Farmers Branch sends immigration ordinance to public vote

Alan Cohen, says:

"way2toFB" - I reject your notion that this ordinance represents legal citizens. I am a legal citizen, and I am against any such ordinance in any city in this country. But it seems to me that if you believe in government representing the interests of legal citizens, you would be all for a public vote to truly determine the will of the legal citizens before enacting this ordinance.

Furthermore, if the Farmers Branch city council believes it's the right thing to put the immigration ordinance to a public vote, it seems only common sense that it would also be the right thing to wait for that public vote to take place before enacting the ordinance.

Alan Cohen, says:

I don't know about all that...I'd rather discuss Farmers Branch

Alan Cohen, says:

David, I see your point. And in general after thinking about it, I agree with what you are saying.

Let me amend my previous comments to say that I think it would have been wise for the city council to wait for a public vote before enacting such controversial policy. In particular, because there is so much question as to whether the city council truly was within its rights. Keep in mind that there multiple lawsuits challenging the legitimacy of such an ordinance.

http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2006/...

http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2006/...

http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2006/...

My basic argument is simply that even if the council believed the ordinance to be the right thing to do, they still should have used the public vote as an opportunity to pause in the face of so much public dissent, petitioning, and legal action.

Blair Lovern, says:

<a href="http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa070109_kd_criminalimmigrants.23ae71b5.html">Immigrants arrested for being in the U.S. illegally are re-arrested an average of 6 times</a>, and for more serious crimes, reports the Justice Department today. I'm not saying what Farmers Branch is doing is the best solution, but to pretend there isn't a problem is foolish.

Also, <a href="http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm">there are reasons</a> we have a representative democracy in this country and not a pure democracy.

Alan Cohen, says:

Blair, no one I've heard is pretending that illegal immigration isn't a problem.

In fact, one of the major points in the article that you linked to is that the U.S. has made major improvements since the sample data you reference was taken back in 2004: "For years, the government was forced to release thousands of illegal immigrants who were caught in the United States because of not enough jail space and other resources. But last fall, with immigration as a key election-year priority, Homeland Security declared it would detain 99 percent of non-Mexican illegal immigrants until they could be returned to their home nations. The policy generally does not apply to Mexicans, who are almost immediately returned to Mexico after being stopped by Border Patrol agents."

This seems to tackle the specific issue you are concerned about far more directly than the Farmers Branch ordinance would.

Blair Lovern, says:

If illegal immigration <i>is</i> a problem, why is everyone mad at Farmers Branch?

Alan Cohen, says:

My personal reasons are because it harms people after they are already here, not those trying to cross the border illegally.

Most importantly, its a humanitarian issue. I do not support ever denying anyone housing or food or other basic necessities.

In my mind, this ordinance does not act as a deterrent to illegal immigration. Rather, it simply serves to increase poverty among those already here.

Blair Lovern, says:

I can understand that, Alan. No one wants to deny another human being a decent life, at least I don't. This is the best country in the world, and I want as many people who are able to to share in that greatness.

I'm just curious where the breaking point is. And I ask this to myself, too. For example, my wife and I were in San Antonio a few weeks ago at one of our <a href="http://www.mitierracafe.com/">favorite Mexican restaurants</a> in this nation (lunch and dinner same day, man that place is incredible) and we started talking about how the whole atmosphere in San Antonio is different than North Texas. The Mexican influence is much greater, of course. And I love that. It's so totally different than what I'm used to. I like how America changes as you travel through it. I'm not against immigration. I'm not against, say, Pizza Patron taking pesos (although any customer who uses a peso there is not getting the most out of his money.)

I think you're an idiot if you want to close the borders, and I think you're an idiot if you support the Farmers Branch council for racist reasons. That's not me.

So, again, what is that breaking point? If a law here harms an illegal immigrant, what is that illegal immigrant supposed to do? He wasn't supposed to be here in the first place. But it's too late for that. And if no law is going to be enforced against illegal immigrants, or if some are and others aren't, then what's the point of having any immigration laws at all? This is not a ship-them-all back argument. I'm not in favor of that.

But if too many illegals are potentially in harm's way now, what about 5 years from now? Or 10, or two generations of unchecked illegal immigration? What are they supposed to do to get out of harm's way? If they remain illegal they won't be able to live to their potential, and neither will anyone else because resources that could have been better used elsewhere are instead diverted to keep all these illegals afloat somehow.

