Union", IMHO."



+++++++++++ Might I suggest you actually read their purpose statement? And would you explain that statement, please? Considering that this organization was critically important in the civil rights movement of the 60s and the womens' rights movement of the 70s.

Perhaps THOSE were "anti" civil rights? Anti-American?


Purpose statements don't always reflect the true aim of groups. I happen to agree with most of the laws the ACLU tries to challenge, and especially abhor the fact that the ACLU seems determined to stamp out every mention of God from the schools and from public life.

I used to live in Utah, and I liked the beehives that used to be on their license plates. Then they replaced them suddenly with "Ski Utah" logos, which I abhor. Why were they replaced? Because the governor was concerned that, due to a recent court decision in another state, the beehives would be interpreted as a religious symbol that might offend certain people and the state might be sued. This court decision was sparked by a lawsuit from the ACLU.

Whatever good the ACLU might have done in the 60s and 70s has been eclipsed by the harm they've done since then, IMO.

Hello, you have reached the United States of America Voicemail system

Our menu options have changed

Please press one, for menu options in English

Please press two to access your messages

For other options: Please hang up and go learn to speak English to retrieve your messages:-5



the stuesday log

Attached files

Lulu2 wrote: Accountable...your problem with this issue seems to be the fact that these people are here illegally. (I happen to agree with you here, by the way. Note the date, please.):D Actually, I've read your views on illegal immigration & agree totally. I didn't post after you only because it would've been redundant. I have to run, but I will comment on the rest of your post later.

Hmm...didn't the ACLU once give support to NAMBLA? The National Man-Boy Love Association, or am I getting confused?



On illegals...I live near a casino town and 99% of the housekeepers in the hotels are hispanic. And illegally here. And the casino knows it yet they continue to hire them. Not a one can speak English.



My mom once reported a family of illegal immigrants to INS and she was actually told they wouldn't do anything about it because they were just a handful compared to the hoardes that come over here daily, so it wasn't worth the effort.

Lulu2 wrote: Communities like Hazelton, PA are passing laws to make it illegal to rent to someone without papers. And although I personally applaud anyone trying to stem the tide of illegal immigration, logic tells me that might not be constitutional.Please explain the logic, because I don't see it.



Lulu2 wrote: Suppose they only ask Hispanic-appearing people to show proof of citizenship? Suppose the landlord applies an "English-only" rule for rental. YOU GET THE IDEA HERE, people!Selectively enforcing a law does not in any way make the law unconstitutional. Bigots abound, and will be heartily sued if they practice that bigotry in the name of law enforcement. THAT is a good cause for the ACLU to take on.


Lulu2 wrote: Before we can apply laws like this, they've got to be tested. Frankly, although it makes my teeth itch, I think it's the honorable thing to do.Again, the law hasn't even passed yet. The ACLU is trying to get it stopped. That is not "testing".



added: I think your love for the ACLU has blinded you this time.

2 Sticks wrote: Hello, you have reached the United States of America Voicemail system

Our menu options have changed

Please press one, for menu options in English

Please press two to access your messages

For other options: Please hang up and go learn to speak English to retrieve your messages:-5


I agree with you. Why does practically every other group of immigrants learn English except the Hispanic community at large? If you come here, you should learn the language (English). You shouldn't expect us to learn your language.