So, what about making all the illegals automatically legal? OK, then does the tide of illegal immigration stop? If the U.S. were as poor as Mexico, and they had as much abundance as we do and did nothing to stop anyone from up North coming in, and granted auto-citizenship, would you stay home if you had the chance to get out? I don't even have to use that example. It's <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,952186,00.html">already been proven</a> that granting amnesty does not contain, control or curb illegal immigration. In fact, the opposite is true.

Is one illegal immigrant too much? Let's say just one guy sneaks over for work every year, you think anyone is going to care? I can honestly say I don't even care if a lot more than one sneak over, with the caveat being they don't live off the dole and don't do harm to this country. But I can't be assured that, and I can't be assured what the definition of "a lot more than one" is.

What about 500,000 illegals every year? Or 1 million? Are they all going to North Dakota and Idaho and Hawaii and everywhere else in this country? No, most arrive in six states - Calif., New York, Florida, New Jersey, Illinois and Texas.

The state of Texas probably doesn't care, because it's apparently making money off illegals, but the numbers are <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/120806dnteximmigration.32b7435.html">putting the hurt on local governments</a>.

And you've got that 70 percent of the women who gave birth at Parkland in the first three months of 2006 <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/061206dnmetmoms.d9b9669.html">were illegal immigrants</a> story.

No country - not ours, not anyone else's - can keep doing stuff like that without the drag get heavier and heavier every year. We don't even know who's crossing the Mexican/US border. <a href="http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Currents/Content?oid=oid%3A60078">Here's a fair story about that</a> from the Tucson Weekly. It's long but a good read, I'd recommend it.

As much as I'd like everyone in the world to have a good life here, there's only so much this country can do before the costs outweigh the benefits.

OK, so - uh - I'm done. :)

Alan Cohen, says:

You make a lot of great points. I'd be lying if I tried to claim I had the answer to many of your questions. But I can say that I think the ordinance in Farmers Branch is a step in the wrong direction.

As you make clear in your last comment, this issue is far more nuanced than simply, "Are you for or against illegal immigration?" I just hope most people recognize that.

Alan Cohen, says:

I don't understand. Where in the Farmers Branch ordinance does it talk about fining employers? How does the Farmers Branch ordinance help secure our borders?

Todd Maternowski, says:

The real issue here is not immigration, it's the city council running over the businesses and residents without first consulting them to see if it's really a good idea.

Having been forced to work with the Farmer's Branch City Council in the past, I can say that the council members treat the city like a personal fiefdom, and that none of this hub-bub really surprises me.

The immigration thing is a moot point: I seriously doubt anyone in Juarez is risking their life crossing the 120 degree desert in South Texas with the sweet fatcat life of a Farmer's Branch resident in mind. Absolutely everyone in this country is a descendant of immigrants, mostly illegal, and whether they were legal or not they all were treated like crap by the people who were already there.

There are certainly a boatload of statistics that say illegal immigrants are a drain on the country's resources... but there are an equal number of stats that say the exact opposite. From my own personal experience, the illegal immigrants I've known were not coincidentally also the hardest-working people I've ever met. They may have entered the country illegally, but the only thing keeping them illegal was the ridiculous naturalization process which can take up to a decade.

In the meantime, the economy benefits tremendously from their presence, their hard work and extremely low wages with no benefits. Look at the six states with the highest rates of immigration --California, New York, Florida, New Jersey, Illinois and Texas-- all of which coincidentally happen to be the six states driving our nation's economy more than any other. It's also no surprise that they receive so much "free" medical care, since illegals are the ones most likely to work dangerous phyiscal labor with no health insurance.

If it makes anyone sleep better at night hoping that our schools and hospitals wil someday be rid of "freeloading" illegal immigrants, then have fun paying $6 for a gallon of milk and $8 for that basket of strawberries. I, for one, think the only real problem is with the heavily beaucratic naturalization process, and that the perceived problems of immigration are being blown entirely out of proportion to the benefits, mostly for political reasons rather than economic ones.

Alan Cohen, says:

It looks like the Farmers Branch city council now agrees that it is wise to wait for the public vote before an ordinance of this kind gets implemented: http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2007/...